coupling constant of thermal forces

[AntonioLao]

The relative strength or weakness of any force is measured by particle physicists and expressed by a number called coupling constant. There is an important number in physics that link together classical theory, special relativity, and quantum theory. It is the coupling constant of electromagnetism. Although this number is still unexplained, its value is known with great precision, approximately equal to 1/137. It is called alpha (��) and is usually referred simply as the ‘fine structure constant’ and expressed as ��²/ℏ�� where –�� is the electric charge of the electron, ℏ is Planck’s constant of action divided by 2��, and �� is the vacuum speed of light. If force is defined as Newton’s 2nd law of motion for all inertial forces then �� is a dimensionless quantity that is a pure number. Its appearance in quantum field theories for the accurate and precise calculation of perturbative quantum approximations remains unexplained. However, the predictive successes of this coupling constant allow physicists to believe that all other fundamental forces can be described in much the same manner as the coupling constant of the electromagnetic force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant. By general agreements among particle physicists, the strength of the strong nuclear interaction is given the coupling constant of approximately ~1, while the strength of the weak nuclear interaction is given the coupling constant of approximately ~10¯⁶. The coupling constant of gravity is approximately ~10¯³⁹. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...es/couple.html

On the other hand, for thermal forces given by ��=(����²/��⁴)Δ��/��² where Δ��=��₁��₂=(��₂-��₁)��₁ such that ��₁=1kelvin and ��₂>>��₁ if and only if both ��₁ and ��₂ are rational numbers, the coupling constant is given as ����²/��⁴ where �� is the universal gravitational constant, �� is Boltzmann’s constant, and �� is the vacuum speed of light. For Δ��=1 kelvin and ��=1 meter, the coupling constant of thermal forces is approximately ~10¯⁹⁰, a magnitude of 51 orders smaller than that of gravity. However, as Δ�� increases and �� decreases, the thermal forces more and more approach the strength of the other fundamental forces of nature.

[Bogie]

By general agreements among particle physicists, the strength of the strong nuclear interaction is given the coupling constant of approximately ~1, while the strength of the weak nuclear interaction is given the coupling constant of approximately ~10¯⁶. The coupling constant of gravity is approximately ~10¯³⁹. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...es/couple.html

Do you think that the meaning and implications of the coupling constant value that you just mentioned for gravity being 10^-39 could be made clear to someone who is not familiar with QFT and not likely to ever get up to speed on the mathematics of physics to the extent of being able to read equations and have any clue as to what they mean? 10^-39 is very small relative to the CC of the strong nuclear interaction. Can you just speak about that a bit for me? Where I am coming from is the idea that mass is a gravitational charge and has energy density that is in some ways similar to the energy density of an electrical field with its charge density and electrical potential at any point.

[AntonioLao]

could be made clear to someone who is not familiar

All the coupling constants were derived from experimental measurements. But for our discussions, all we need to be familiar with is static electricity and permanent magnetic by performing simple experiments. Rubbing a plastic comb in a dry environment can pick up pieces of tiny papers or dust particles. Likewise, using a permanent magnet can also pick up tiny pieces of ferromagnetic materials. Both electric force and magnetic force are shown to be much greater than the gravity forces that were attracting these respective tiny pieces of materials. Based on experimental measurements, it is almost impossible to theorize the concept of gravitational charge density since the graviton as the gravitational charge is yet to be detected and for all practical purposes, the graviton really does not exist.

[labelwench]

All the coupling constants were derived from experimental measurements. But for our discussions, all we need to be familiar with is static electricity and permanent magnetic by performing simple experiments. Rubbing a plastic comb in a dry environment can pick up pieces of tiny papers or dust particles. Likewise, using a permanent magnet can also pick up tiny pieces of ferromagnetic materials. Both electric force and magnetic force are shown to be much greater than the gravity forces that were attracting these respective tiny pieces of materials. Based on experimental measurements, it is almost impossible to theorize the concept of gravitational charge density since the graviton as the gravitational charge is yet to be detected and for all practical purposes, the graviton really does not exist.

Is this anything like the experiment whereby one rubs an inflated rubber balloon against their own hair, or a sweater and the balloon will then consequently stick to the wall or ceiling, often for a significant duration of time, depending on the strength of the charge and bond formed?

[AntonioLao]

Yes. These are all demonstrations of static electricity that show the electric force is very much stronger than gravity. The forces are measured very accurately by experiments.

[Bogie]

All the coupling constants were derived from experimental measurements. But for our discussions, all we need to be familiar with is static electricity and permanent magnetic by performing simple experiments. Rubbing a plastic comb in a dry environment can pick up pieces of tiny papers or dust particles. Likewise, using a permanent magnet can also pick up tiny pieces of ferromagnetic materials. Both electric force and magnetic force are shown to be much greater than the gravity forces that were attracting these respective tiny pieces of materials. Based on experimental measurements, it is almost impossible to theorize the concept of gravitational charge density since the graviton as the gravitational charge is yet to be detected and for all practical purposes, the graviton really does not exist.

Well said and I appreciate your reply. Not to change the subject, and in total agreement that there is as yet no quantifiable graviton, we can agree that gravity exists. The mechanism is not clear but the concept of a gravitational field certainly makes sense doesn't it. I have heard mass referred to as a gravitational charge, in fact in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field . This quote is from the section on Parallels between electrostatics and gravity. "This suggests similarities between the electric field E and the gravitational field g, so sometimes mass is called "gravitational charge"."

[AntonioLao]

Every quantized field is associated with its charges but not all have the same number of polarities. The charges of the quantized electromagnetic field are photons. they are electrically neutral. But the charges of the quantized weak field are the W+ , W- , and Z0. The first 2 are electrically charged of unit of the positron and electron charge respectively. The Z0 is electrically neutral. The charges of the quantized strong field are the 8 gluons and each can take any of 3 color charges red, green, and blue as well as anticolor anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue. Their existence are directly and indirectly verified by high energy experiments of elementary particles in both linear and circularly synchronized accelerators.

[Bogie]

Thank you AntonioLao, I appreciate your response. Let me state what I understand from your response to see if I can digest some of it. Your are explaining the nature of the electrical field and the forces associated with it, and pointing out that there is observational and experimental evidence as well as accepted theoretical models to explain the phenomenon. Based on what you said and didn't say, I think I have the idea from your post that the reference to mass as a gravitational charge is not useful since there is no similar quantized charge to the gravitational field like there is for the electrical field.

If that is a fair representation of your post, then could you make an attempt to address the possible existence of a similar quantized charge associated with gravity? Otherwise I will be forced to continue to speculate that there is a gravitational field and a force carrier associated with it, and that it is very hard to find .

[AntonioLao]

I will be forced to continue to speculate

The community of particle physicists are way beyond the phase of theoretical speculations, they are doing experimental verifications suggested by the late John Archibald Wheeler. I will provide the weblinks later. Here is one of the links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics

[Bogie]

The community of particle physicists are way beyond the phase of theoretical speculations, they are doing experimental verifications suggested by the late John Archibald Wheeler. I will provide the weblinks later. Here is one of the links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics

That is very interesting. It would be great if they could explain gravity and overcome the general perception that the efforts are more math than substance . The physical mechanics of the geometry of spacetime has been one of the historical stumbling blocks in our Quest, hasn't it. I've come to think of it as a problem of correspondence between mathematics and reality. The accuracy of the EFEs is without question but the precise correspondence between the math and the reality seems to demand a physical explanation for how it works. I'll keep my eye on developments in the field of Geometrodynamics.



I expect when they get there they will add a new catchy phrase to Wheeler's list: As described by Wheeler in the early 1960s, geometrodynamics attempts to realize three catchy slogans

• mass without mass,
• charge without charge,
• field without field.

Would they then add Gravity without gravity?