Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Forces:



At 22:58 11/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:47:44 -0800 (PST)
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPomona.Edu>
Subject: Re: forces

With regard to "the four forces" ...

Isn't it really time to start saying "the three forces"?

John

I know that my background is not sufficient to understand their physics.
But is this not true for at least 99% of those who teach introductory
physics courses (high schools and universities)?...
WHY DO ELEMENTARY TEXTBOOKS INSIST THAT THERE ARE ONLY FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
FORCES? How can I explain this to students without being Aristotelian?

Ludwik Kowalski

I am quite certain that Ludwik has a better grasp of nuclear forces
than I do, even so, I assure him there is no need to be disturbed by
John's comment.

If the former article of faith was that all force-like interactions
could be assigned to just four agencies, namely
Strong,
weak,
Electromagnetic,
gravity;

John is merely reminding us of a further unifying step which has been
taken in physical theory, so that now we can talk of just
gravity
strong and
electro-weak.

We remind ourselves that any force may either be assigned to one of these
categories, or ascribed to an organizing effect of some other kind.

Physicists do not after all, seek to multiply hypotheses.

Sincerely

brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK