Forces of physics and God...

[Just_me_Mike]

Why are the four main forces in physics invisible?

• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
• Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

Physics, - FAQs
Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered.

I think it is a curious thing, that the four believed fundamental forces that make up our universe are invisible. It is true the effects are visible, but the power behind them are invisible. Even more curious is the quest for that single unifying theory, as to desire to isolate to a single governing power behind everything in our universe.

 

[McBell]

Why are the four main forces in physics invisible?

• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
• Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

I think it is a curious thing, that the four believed fundamental forces that make up our universe are invisible. It is true the effects are visible, but the power behind them are invisible. Even more curious is the quest for that single unifying theory, as to desire to isolate to a single governing power behind everything in our universe.

define "invisible"

For it seems to me that there is very little that we mere humans can actually see with our naked eyes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are the four main forces in physics invisible?

• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
• Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

Electromagnetism isn't all invisible. Light is a form of electromagnetic energy.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

define "invisible"

For it seems to me that there is very little that we mere humans can actually see with our naked eyes.

Given that light is visible, the rest seem very much conceptual. Conceptual with strong evidence for their existence though. So, I am defining invisible as something that can be known only indirectly and conceptualized. In other words we would not know gravity existed unless we first saw bodies attracting towards each other.

Electromagnetism isn't all invisible. Light is a form of electromagnetic energy.

True, which is a curious thing as well, that light should be the one that is visible. Thanks for the comment.

All in all what fascinates me by all of this, is the search for one power behind it all.

 

[McBell]

So, I am defining invisible as something that can be known only indirectly and conceptualized. In other words we would not know gravity existed unless we first saw bodies attracting towards each other.

Would not the fact that I do not float off into space a DIRECT knowing of gravity?

 

[McBell]

All in all what fascinates me by all of this, is the search for one power behind it all.

Like looking for a black cat in a dark basement without the aid of light?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Would not the fact that I do not float off into space a DIRECT knowing of gravity?

Of course. Which by such observations we have cataloged the four forces and how we think they work. Yet aside from light, they are invisible.
I am merely pointing out how curious it is to me that the four fundamental forces that govern everything we know are for the most part invisible.

To me the irony is, that all this matter that makes up our universe seemingly big and bulky holds together and operates on four forces that are not made of matter.

Again taking that farther, we are wanting it to be a single force that we can say operates everything. At least that is what physicists are working for.

Sorry if that was boring

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Like looking for a black cat in a dark basement without the aid of light?

Maybe so. I think why I titled the OP as I did, is God is a single force albeit a conceptualized one, it is a single force.
At the same time, physicists are certain one day they will find a single force behind everything as well.

 

[stiletto]

Invisible to our limited, primitive senses perhaps.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Invisible to our limited, primitive senses perhaps.

That is all we have right now, and until that changes what reason do I have to believe it will ever change from what senses we have now?

 

[stiletto]

That is all we have right now, and until that changes what reason do I have to believe it will ever change from what senses we have now?

No reason.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No reason.

Well you commented that our senses are limited and primitive. What are you comparing them too? Bats perhaps? Please explain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, which is a curious thing as well, that light should be the one that is visible. Thanks for the comment.

Why's that curious? Why would you expect other forces to be "visible"?

Other species can see wavelengths of light beyond the ones that we do - the limits of what we can see seem to be based more on utility to us than anything else. We experience gravity through our senses of touch and proprioception, so we don't need to "see" it (or, depending on your point of view, we do "see" it in a manner of speaking). The strong and weak nuclear forces only exert influence at a very tiny range, so no sense that we'd be able to develop would be able to pick them up.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe so. I think why I titled the OP as I did, is God is a single force albeit a conceptualized one, it is a single force.
At the same time, physicists are certain one day they will find a single force behind everything as well.

Why must people cheapen the elegance of physics by trying to stuff it in a box of superstition?

 

[IndieVisible]

Why are the four main forces in physics invisible?

• Gravity
• Electromagnetism
• Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
• Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

I think it is a curious thing, that the four believed fundamental forces that make up our universe are invisible. It is true the effects are visible, but the power behind them are invisible. Even more curious is the quest for that single unifying theory, as to desire to isolate to a single governing power behind everything in our universe.

I would say this points to some form of Intelligent Design, but not necessarily the religious right definition of ID.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say this points to some form of Intelligent Design, but not necessarily the religious right definition of ID.

Why do you think it points to "some form of intelligent design"?

The strong nuclear force's influence is negligible at a distance of more than the diameter of an atomic nucleus. The weak nuclear force's influence is negligible at a distance of more than about 10% of the diameter of a proton (source). Why do you think that without some sort of external intervention, we would've necessarily evolved the capacity to sense these forces that, at the scale at which we live, have no bearing on our lives and most likely would be physically impossible to be sensed at all in the "noise" created by variations in all the other forces?

We can sense electromagnetism. We can sense gravity.

Is the question why we "feel" gravity instead of "see" it? Well, why would we "see" it?

Is the question why we aren't attuned to a wider range of EM radiation? Well, it just wasn't useful enough for us to have it.

Some fish can sense electricity directly; we don't... presumably because that would be virtually useless, since unlike fish, we live an insulating environment (i.e. air).

You could sense a wider range of light frequencies... if you had bigger and better eye lenses. If your eyes were each the size your head is now, then you could see a wider range of wavelengths than we can see now... but then we'd have to sustain these big honkin' eyes all the time, as well as either give women wider pelvic bones and birth canals or decrease the size of our brains (so that mothers would be capable of giving birth to babies with these massive eyeballs). Apparently, this was not as advantageous as the arrangement we have now.

There are very sensible, plausible, naturalistic reasons why we sense what we do. Why do you think we have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain any of it?

 

[IndieVisible]

First of all do not confuse my usage of the term ID to that of the religious right. I do not seek to create a new science or prove the existence of God.

I see many things that suggest ID for different reasons. This is not the best example but still worthy of a opportunity to sneak in my opinions of ID

I think DNA is a much better suggestion for ID.

But these unseen forces are just that. We see the effects of them. Why should they not be of ID?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all do not confuse my usage of the term ID to that of the religious right. I do not seek to create a new science or prove the existence of God.

I see many things that suggest ID for different reasons. This is not the best example but still worthy of a opportunity to sneak in my opinions of ID

I think DNA is a much better suggestion for ID.

But these unseen forces are just that. We see the effects of them. Why should they not be of ID?

You said that these things pointed to ID. "Not excluding" an idea isn't the same as "pointing" to it.

For example, just looking around me, I can find nothing immediately at hand that refutes the idea that a pack of unicorns are currently singing Broadway showtunes on a beach in Madagascar. However, this doesn't mean that the evidence I have at hand "points to" this actually happening.

Your last post wasn't completely clear, but it seemed that you were suggesting that either the four fundamental forces themselves or the fact that we can only see one of them "points to" intelligent design. Could you step through the rationale you used to come to that conclusion?

And yes, I realize that you're not using the term "intelligent design" in the sense that the Discovery Institute uses it. Repeating this rather than explaining what you do mean doesn't do anything to help us understand your position... whatever it is.

 

[IndieVisible]

You said that these things pointed to ID. "Not excluding" an idea isn't the same as "pointing" to it.

For example, just looking around me, I can find nothing immediately at hand that refutes the idea that a pack of unicorns are currently singing Broadway showtunes on a beach in Madagascar. However, this doesn't mean that the evidence I have at hand "points to" this actually happening.

Your last post wasn't completely clear, but it seemed that you were suggesting that either the four fundamental forces themselves or the fact that we can only see one of them "points to" intelligent design. Could you step through the rationale you used to come to that conclusion?

And yes, I realize that you're not using the term "intelligent design" in the sense that the Discovery Institute uses it. Repeating this rather than explaining what you do mean doesn't do anything to help us understand your position... whatever it is.

At this point there is no rational or scientific proof to support why I believe in ID, which is why I am careful to use such words as "point" or "suggest".

And your right there is nothing immediately around you to suggest pretty much of any thing, so what? I am drawing no conclusions.

When I look at the intricate details of DNA which resembles a language how can one totally dismiss ID? I would rather keep it on the table.

Where my definition of Intelligent Design differs from the core believers or originators of the term is I draw no conclusions or definitions. What this Intelligent Design is, is unknown. It can be GOD, it can be some thing else. My definition of God is more open then most people's. That there is a ID is what I refer to.

Lets say we walked along a deserted island with out a clue to any modern technology, and we ran across a automobile. Obviously it is of ID. Who made it? We wouldn't know. We would speculate and create religion as we would lack the ability for science. Years later science would explain much, but not every thing. My view on everything is a combination of rational science and irrational religion.

You will soon see I am not your typical agnostic or Christian

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At this point there is no rational or scientific proof to support why I believe in ID, which is why I am careful to use such words as "point" or "suggest".

The words "point" and "suggest" imply rational support for the claim. Not conclusive support, but still support.

For instance:

- the house's broken window points to a burglary.
- the fact that your car isn't where you parked it suggests it was towed away.

In either case, you can't exclude all other possibilities, but the evidence that you do have still gives partial support to the conclusion you're inferring.