3 ms·
> It just seems like one of those inherently anthropocentric concepts that (potentially) holds us back from exploring something different? This is something I
by outworlder 6y ago
> It just seems like one of those inherently anthropocentric concepts that (potentially) holds us back from exploring something different?
This is something I struggle with.
I know that physics originated from an experimental framework. We observe phenomena, then we try to come up with explanations for said phenomena, formulate hypothesis, then test them. That is fine.
But this breaks down when the 'fundamental forces' are involved. What _is_ a force? All the explanations I've ever seen (apart from gravity) seem to treat a 'force' as an atomic concept. They will describe what a force 'does', but not what it 'is'. Maybe that's something unknowable, but it bothers me.
F* magnets, how do they work.
- l33tman 6y agoAt its essence, in the modern understanding, a force is an emergent phenomena arising out of the fact that a world (a spacetime filled with your particles) where two particles of opposite charge seem to move towards each other is more probable than a world where they don't. This sounds silly but it's exactly the root cause in the current understanding and shoehorning in the word "force" in "force-carrying particles" is a stretch and causes this confusion. It's true that there would be no electromagnetic force without the photons. But photons and their likes are not the only way a "force" arises. For example, the Pauli exclusion principle can be seen as a "force" and it arises without photons with just electrons.
- alexlarsson 6y agoFrom feynman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8