Attractive forces in 3-d space

  • Thread starter Thread starter morg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces Space
morg
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'd appreciate your help about this: Is someone capable of explaining how attractive forces work in three dimensional space, without invoking a negative time trick?

I know this is not the first time when someone is asking about this subject. I've already read almost all posts about it, and many external texts, including this link
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...particles.html

But this FAQ above seems to be kind of "artificial solution" in one dimensional space and, in general raises more questions than answers.

There is also another text about the process:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath535/kmath535.htm

This, on the other hand invokes negative time trick, which is questioned by some folks on the forum.

Maybe I am asking a wrong question? Is an origin of attract-repulsion process something like an origin of charge? I mean it's dogma, and it's fundamental process, no further dwelling allowed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Must we do this all over again? Well it has been almost a whole week.
 
Bill_K
Yes, would be great

why again.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...

Similar threads

Back
Top