Non-Fundamental Forces

[Baron Opal II]

Same with the Weak interaction. Yes, it is involved in many/most radioactive decays. But it is also involved in most nuclei holding together, too. There is no dynamic action to observe then, though, so there isn't much to talk about or learn from it.

It's hard for me to explain the terminology of others, but I believe the label "Decay" related specifically to nuclear decay and not other forms of ruin. But, as you said, the Weak force enables more things than radioactive decay.

Well, the Strong force has a range of about 10^-15 meters, and the Weak about 10^-18 meters. The interactions happen between or within subatomic particles. Kind of hard to have a human-practical application at that range.

Yes, I think the only possible, and fantastical, properties would be in the changing of a target material's elements.

I remember reading some sci-fi about the protagonist using a facility orbiting Jupiter utilizing the tremendous magnetic fields to power a Strong force manipulator to create a stable super-heavy metal. Another where a "shotgun" fired two beams that suppressed nuclear forces causing a tremendous arc of electrons when charges were no longer prevented from rebalancing. (Seemed a little dangerous to me using within an atmosphere, but I didn't write it.)

 

[Tonguez]

The DC Character Firestorm 'the Nuclear Man' is able to manipulate weak and strong interactions of protons and neutrons, practically it gives him the power of Transmutation- changing substances like lead to gold, steal to sand, or air to 'fire', he can also absorb radiant energy. His only real limitation is he cant affect organic matter.

 

[Umbran]

Another where a "shotgun" fired two beams that suppressed nuclear forces causing a tremendous arc of electrons when charges were no longer prevented from rebalancing. (Seemed a little dangerous to me using within an atmosphere, but I didn't write it.)

Larry Niven, I think, in his novel, Ringworld. The Slaver Disintegrator, suggested to be primarily a digging tool.

It suppressed the charge on electrons. This broke any chemical bonds between atoms, and effectively made the atoms into ions that repelled each other, reducing the matter touched to a "monotomic wind" blowing away form the surface the disintegrator was pointed at.

 

[Parmandur]

The language of "fundamental" means thst other observed phenomenon arise from yhem...which isnwhat the Ancients thought was going on with the "Four Elements" (really the phenomenon of the four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and energy).

 

[Umbran]

The language of "fundamental" means thst other observed phenomenon arise from yhem...which isnwhat the Ancients thought was going on with the "Four Elements" (really the phenomenon of the four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and energy).

Well, for starters, "energy" is not a state of matter.

Next, there is no one "the Ancients". By the time we are talking of "the Ancients," humans had already covered the globe, and not everyone thought the same thing. There are several different older models of what the heck made up the universe, from several different cultures - "air, earth, fire, water" is only one such set.

Several of the cultures which we think of with that set of elements actually also had a fifth - "aether", or space/void/thought - that we neglect because accurately relating other people's ideas is not our strong suit

Chinese culture had a different 5-element set: wood, fire, earth, metal, water.

And the current fundamental forces of modern physics do not correspond to the states of matter or ancient elements. Humans tend to want to assert meaning on to coincidence (like the coincidence of there being 4 things in a model).

 

[Parmandur]

Well, for starters, "energy" is not a state of matter.

Next, there is no one "the Ancients". By the time we are talking of "the Ancients," humans had already covered the globe, and not everyone thought the same thing. There are several different older models of what the heck made up the universe, from several different cultures - "air, earth, fire, water" is only one such set.

Several of the cultures which we think of with that set of elements actually also had a fifth - "aether", or space/void/thought - that we neglect because accurately relating other people's ideas is not our strong suit

Chinese culture had a different 5-element set: wood, fire, earth, metal, water.

And the current fundamental forces of modern physics do not correspond to the states of matter or ancient elements. Humans tend to want to assert meaning on to coincidence (like the coincidence of there being 4 things in a model).

No, the fundamental forces do not correspond to the Classical/Medieval Elements...but the states of matter do, if you look at Classical and Medieval texts and what they describe in terms of physical phenomenon. They just thought what they saw there were the fundamental forces of the universe.

 

[Tonguez]

No, the fundamental forces do not correspond to the Classical/Medieval Elements...but the states of matter do, if you look at Classical and Medieval texts and what they describe in terms of physical phenomenon. They just thought what they saw there were the fundamental forces of the universe.

Thats really only because theyre the states are something you can physically sense in the world - Rock,Water, Wind, Fire are pretty elemental stuff around us every day, as soon as the 'ancients' started thinking about stuff those were the obvious categories to make - but theyre no more fundamental than a Wood element or having Agni as god of fire or Poisiden as god of Waters.

 

[Parmandur]

Thats really only because theyre the states are something you can physically sense in the world - Rock,Water, Wind, Fire are pretty elemental stuff around us every day, as soon as the 'ancients' started thinking about stuff those were the obvious categories to make - but theyre no more fundamental than a Wood element or having Agni as god of fire or Poisiden as god of Waters.

Right, but they didn't know that, it was the model they had at hand.

 

[Umbran]

No, the fundamental forces do not correspond to the Classical/Medieval Elements...but the states of matter do, if you look at Classical and Medieval texts and what they describe in terms of physical phenomenon. They just thought what they saw there were the fundamental forces of the universe.

The beliefs of "the Ancients" are far more nuanced than simple correspondence to the four states of physical matter. We should resist imposing over-simplification, cherry-picking, or imposing frameworks upon them.

As I've already noted - many peoples didn't work with 4 elements. They had 5. We ignore that 5th, and voila! It fits the correspondence to the four states of matter! We just lop off a portion of the system so it meets our desire for elegance or simplicity.

It is important to note that these models are not strictly physical models of the universe. They include healthy doses of metaphor and what today we'd call "magic". Those are intrinsic parts of the belief systems, and if we think of the elements without those, we misunderstand the system of thought and belief.

For example, to the Greeks, there was more to it than just four elements. There were also "sensible qualities". For Aristotle, those qualities were: hot, cold, wet, and dry. But for the Neoplatonists, there were six qualities - sharp, blunt, mobile, immobile, dense and subtle.

Meanwhile when we look at the medical arts of the same ancients, we have the four humors model (yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm). The humors were thought to be fluids in the body (though some are more notional than real), and are associated with different elements. Blood, for example is of the element of air, not water.

Thus, things aren't as simple as all that.

 

[Parmandur]

The beliefs of "the Ancients" are far more nuanced than simple correspondence to the four states of physical matter. We should resist imposing over-simplification, cherry-picking, or imposing frameworks upon them.

As I've already noted - many peoples didn't work with 4 elements. They had 5. We ignore that 5th, and voila! It fits the correspondence to the four states of matter! We just lop off a portion of the system so it meets our desire for elegance or simplicity.

It is important to note that these models are not strictly physical models of the universe. They include healthy doses of metaphor and what today we'd call "magic". Those are intrinsic parts of the belief systems, and if we think of the elements without those, we misunderstand the system of thought and belief.

For example, to the Greeks, there was more to it than just four elements. There were also "sensible qualities". For Aristotle, those qualities were: hot, cold, wet, and dry. But for the Neoplatonists, there were six qualities - sharp, blunt, mobile, immobile, dense and subtle.

Meanwhile when we look at the medical arts of the same ancients, we have the four humors model (yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm). The humors were thought to be fluids in the body (though some are more notional than real), and are associated with different elements. Blood, for example is of the element of air, not water.

Thus, things aren't as simple as all that.

Right, I am familiar with all that: however, their recorded observations and predictions of physical phenomenon worked for them for centuries because they were working models about how the world works even though they were wrong.

Aether is a fairly modern concept, quintessence was a theoretical construct based on the fact that the stars were not observed to change. Which became a problem over time as the stars were increasingly recorded changing, albeit slowly. The inability to distill "pure Earth", aka Gold, in the same way "pure fire, "pure air" or "pure water" could be produced was another thorn that eventually led to a scientific change in perspective.