Strong Nuclear Force

[alexgb00]

Hello, friends!

In school i was taught that the nucleus of any atom consists of neutrons and protons. (you all knew that) The teacher also said that the protons repel repel each other with great force, because they are positively charged[1]. The only thing that holds the nucleus together is what scientists call the strong nuclear force[2].

It's funny that there is no scientific name for it, but we don't understand much about this. But if this is true, this mysterious "strong nuclear force" in effect is responsible for holding the universe together.

Now i want to point out something to my fellow Christians:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. -- HEBREWS 1:3

Do you think this could mean that Jesus Christ, by His mercy, holds the universe together?

If there's something i said that's wrong, please tell me.

------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] -- http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/Nuclear/whatis/forces.html

[2] -- http://research.spinweb.com/sites/strongforce.htm

 

[Morat]

  No scientific name? The strong nuclear force is a scientific name. It's one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

  Are you asking "What is the strong nuclear force"? Well, it depends. Do you mean from the point of view of String Theory? Or the Standard Model? The Standard Model holds that the strong nuclear force comes about because of interactions between hadrons. Here or here.

   At higher energy densities, the 4 forces become three (gravity, strong, and electroweak), and then (theoretically) two, although that one is still in the works, so to speak.

  However, if you want to believe Jesus is the strong nuclear force, go right ahead. It's kinda odd to reduce God to a color-charge, but...*shrug*. Not my theology.

 

[seebs]

I don't see any particular reason to attribute this to special action by God, any more than I attribute gravity to God's desire that each part of His creation should exert a force on the rest of His creation proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

 

[Morat]

  I once saw a guy, on talk.origins, argue that the Holy Spirt was the thing that bound each strand of DNA together into a double helix, which is I typical, I think, of the end result of trying to mix theology and physical reality.

   Trying to use the Bible to do science, or the science to make theology results in some rather ridiculous notions.

 

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Morat

I have read something about unifying electroweak and strong forces - meaning they are essencially manifestations of the same thing. So far gravity has defied unificatioin with the trio.

Alex. Yes protons do indeed repell each other with a poweful force - the electromagnetic force (EM). The strong force, while stronger then EM has a very limited range, whereas the weaker EM force can be felt over great distances. As two protons move towards each other their repell each other . If you can push the two protons together with something strong enough to overcome EM and bring them to very close proximity, the much stronger strong force will take over. Energy will be released and the two protons will be held together by the strong force. Where does this energy come from? A small part of the mass of the proton is converted to energy. This is why protons in a hydrogen atom weigh more then those in in a helium atom, which weigh more then those is a lithium atom and so on.

Imagine if you will you take the "north poles" of two strong magnets and coat them with crazy glue. Try touching the two magnets together (norht to north) and they will repel each other. Now, use more strength and cram the two magnets together. They will become stuck because the crazy glue (stong force) has overcome thier magnetic (EM) repulsion.

So, where in the universe do you find this kind of strength to cram protons together? The only place is in the center of a star where pressure does the job (actually it also happens in hydrogen bombs too). Each time two or more protons glue together, energy is released.

 

My question to you is:  Why do you consider the EM  force to be natural, but the strong force to be supernatural.  That's like saying the mustard on my hotdog comes from a natural source, but the ketchup - well that is from jesus.

 

[Stormy]

I do not belief that God spends his time holding this world together whether on a molecular level, or acting as gravity upon us all. I doubt that science will ever figure out all the mysteries on how God has accomplished so much of what we take for granted. But then again I am underestimating man. An interesting side note ... much of what we have learned of the atom has come from trying to figure out the strong nuclear force. So even if we do not get what we look for sometimes what we find is even more.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I dont know about that, but have you read "The Science of God" alex? It mentions a lot of interesting things for you, like Hebrew numerology and possible secrets of other dimensions, etc.

 

[Morat]

 Late: The pumped energy densities up enough to unify electromagnetic with weak, but last I checked they were having problems verifying the strong/electroweak unification. That may be out of date, though. They've been ramping up accelerators darn-near constantly the last few years, trying to close in on the Higgs.

  Gravity, of course, isn't even theoretically unified except in the most general way, thanks to that whole "not having a theory of quantum gravity" thing. According to the Standard Model, they'll all unify into the primordial Higgs. One force, one particle.

  I think we're talking different things: On paper, all three have been unified. We just haven't gotten good experimental data on strong + electroweak. Gravity resists even on paper.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Morat
However, if you want to believe Jesus is the strong nuclear force, go right ahead. It's kinda odd to reduce God to a color-charge, but...*shrug*. Not my theology.

Actually i was implying that things like the strong force, gravity, and all physical laws coudn't have evolved but put here by God. I understand the darwinian theory (reasonably well, not completey) but it fails to explain how we have such a wisely-assembled universe. I can't believe that the strong nuclear force could've developed or evolved over time.

 

 

[seebs]

Alex: No one has ever claimed that the underlying laws of physics "evolved". The theory of evolution only describes how life as we know it has changed over time.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by seebs
I don't see any particular reason to attribute this to special action by God, any more than I attribute gravity to God's desire that each part of His creation should exert a force on the rest of His creation proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

Yeah, i understand. However (i don't know if you believe in the Bible) it exlains that "all things are sustained through Christ." I'd like to see what other Christians think.

But gravity must have been created, it seems. Do you think it could've been through evolution that gravity came about, Seebs?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

True seebs, but I think alex is refering to the idea that our natural laws just formed randomly...he was using the term "evolved" generally

 

[Morat]

Actually i was implying that things like the strong force, gravity, and all physical laws coudn't have evolved but put here by God.

  As physical laws don't differentially reproduce, and aren't alive, I don't think anyone would consider the idea of them "evolving", at least in the Theory of Evolution sense. Nor does "evolved" in the more general sense (change over time) make sense, as the force in question has been around (although perhaps it was once unified) in it's current form since the Big Bang.

  Nor does "evolved" fit with Souljah's comment about "randomly". But we've been over fine-tuning before.  

   However, I fail to see how this demonstrates they were put here by God.

 I understand the darwinian theory (reasonably well, not completey) but it fails to explain how we have such a wisely-assembled universe. I can't believe that the strong nuclear force could've developed or evolved over time.

   You can't understand Evolution all that well if you're trying to apply it to cosmology and particle physics. Do you do heart surgery according to martial arts principles?

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by seebs
Alex: No one has ever claimed that the underlying laws of physics "evolved". The theory of evolution only describes how life as we know it has changed over time.

Sorry, Seebs, i didn't see your reply before i posted #11. But does science explain the origin of physical laws? Anybody know?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Morat-

Dont be a tool. Obviously he was using the term loosely. Must you insist that everyone speak precisely at all times? I think you knew what he meant!

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by s0uljah
True seebs, but I think alex is refering to the idea that our natural laws just formed randomly...he was using the term "evolved" generally

S0uljah, i believe they were established by God, the "law giver." I don't think they evolved, but want to know if anybody thinks they did.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by alexgb00


Yeah, i understand. However (i don't know if you believe in the Bible) it exlains that "all things are sustained through Christ." I'd like to see what other Christians think.

But gravity must have been created, it seems. Do you think it could've been through evolution that gravity came about, Seebs?

Not unless "gravity" is a kind of life that we think arose on this planet billions of years after the formation of this universe.

I think you're vastly mistaken about what "evolution" means. No one has ever suggested that physical laws "change over time", except creationists trying to discredit radiometric dating.

Science does not address the question of "why does gravity work this way". Science is solely concerned with observing how gravity works, and forming explanations of its behavior.

It seems to me that, on the whole, "God made it that way" is a perfectly acceptable explanation, but I don't really worry about the details much. Whether gravity is "the way things are" or an active result of God's continuing influence on the world, I don't care. Insofar as I care about gravity, I care that it continues to act in a consistent way, because my life depends on this. Apart from that, it's irrelevant; I go about my life the same no matter what.

 

[Morat]

  A blatant insult, Souljah. How nice of you. Aren't you breaking a forum rule right now? However, your direct insults notwithstanding...

   Given the focus of this forum is "Evolution" in the "Theory of Evolution" sense, no, I don't think it's too much to ask to be precise.

Alex: The origins of physical laws are buried in the edges of physics, right now. Physics simply isn't completely understood in the places where those answers could come from. There are many ideas, some better supported than others, but nothing concrete. Until such time as a GUT comes together, it's simply impossibly to state with real certainity things like that. The best you can do are theories consistant with current understanding, and assuming legit results to experiments still to be run.

   For instance, if you want to go the Standard Model route, the four forces are a direct outgrowth of symettry breaking during the Big Bang. However, we simply don't have specific data on the Higgs, nor can physicists account for quantum gravity. In some places, those gaps aren't important. In others, they're crucial.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

They are jumping on you because you are using the term "evolved." Evolution deals with life-forms...however, since according to evolutionists, we are formed from star-dust...perhaps you could use evolution to discuss the formation of laws. It just isnt usually done.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  A blatant insult, Souljah. How nice of you. Given the focus of this forum is "Evolution" in the "Theory of Evolution" sense, no, I don't think it's too much to ask to be precise. 
 

Dude, you throw insults around like a baseball.  I thought you would have thicker skin that to be all whiney about my "blatant" insult. 

Which way do you want it?  Speak nice, and be spoken nicely to...or be a tool and get treated like one.  Pick and stick to it.