We were just having a conversation about the possibility of anti-gravity and one of the guys said "why not, there are negative versions of the other fundamental forces".

I had never thought about this and Google isn't very forthcoming on the subject. So are there actually negative versions of the other forces? I can see that probably a positron has the opposite force to an electron but does an anti-proton (or whatever it is called) have an opposite gluon to a proton?

 

I actually question the assumption that there are negative versions of the four fundamental forces. What is your evidence for the existence of anti-forces.

 

I don't have any, that's why I was asking the question. I think forces are one of those things (like inertia and anti-bodies) that we all talk about and think we have some understanding of but in reality we never get beneath the surface.

 

also, why are some forces, electricity, magnetism and such bipolar and yet gravity is not?

 

Well electricity and magnetism are the same force and again it goes back to the same question they may appear to us to be bipolar but are there two types with opposite polarity, OR are the two poles just a manifestation of action along a single vector?

I think it is also interesting that the only force we have managed to make use of is the one that is human-scaled, i.e. the electo-magnetic force. We can pick up a magnet and get a feel for how it works and we can see lightening. Imagine what we might be able to do if we could do the same with atoms or planets...

 

I think it is also interesting that the only force we have managed to make use of is the one that is human-scaled, i.e. the electo-magnetic force. We can pick up a magnet and get a feel for how it works and we can see lightening. Imagine what we might be able to do if we could do the same with atoms or planets...

Obviously we use the other forces daily to transform that power in the electro-magnetic force. Gravity for hydro, the nuclear force for fission generators for examples. We can sculpt individual atoms today.

We've looked for anti-gravity with anti-matter but it's attracts just like normal so gravity IMO seems more fundamental than matter. My current ideas are that matter is the singularity of gravity and charge is the singularity of the electro force that are separated specialized parts of the original big bang singularity. What is really physical in the universe is not atoms or matter, it's the things we call forces that we describe in fine detail how they work but don't have a clue why they work and what they really are.

That doesn't mean we or matter doesn't exist or this reality is less real, it's just a viewpoint. (that's just a consistent as saying 'forces' are just mathematical constructs describing matters interaction with other matter in the universe)

 

electricity and magnetism are the same force? then why dont I ever find an electric charge between ends of a permanant magnet? why dont I find a magnetic field on a battery unless current is flowing? they seem to be convertable easily, but not the same thing.

 

electricity and magnetism are the same force? then why dont I ever find an electric charge between ends of a permanant magnet? why dont I find a magnetic field on a battery unless current is flowing? they seem to be convertable easily, but not the same thing.

Relativity unites them into one dual force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

It was Albert Einstein who showed, using special relativity, that electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same thing (a rank-2 tensor), and that one observer may perceive a magnetic force where a moving observer perceives only an electrostatic force.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116693
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html

 

why dont I find a magnetic field on a battery unless current is flowing?

Combining this with nsaspook's relativity references: if you're carrying a statically charged object in your hand, you won't find a magnetic field. But if someone walks past you with the charge in their hand, you will (if you could measure tiny enough fields). The charge has motion relative to you, and moving charges are current and have magnetic fields. So from your frame of reference there is a magnetic field and from the other person's frame of reference there isn't.

 

Some of similarities and differences between electromagnetism and gravity.

http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/index.html

 

in other words, as long as you add energy to a magnet, it becomes electricity? moving a conductor through a magnetic field creates electricity, but does not use up the magnet. the motion through the magnetic field makes the current flow. if you add energy to water, it becomes steam, but do you call ice steam?

 

if you add energy to water, it becomes steam, but do you call ice steam?

We call it a different phase of the same molecule (water).
It's pretty easy to understand how the EM force operates with changes in motion, time, separation and density to produce the voltage/current effects we see in circuits if we see charge as fundamental like we see that the structure of h2o is fundamental to understanding the phases of water.

 

in other words, the nature of water is changed by the energy level of the water. but I have never seen a magnet strong enough to have an electric field or measureable voltage on it without the addition of additional energy of moving a conductor near it. a non moving conductor has no voltage field or current low when near a magnet.

 

in other words, the nature of water is changed by the energy level of the water. but I have never seen a magnet strong enough to have an electric field or measureable voltage on it without the addition of additional energy of moving a conductor near it. a non moving conductor has no voltage field or current low when near a magnet.

What implies power IRT to electricity? You must have both fields for the simple power calculation. A static magnetic field from a magnet has no power to perform work, if it did the magic magnet perpetual motions machines on the web would actually work. The origin of magnetism in a magnet is Quantum-mechanical.

R. Feynman has mentioned in his famous lectures (Vol 2, 34):

Now that we have tried to give you a qualitative explanation of diamagnetism and paramagnetism, we must correct ourselves and say that ii is not possible to understand the magnetic effects of materials in any honest way from the point of view of classical physics. Such magnetic effects are a completely quantum mechanical phenomenon. It is, however, possible to make some phoney classical arguments and to get some idea of what is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

Some good stuff there and I'll read through it in more detail when I get time but what about negative nuclear and electro-magnetic forces, do they exist as distinct things?

 

There can be no negative force unless you turn the clock back. You are confusing force with direction. The reason you have never seen a negative gravity pole is because the way gravity is made. Gravity is generated by vibrating neutral dipoles. The most common neutral dipoles is the H2 atom. Although all neutral dipoles generate gravity. As the proton and electron oscillate.....electrons do most of the moving because of inertia(the electron moves a lot easier than the proton). Being that the proton and electron have the same charge, but they travel different lengths.....the oscillation is not symmetrical. A very small amount of energy is lost due to radiation. This radiation is cumulative and attracts all particles together. If the proton were doing most of the moving.....gravity would be repulsive. The Cosmic Background Radiation is a map of the decay of gravity. It's a map of where matter is. Gravity has density. The force of gravity does not attract in a straight line. It has a chiral effect and it spirals. This is why galaxies rotate the way they do without dark matter. Einstein was wrong. Length never changes anywhere, anytime. Our universe is rock solid. Gravity decays at an exponential rate. It's not decaying to fast now, but in the past it was very, very strong. When you look at old distant objects.....you see large red shifts.
There is no such thing as a negative force. If you come across a - sign in front of a force term....it denotes direction or the equation is wrong for physics.

 

If gravity accounts for attraction forces between matter, and anti-gravity would result in repulsion forces between matter, was the Big Bang caused by anti-gravity?

 

There is no evidence of "big bang". The CBR is not leftovers from the big bang. It is the decay of gravity. The universe is not expanding rapidly. The large red shifts are due to the intense gravity at the time of emission, not due to acceleration. That's why all of them have high red shifts. Gravity is decaying. The universe is expanding SLOWLY. Gravity was much greater in the past.

 

Gravity was much greater in the past.

The red-shift is no more evidence of that than it is of the Big Bang.

 

I wasn't saying red shift proved my statement. I was trying to show the true cause of CBR. A lot of observations have been misinterpreted due to GRT and QM. The real structure of matter was derived from experimentation and computer modeling about 15 yrs. ago. All matter is composed of rotating charge. After studying this structure, and reviewing past experiments......A new equation for electric charge was derived. A little while after that the force of inertia was found. Inertia is a feedback effect. There is no mass. Only charge, electric field and magnetic field. Mass is apparent. The charged ring....particle....is an antenna.....the circumference is the wavelength. The circumference changes with energy state. It receives and transmits many different colors. About five yrs. ago.....radioactive decay and gravity were derived. This is all that was needed for the UNIVERSAL FORCE LAW. I know what matter is. And I know how it moves. It is simple, elegant, genius and true. It proves true in the lab and it explains everything we see. I can not prove this to you. But you can prove it to yourself. Do a search on google for electron structure. You will know when you find the right place. May the universal force law be with you.