Fundamental Forces in the early stages of the big bang?

[yevaud]

A tad dismaying, hearing that (er, the comment about hypothetical Gravitons, not you, Derek).<br /><br />Disproving something is damned near as useful as proving something, in science. Most people fail to catch that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

did I say lesser?<br /><br />I meant to say greater.<br /><br />You see two planets would be area of great concentrations of energy. Now why would these energies attract each other whe they should spread out to fill the greatest volume of space.<br /><br />Th only answer. Space-time. and even this iis pushing it. though it is a darn good idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

exactly!.....except if your talking about the unicorns. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Oh, even <i>disproving</i> Unicorns could be useful.<br /><br />At least people would stop comparing phenonema to them. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

Besides the mistreatment of unicorns... I think.... wait.... yeah I did ask a question. Anyone want to respond? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

You see two planets would be area of great concentrations of energy. Now why would these energies attract each other when they should spread out to fill the greatest volume of space? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

First, mass does not equal energy, but I think I understand where you are going with this. Second law of thermodynamics, I believe, has a stipulation that <i>"if not interfered or hindered with"</i>. Gravity must have some say so in this process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[why06]

Are you saying gravity is interfering with the thermodynamics of energy? mass? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[makuabob]

In light of the results of a recent experiment, it may be more accurate to re-cast the question as, 'We know what the 5 forces are today, at which points during the early stages of the purported big bang did these forces come into play? How did they get their characteristics and what effect would those purportedly incredible temperatures have in making them what they are?'<br /><br />I say five forces because solid experimental evidence exists for a "gravitomagnetic" force. The work, announced about a year ago by Tajmar and de Matos, showed that a previously unobserved force similar to the electromagnetic force has been produced in the laboratory. A radially accelerated superconducting disc (niobium or lead) consistently produced a measurable gravitational force tangental to, and in the plane of, the disc. The force reversed itself when the disc was spun in the opposite direction. Many dozens of data collection runs were made and the data were analyzed for 2+ years before being released.<br /><br />So, where does a gravitomagnetic force fit into the purported big bang, along with those other forces? Can the big bang survive having another force to account for, in addition to explaining the very peculiar non-Gaussian anomolies which have been discovered in its Cosmic Microwave Background?

 

[docm]

"Gravitomagnetism" is a fictitious, or pseudo, force, not a fundamental force like gravity, electro-weak or the strong force. A fictitious force doesn't arise from a physical interaction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Wouldn't "radially accelerated" mean a disk expanding outward?<br /><br />Assuming you really meant accelerated spin rate, how was the force appllied to spin it up. <br /><br />If it was just spun up and left spinning, then there is no acceleration imvolved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[makuabob]

Radial acceleration is probably not as good as "angular acceleration" for indicating increasing/decreasing motion around the radius. I failed to grab 'le mot juste.' Lacking greek characters here, it is given as "omega t" where "omega" is 2 times pi times frequency and "t" is time. Thus, the spin increases/decreases with time.<br /><br />As for being a "ficticious" force, Boltzmann's laws of thermodynamics were considered ficticious by the established scientists of his (shortened) day. That didn't make Boltzmann wrong. Their derision, however, gave impetus to his eventual suicide.<br /><br />The initial news release of the newly observed "non-Newtonian" gravitational field is here http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html<br />The workers were very careful and thorough. The disc was spun up using compressed air. Their paper is online here<br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf<br /><br />And, of course, there are the non-Gaussian anomolies in the CMB...

 

[search]

Here is a very nice LINK: The Particle Adventure<br />