# Force fields **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 28, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976 "2004-12-28T19:09:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/1 "2004-12-28T19:09:32Z")
In the following 2-and-a-half-year-old Staff Report: [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mforcefield.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mforcefield.html) , SDStaff Karen wrote: > [@](#): > > The problem with the weak and strong forces is that they are very short distance forces. We’re talking about distances much smaller than the protons and neutrons inside nuclei. According to [this website](http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/04/0.html), the range of the Strong Nuclear Force is 1.5 x 10[sup]-15[/sup] meters, or 1.5 x 10[sup]-5[/sup] Ångstroms. [This other website](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nucuni.html) has a handy-dandy Nuclear Radius calculator about 2/3 of the way down the page. According to this, a single proton (atomic mass 1) would have a radius of 1.2 x 10[sup]-15[/sup] meters, and an alpha particle (helium nucleus, atomic mass 4) would have a radius of 1.9 x 10[sup]-15[/sup] meters. Their diameters would of course be twice these values, or 2.4 and 3.8 femtometers, respectively. While these values are indeed larger than the 1.5 femtometer range listed above for the Strong Nuclear Force, I’d hardly call that distance **MUCH** smaller than the sizes of the protons and neutrons inside the nucleus. If anything, the Strong Nuclear Force maximum distance is **on par with** the distances between nucleons. And I absolutely positively **must** protest about this line from the same Staff Report: > [@](#): > > So let’s say the evil extraterrestrials have a spaceship that has the same mass as a 747, and it goes at a speed of Warp 9, or nine times the speed of light. Every self-respecting _Star Trek_ geek knows that warp speeds don’t scale that way. 😉 Any fan’ll tell you that Warp 9 = 729 times the speed of light in the original series, and Warp 9 = 1000 times the speed of light in _The Next Generation_. ---
**Author:** ![aerodave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f08c70/32.png) [@aerodave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aerodave)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/2 "2004-12-28T20:14:44Z")
Well, it would seem logical that the distance the forces acted over woudl have to be about the same as the distance between nucleons. That is, if there’s an interaction between two particles _x_ distance apart, the force would have to extend that distance. What good is the strong force if it can’t even make it past the boundaries of the particle generating it? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/3 "2004-12-28T20:25:28Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Warp 9 = 1000 times the speed of light in _The Next Generation_. Actually, in TNG warp speed is the warp to the fifth power, so warp 9 is more like 59,000 c. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/4 "2004-12-28T23:01:51Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Actually, in TNG warp speed is the warp to the fifth power, so warp 9 is more like 59,000 c. What? Where are **you** getting your warp-speed formulas from? According to both the chart in the _Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual_, and the [rec.arts.startrek.tech warp velocities FAQ](http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/FAQs/warp_velocities-faq.htm), Warp 9 in the _TNG_ era is 1516 times the speed of light, which corresponds to a formula of “Warp X = X^3.3333333… c”. (I was incorrect when I initially stated that TNG Warp 9 is a mere 1000 times the speed of light. Flog me.) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/5 "2004-12-28T23:03:48Z")
> [@aerodave](#): > > Well, it would seem logical that the distance the forces acted over woudl have to be about the same as the distance between nucleons. Precisely. Which is why I took the article to task for saying “We’re talking about distances **much smaller than** the protons and neutrons inside nuclei.” Saying “about the same as the size of” or “on the scale of” would have been more apropos. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/281976/6 "2004-12-31T21:34:08Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Flog me.) No need. Just step into the agonizer booth, please.