Forces are External or Properties

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Forces are External or Properties

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 01:14 pm
Are forces external (as the literal word suggests) thus acting on an object, or are they properties of the object itself? I am thinking properties, but I leave this thread open for discussing anything that is felt to be important on the fundamental forces of nature.


And this is in relation to the four fundamental forces of nature; gravity, strong, weak, electromagnetic.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 01:36 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Hi Holiday,Smile

There are forces within any given object in being, and then there are the forces that being is subjected to via its environment, you might say its a continuum, a being affecting its environment while the environment affects said being. Not sure this was what you had in mind? It is interesting that, if we are to believe professor Dawkins, what we consider our being is a construct of our genes, we the vehicle, this must be true of all organisms, but, what of the being of the non-living world, the forces within must be, the more elemental.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 02:52 pm
@boagie,
Well see, I am wondering what is truly applying the force when we say the electromagnetic force. Electrons and protons attract, thus opposite charges attract. But what is being applied on the electrons and protons to have that attraction? Is it external or internal?

Do electrons have that property to be negative, and what makes them so?

More broadly, what in actuality supplements the need for conditions? The universe can't be what it just is unless there are infinitely many universes. And then the universes (or a multiverse system) must have influences on one another to generate the rule that no universe can be the same. Yet we must therefore assume the irrationality of the statement and come to terms that there must be conditions for the said number of universes. And it goes on and on and on. That is such a circular, irrational perspective on actuality that I just will not come to terms with.

So I am not willing to accept the way forces are said to be "forces" in that they externally act, as if the idea that separate beings will mean there to be forces.

This just cannot be accepted unless the four fundamental forces of nature were once bound, which is said to be so I suppose. Otherwise where would the forces be if not in the singularity where the forces can only exist as properties.

I am just a little confused with this. If all matter was held in a singularity, what do you call the matter? What do you call the energy for that matter? It cannot be the same as today. If the universe is expanding does that not imply that the forces of nature are internal properties?

Unless there is a detail that can be noticed in the inflation of space-time whenever a force comes to be external and not a property (when it separates), but still, somehow tied to specific forms of matter.

A way to prove this would be to examine the shape of the sudden inflation of the universe in the first very very brief amount of time. If it occurs in sort of ripples then that should suggest something. And now there seems to be this emergent property of dark energy causing this sudden ever more expansion of the universe. Has anybody noticed the x^3 relationship in the shape of the expansion? Like the universe would eventually fall back on itself antiparallely.
 
sarek
 
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:17 am
@Holiday20310401,
The fundamental forces of nature can be defined as interactions of particles with each other through the interchange of intermediary particles. For instance electrons for the electromagnetic force and gravitons for gravity. In that sense forces are both external because of the presence of other particles and also properties because not every particle is subject to the same forces.
Alternate explanations may define forces not in terms of Newton-like forces but as the result of geometries, a method of explanation which applies to gravity.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:20 am
@sarek,
Why say an electron though, because a proton is needed all the same to demostrate the entirety of the electromagnetic force.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 03:46 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Force, as used in physics, is imaginary; i.e. the idea of some ghostly agent, which can only be identified by its effects, causing other movements is silly, but very useful in calculations: in fact, all but essential. There is no reason to assume the existance of force; it is not neccessary except for practical work.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:20 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
And this is in relation to the four fundamental forces of nature; gravity, strong, weak, electromagnetic.


... it's interesting to wonder if the strong and weak nuclear forces will at some point in the future be rephrased as space-time geometries (as Einstein did for gravity) ... electromagnetic flux, on the other hand, seems to be a different kind of animal altogether - it's the only one that humans can control at will, and it's also the only one that seems to require the cooperation of an object in the flux for any "force" to be felt, let alone the direction of the "force" to be determined (positive, negative, and neutrally charged objects each behave differently - or not at all - in an electromagnetic field) ...
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:25 pm
@boagie,
boagie said:

Quote:

There are forces within any given object in being.."


Such as............?

And on what do you base this claim?
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 01:38 am
@OctoberMist,
What even is a force? Can anyone define a force without relying on its effects? If not, what reason is there for assuming its existance?

If you doubt my logic, consider this. Take any number of phenomena, chosen arbitrarily, and then say that they are the result of X. X can therefore only be defined in terms of those phenomena. How does this differ from 'force'. Both are principles of organization, not realities.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 10:14 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
What even is a force? Can anyone define a force without relying on its effects? If not, what reason is there for assuming its existance?

If you doubt my logic, consider this. Take any number of phenomena, chosen arbitrarily, and then say that they are the result of X. X can therefore only be defined in terms of those phenomena. How does this differ from 'force'. Both are principles of organization, not realities.


- sight is electromagnetic force working upon charged particles in light receptors in the eyes
- touch is contact force working upon contact sensors in the body
- hearing is differential force working upon membranes in the ears

The first is one of the "fundamental" forces mentioned by Holiday; the latter two are "compound" forces that are compositions of fundamental forces ... so I guess there are a few ways you could choose to interpret this ... 1) your senses aren't lying (force is real); 2) your senses are lying (force isn't real); 3) your senses aren't lying but there's no such thing as a compound force (nothing holds matter together - it just is ... so only electromagnetic force is real); 4) ???

And what are the implications of each of these choices? ... for example, if you choose interpretation #2, what ramifications does that have for the "reality" of human experience? ... if you choose interpretation #3, what ramifications does that have for the predictive power of mathematics and science?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 11:12 am
@paulhanke,
I think the entirety of any force would be considered the conditions objects have with other objects. So a proton is conditioned to be attracted to an electron. This would be like paul's interpretation the way I see it. However, even though this is biased upon the functioning of the universe, the efficiency of such a claim is poor. I mean, we cannot establish a different scenario for every single possible set of conditions without considering that the conditions are not always in a state of "something", monifying the whole efficiency, making it as good as can be.

But this is completely pathetic metaphysical speculation on my part, so here goes...

If in fact all conditions of the universe are simply the interactions of a single state, then there is always equilibrium, and it would reconcile steady state with this quantum mess we see. Steady state is describing the shell (infinity-infinity') or whatever you'd call the universe's existence. And the quantum mess or fluxuations of the universe are just the interior goo.

Now... you'd think that the interior has to remain in equilibrium to attain the equilibrium of the "membrane/shell" (even though that's a complete misconception of what I'm trying to say)... but no. The interior goo can do whatever it pleases as long as it does what the universe does now, because the universe that we exist in actually, would be assuming the equilibrium that it is(or perhaps, trying to get too).

And forces are really just equilibrium defining the deterministic interior's projectory sort-to-speak. Perhaps the deterministic process is syntactual evidence of the undefinable state of dimension the universe is in objectively. Dimension... its all just reality.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 01:02 pm
@Holiday20310401,
... interesting thoughts ... but what kind of meaning would the external appearance of the universe have for the universe's interior goo (us!)? ...
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:18 pm
@paulhanke,
There is no external. It's just not right to look at the universe as closed in
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 05:20 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
There is no external. It's just not right to look at the universe as closed in


... so where does the membrane/shell exist? ... between the interior goo of the universe and us? ... how can that be? ... we are the interior goo of the universe! ...
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 09:58 pm
@paulhanke,
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 10:42 pm
@Holiday20310401,
... this ought to blow your mind: Wapedia - Wiki: Andrei Linde ... there's your membrane! Wink
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 10:56 pm
@paulhanke,
Yes there are membranes, but I'm talking about the syntax of everything when considering the universe. There's olber's bubble, and there are considered to be membranes as part of the string theory too. I'm not refuting that.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 11:20 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Yes there are membranes, but I'm talking about the syntax of everything when considering the universe. There's olber's bubble, and there are considered to be membranes as part of the string theory too. I'm not refuting that.


... what is it that you mean when you say "the syntax of everything"?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 11:27 pm
@paulhanke,
The universe as it applies to everything. Membranes are within, but imply there is still an exterior.

Unless there is an infinite void outside of the membrane, but this is silly, a void is boxed by uniformity, and separated from the interior so IMO it doesn't work. There just cannot be an infinite void of space or vacuum or whatever.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 11:44 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Unless there is an infinite void outside of the membrane ...


... or maybe the membranes of other universes? ...
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Forces are External or Properties
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:54:55