Newton and the Standard Model

[Pyrotex]

Actually Pyro his manner of quoting me has confused you too. The words he put in double quote are from the quote of my post...

Oooohhh. Woopsies.

 

I'm sorry Modest Qfwfq, but your understanding of elementary classical physics is either non-existent, or you are dissembling.

 

The notion of "force" is incredibly useful and powerful. It is as fundemental as the notions of "energy" and "accelleration". ... :phones:

[modest]

I fail to see how you conclude that 'centripetal' or 'centrifugal' forces are "fake" or "fictitious". If we put you in a cylinder with radius > 2 meters and spin it fast enough, those so-called "fake" forces will KILL YOU.

 

The centripetal force is not fictitious. By definition the centrifugal force is only fictitious when referring to a rotating reference frame. The force is an artifact of the non-inertial reference frame and treated as a real or Newtonian force for convenience. Fictitious forces are not in any way absent in nature - they will indeed kill a person. They are not fake this sense. When a force is referred to as fictitious it should be understood that the force is a pseudo force in a non-inertial reference frame. “Fictitious force” is the most common way to refer to such a thing.

 

An apparent force (in a non-inertial reference frame) = A fictitious force (described above) + A real or true or Newtonian force.

 

So, I do not agree with what you say above that the centrifugal force is not fictitious. By definition when referring to a non-inertial reference frame it is.

 

I believe that a lot of confusion has been generated by my use of the term fictitious. This is just how I was taught to refer to such a thing.

 

So. What part of this do you not understand? (if any)

 

My only concern with fictitious forces in my original postings was with gravity in the quantum world. Gravity can be taken into account in QM calculations by transforming to an accelerating reference frame (this is analogous to Newtonian gravity or as I put it a fictitious or inertial force).

 

//edit

 

It should be noted that this type of QM operation is referred to as "quantum fictitious potential"

 

//edit

 

Or, gravity can be a graviton-like force particle interaction. The first presents less problems but says nothing much theoretical about the force of gravity. The standard model goes a very long way toward describing the 4 fundamental forces of nature except gravity. I pointed out that gravitation’s cause is equally missing in classical and quantum mechanics. The difference is where Newton’s theory of gravity does not attempt to explain this force at a distance (or the cause of this fictitious force) - the standard model is geared toward explaining forces at a distance. In other words - the standard model does not have a fictitious force of gravity.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion. Let me say again: I have no problem with quantum or classical mechanics. I do not have an objection to using apparent forces in calculations. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between Newton-like gravity and the forces in the standard model.

 

-modest

[modest]

I'm sorry Modest, but your understanding of elementary classical physics is either non-existent, or you are dissembling.

 

The notion of "force" is incredibly useful and powerful. It is as fundemental as the notions of "energy" and "accelleration". These were keystone concepts in Newton's Principia Mathematica, and all subsequent classical physics.

 

...

 

Modest, I think it's time you show some IQ if you want to be taken seriously around here.

 

On the contrary, if you were to assume I'm not an idiot (which is much less insulting) then a misunderstanding like this wouldn't happen. Assume I know what a fictitious force is and my post will make more sense. Assume I know the difference between a force in the standard model and the Newtonian derivative of momentum and my very simple point will be more clear.

[Pyrotex]

On the contrary, if you were to assume I'm not an idiot (which is much less insulting) then a misunderstanding like this wouldn't happen. Assume I know what a fictitious force is and my post will make more sense. Assume I know the difference between a force in the standard model and the Newtonian derivative of momentum and my very simple point will be more clear.

I stand corrected. You are not an idiot.

 

Though I have a degree in physics, your "fictitious forces" were never called that at the University of Alabama, nor Mississippi State University. "pseudo forces" or "apparent forces" were the names used in my classes.

 

I took your insistence on "fictitious" as an attempt to refute the reality of such forces. Sorry.

[Qfwfq]

The notion of "force" is incredibly useful and powerful. It is as fundemental as the notions of "energy" and "accelleration". ... :lol:

Until you get deep into particle physics and quantum field theory (in which is cast the standard model), wherein momentum and energy are fundamental but there's no point in talking about [imath]\frac{dp}{dt}[/imath] or even less about acceleration...:hihi: