# All Four Forces of Physics United
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [April 12, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289 "2017-04-12T04:17:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 22
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/421 "2017-05-17T05:00:00Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my theory, the decay you are talking about is a positively charged particle losing its charge and becoming a neutron. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the uncharged particle (neutron) would weigh more than a charged particle (proton)
The universe doesn’t care about your theory. The mass of the proton is less than the mass of the neutron. If your theory claims otherwise, then your theory is utterly, unambiguously, irrevocably wrong.
For that matter, the mass of the up quark (mass 2 MeV, charge 2/3 e) is much less than that of the Z boson (mass 91 GeV, charge 0), and the mass of the top quark (mass 172 GeV, charge 2/3 e) is much greater than that of the photon (mass 0, charge 0). Charge and mass are unrelated. If your theory claims otherwise, then your theory is utterly, unambiguously, irrevocably wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> Have they even been able to weigh a single particle or are they just using math to build a theory?
As many of us have said here, the mass of the electron, neutron, proton, etc. go back to very early 20th century [experiments](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mass+of+subatomic+particle+experiments). Maybe you should look them up before declaring you have a theory of everything.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/422 "2017-05-17T05:03:04Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> Why am I doing your homework for you?..
>
> :smack:
The OP isn’t worth talking to, but there may be other people reading this thread who, aside from the voyeuristic appeal of watching a real-time car accident, are interested in particle physics.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/423 "2017-05-17T06:10:27Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> …are you sure they don’t have the language fucked up like the negative charge thing.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> I have a theory called the infinate invariable, I represent it with a Y for three dimensions. The space around the Y is all of the variables of space and time that cause the invariable.
I found the juxtaposition of these two posts particularly entertaining in its irony.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/424 "2017-05-17T12:51:39Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> The proton does have a slightly lower mass than the neutron, which would be surprising if protons and neutrons weren’t totally different things. This is why, for example, neutrons decay into protons (with some other products) but not vice-versa. (I’m talking specifically about decay here, not general processes.)
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my theory, the decay you are talking about is a positively charged particle losing its charge and becoming a neutron. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the uncharged particle (neutron) would weigh more than a charged particle (proton), so either there definitions of particles are reversed, or there is an effect that a charged particle has on the instrument they are weighing it with. Have they even been able to weigh a single particle or are they just using math to build a theory?
Do you ever read for comprehension?
Neutrons, left to their own devices (unbound to protons in an atomic nucleus), are unstable. They decay within 15 minutes, into protons, etc.
What doesn’t make any sense are your claims to the contrary. Especially since you have NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA to substantiate your claims.
Also, the change in mass of a common discharged battery is so insignificant that you actually have to calculate the change. If you attempt to weigh it using even the most sensitive scales, humidity or evaporation or dust would negate any readings you might collect.
Finally, rods act like capacitors. There is no positive or negative “flow” in a charged rod in the experiment you are talking about. A discharge occurs when the rod is grounded.
Nothing you say makes any sense and you contradict yourself and well established science with every new revelation of “your theory”. Read a science book and stop wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/425 "2017-05-17T13:33:56Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my theory, the decay you are talking about is a positively charged particle losing its charge and becoming a neutron. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the uncharged particle (neutron) would weigh more than a charged particle (proton), so either there definitions of particles are reversed, or there is an effect that a charged particle has on the instrument they are weighing it with.
Or perhaps your theory is wrong, because it doesn’t explain the phenomenon.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/426 "2017-05-17T13:34:30Z")
One of the hallmarks of a crackpot theory is in how it “explains” all of the “Big Questions” but fails to acknowledge commonly observed phenomena.
---
### Author:  [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/427 "2017-05-17T18:59:12Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> As many of us have said here, the mass of the electron, neutron, proton, etc. go back to very early 20th century [experiments](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mass+of+subatomic+particle+experiments).
And high school and college students can easily reproduce the measurements of the charge and mass of the electron (I did so myself some decades ago - measuring electron charge via the Millikan method and measuring the charge to mass ratio via the Thompson method).
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/428 "2017-05-17T19:05:45Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> the rods are positively charged one rod will push the cork, crossing the rods changes the flow of charge. When you say negative charge, you are only describing the direction the charge is moving through the rod, not the charge itself.
That actually kinda works: in transistors and diodes, the movement of an “empty spot” among a bunch of electrons can act like a positive charge moving the other way.
However, both electrons and protons have been detected, and their existence contradicts your ideas. [Millikan won the Nobel Prize for measuring the charge on the electron.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment)
Your theory not only has to succeed…it needs to cause two centuries of established science to fail. You have to prove Millikan, and Franklin, and Volta, and Ampere, and Henry…and a hundred others…absolutely wrong.
Meanwhile, you’re using terms and words that no one here can clearly understand, and some of us have had graduate-level physics classes.
---
### Author:  [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/429 "2017-05-17T19:12:06Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> the rods are positively charged one rod will push the cork, crossing the rods changes the flow of charge. When you say negative charge, you are only describing the direction the charge is moving through the rod, not the charge itself.
This is unclear to me. As is your moving back and forth between using charge in the traditional sense as something static, and when you say it’s flowing, despite it being a static state.
How about describing in some detail what happens. I have two rods, 1 and 2, and four pieces of cork A, B, C, D.
I rub appropriate pieces of cloth and the rod and touch rod 1 to cork A and B, and rod 2, to cork C, D. The corks are close enough to each other that they’re attracted repulsed, but not close enough to touch. I can see that A and B are repelling each other, that C and D are repelling each other, and that A and B, are attracted to C and D.
I can also see that A and B are repelled by 1 and attracted to 2, while for C and D it’s the reverse.
And all of this can be set up as a static and persistent state. Much like one magnet hovering above another.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/430 "2017-05-17T21:21:53Z")
[quote=“MANTRAPHILTER, post:324, topic:784289”]
There are several examples of charged plates being used, but nothing that matches his descriptions.
[/QUOTE
that is because the language is wrong and misleading. all of the observed phenomenon by the scientists who did the experiments, used the same misleading language they had been educated with to describe what they were seeing.[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand what I was saying. I was talking about your description of the experiments and saying they don’t match any experiments I can identify, not that the results of the experiments do not match your claimed explanation.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> I feel just as frustrated as you with your description’s of physics phenomenon as you do with mine. IT IS A LANGUAGE BARRIER. You have all learned your physics with misleading language.
No, you again are misunderstanding. The issue is not whether a proton is positive or neutral or empty or whatever, the issue is that you use a common word like “space” but then cannot come up with a simple description of what you mean when you say “space” is displaced, and the displaced space piles up and has more space than the space around it. That is an incoherent mess.
Look at the example I gave of an analogy. That analogy may or may not correctly reflect what you mean, but it is an attempt to use better words to describe the supposed behavior so we can at least comprehend what you are trying to explain. _Your_ words are gobbledygook that are nigh impossible to make sense of, independent of any disagreements with established science.
Then you couple that with times when it is difficult to tell whether you are restating what established science claims or stating your version. You say something about electrons being attracted to the negative plate, and we’re left guessing whether you are complaining that that is what science claims happens (it is not), or whether you are claiming that is your explanation of what is occurring.
Hell, even if I were to agree that words are better suited to explaining your concepts than math, _the words you choose and the way you arrange them_ are far inferior to the words and use by, well, anyone else. Your use of standard English is mangled and you do not make clear whether you are explaining what science claims or what you claim.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> why would I want to use the same language that has confused everyone and made physics so hard for you to understand.
I am not confused by what established science claims, nor am I confused by your concept that there is only one type of charge, and the difference in subatomic particles is due to some presence or absence instead. What confuses me is your inability to define your terms as to how you are using them such that I can glean the intent of your descriptions.
For example, when you say space is displaced, I can sort of see that as taking “space” to mean “the fabric of spacetime”, and thus matter does not sit in spacetime, it pushes it out of the way kind of like putting bananas into pudding - the bananas move the pudding outward.
Except you seem to be stating that the spacetime fabric is compressed as it is displaced and impedes upon the spacetime that is already there. So that is why I brought up the foam analogy, where the foam gets squished around the marbles. Thus, spacetime has different densities depending upon how much matter is around to displace spacetime and thereby squish into the spacetime already there.
This bears some casual resemblance to Einstein’s description of gravity being a warping so spacetime. I say casual, because there doesn’t seem to be any conceptual framework to make the two concepts connect in any way, just the behavior of space as getting bent and/or squished.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Well, then, you should be happy, because the particles attracted to the positive plate are called electrons and said to have a negative charge
> I would check my information if I were you, because an electron would not be attracted to a positively charged plate.
See, this is an example of what I mean.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> in an alternating current system the electron’s move back and forth at a high speed, I suppose you are going to tell me it is because they are attracted to the positive side of the magnet in the turbine engine generator that is powering it.
That is not how a generator works.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> If the plate in the TV were negative charge it would there by explode as it soaked up all of the electron’s, but that doesn’t mean the positive plate is there to attract electrons, it is there to repel them so the tube does not explode.
Says you? By what evidence do you contradict the earliest experiments in electricity that provide the common understanding of how CRTs are built? Did we magically stumble on a working arrangement of parts despite having a bass-ackwards understanding of what charge even is?
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> if you have a magnet and you rotate it as in the case of a generator, the positive pole of the magnet will push away the electrons, and the negative pole will pull them back. Since the electrons are what create energy as they move through a wire in an electrical system, how can you say they have a negative charge?
No. Movement of a conductor through a magnetic field will induce a current. Generators use repeated winding of copper wire around a core that is then spun through a magnetic field to generate a flow of electrons in the wire. The magnetic poles have nothing to do with pushing or pulling electrons. Magnetic north/south are not the same thing as electrical positive and negative.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> you talk as if a magnetic field and an electric field are two different things. they are the same thing.
No they are not. They are interrelated and couple the behavior of electricity and magnetism, but they are distinct conceptual identities that act at right angles to each other.
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Because the positive pole pushes them and the negative pole pulls them. Opposites attract, and vice versa.
You’ve mangled something here, because you have a positive pole pushing electrons and a negative pole pulling them, which is exactly the opposite of opposites attract.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> The electron is nothing more than a photon light wave with its wave function collapsed.
You do not appear to understand what those terms mean or how the concepts are understood by science to be able to make a coherent statement of an alternative explanation.
> [@](#):
>
> Any energy that is called dark energy is just a photon light wave that has expanded to such a wave length that wee can not see it.
Ditto.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t understand why people believe this horse shit. Dark energy? Antimatter? HORSE SHIT.
You think the concepts as you understand how science describes them is horseshit, but it is your understanding of what science says that is lacking.
> [@Riemann](#):
>
> The problem with this kind of crackpottery isn’t lack of scientific training, or lack of understanding of real scientific theories. It is (among other things) a much more fundamental absence of introspective insight, and it isn’t ever going to be fixed or even ameliorated by pointing out the flaws in the “science”. To put this as delicately as possible, the underlying problem with crackpot theories is not to be found in the theories.
Agreed.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> It was not my description of the experiment, I never said anything about not crossing the rods. Any charged particles in the cork are pushed by the charge in one rod, but when you cross the rods due to varying degrees of charge it changes the direction of the charge, and any positive charge atoms in the cork now are attracted to the rod with its charge now moving in the opposite direction.
Something got lost in translation. **naita** did not describe any process of crossing rods. You said
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> the rods are positively charged one rod will push the cork, crossing the rods changes the flow of charge. When you say negative charge, you are only describing the direction the charge is moving through the rod, not the charge itself.
Underlining added.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Does a neutron and a proton have any difference in there weight, because the proton should be heavier because of the charge it contains.
Protons and neutrons are made of different combinations of quarks, so they have different masses.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my theory, the decay you are talking about is a positively charged particle losing its charge and becoming a neutron. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the uncharged particle (neutron) would weigh more than a charged particle (proton), so either there definitions of particles are reversed, or there is an effect that a charged particle has on the instrument they are weighing it with. Have they even been able to weigh a single particle or are they just using math to build a theory?
There is another explanation: you have a faulty understanding of what makes a proton and a neutron, so your assumption that a charged particle should weigh more than an uncharged one is faulty.
---
### Author:  [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/431 "2017-05-17T21:52:18Z")
> [@naita](#):
>
> This is unclear to me.
For varying values of “me,” this is the most accurate summary of this thread I’ve seen.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/432 "2017-05-17T22:21:45Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#):
>
> For varying values of “me,” this is the most accurate summary of this thread I’ve seen.
Infinitely invariable values?
---
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/433 "2017-05-17T22:30:57Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#):
>
> For varying values of “me,” this is the most accurate summary of this thread I’ve seen.
I really don’t think the value of me here varies that much. It is clearly the set of all people minus Mantraphilter.
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/434 "2017-05-17T22:35:57Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> Infinitely invariable values?
No, infinately invariable values. Because spelling is just a tool to confuse the sheep.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/435 "2017-05-17T22:37:24Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#):
>
> No, infinately invariable values. Because spelling is just a tool to confuse the sheep.
Ah yes. Good catch. There must have been too much displaced space around my keyboard.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/436 "2017-05-17T23:07:44Z")
I could almost have sympathy for anyone who thinks that “Dark Matter” is horse-shit, because it hasn’t been discovered, only indirectly observed and inferred, and nobody knows what it actually is.
(It isn’t horse-shit, of course, but I don’t leap to disrespect for people who think it is.)
But antimatter? Observed many, many times, and created in countless particle accelerator experiments. Antimatter is as well-observed in reality as protons and neutrons! You might as well have doubts about the existence of electric charge!
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/437 "2017-05-17T23:31:54Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> I could almost have sympathy for anyone who thinks that “Dark Matter” is horse-shit, because it hasn’t been discovered, only indirectly observed and inferred, and nobody knows what it actually is.
Yes, but this is someone who thinks that dark matter (or dark energy) was conjured up by physicists to explain negative energy, which he thinks is the same as negative electric charge. It’s hard for me, at least, to have much sympathy for him.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/438 "2017-05-17T23:39:57Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> Yes, but this is someone who thinks that dark matter (or dark energy) was conjured up by physicists to explain negative energy, which he thinks is the same as negative electric charge. It’s hard for me, at least, to have much sympathy for him.
Come on! Have some empathy for the guy. TV’s are exploding all around him!
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2017, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/439 "2017-05-18T01:01:34Z")
> [@zoid](#):
>
> This has really been bothering me…you do NOT have a theory.
>
> [A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
>
> I’m not sure what you have but it’s not a scientific theory.
Each time you repeat and confirm any findings of a " scientific" experiment it is only relative to the point in space at which you did the experiment. You would have to have instruments that were not effected by relativity, to be able to see the difference of the same experiment in two different points of space. My theory is correct, and it is a theory regardless of the lack of math. It does not change the world, the world is still the same, only your understanding of the world and the universe we live in
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/440 "2017-05-18T01:04:56Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> Yes, but this is someone who thinks that dark matter (or dark energy) was conjured up by physicists to explain negative energy, which he thinks is the same as negative electric charge. It’s hard for me, at least, to have much sympathy for him.
Again, there is not an equal and opposite negative charge. regardless of which direction a current flows in a wire, it is still a positive charge.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=21)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=23)