It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Today, physicists labour under misconceptions
particle physicists use it as an excuse
the other discipline is in a parlous state.
IMHO, all of the above groups would be better off if they put forward arguments that stand on their own feet, and spend *ZERO* time slandering the "other side". (Just like science does, in fact)
. . . which leaves me with the feeling that whether the entire universe is an electric grid or not is the least of our concerns over whether science as anything but a multi-billion dollar three ring circus.
reply to post by ErosA433
Do all fundamental particles have electric charge?
If there are ones that dont, why dont they?
Do only electrons interact with the EM field?
f light follows curves of space, does this mean that gravity or space is coupled with EM field in some way?
What occurs in stars, nuclear fusion, doesnt this have at least some electric nature, as in the attraction of charged particles involved?
I am in no way a proponent of electric universe theory, I dont even know what the theory is... just felt like asking these questions. I do even know what the proponents of EU want to propose, or claim is true, or what impact their claims hold...I am curious in truth however, and am confident no man completely knows it.
No, neutrinos appear to be fundamental in Standard Model, and have no charge at all. Photons and Higgs bosons too.
This is beyond my paygrade (there are particle physicsts here who can take this one up), but you can turn the question around to "Why do all quantum particles have the quantum numbers that they do?"
"What does it mean that a particle such as a specific quark can have 1/3rd of a charge?"
Are you bothered because it was 1/3 instead of a round number? That's a historical artifact, because electrons and protons were discovered much earlier and have -1 and +1 by some convention and the fact that there were any smaller fractional particles wasn't discovered until much later. Quarks are never free on their own so it's understandable. If you were going to relabel all the particles then electrons would have +3, protons -3. It makes more sense for the dominant charge carrier in practical situations (electrons) to be positive. Benjamin Franklin just guessed wrong, he made the convention and had a 50/50 shot.
Did Newton really say the following:
"That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can fall into it."
Sir Isaac Newton
Newton felt it was not necessary to know which direction gravity force acted as his three laws of motion and his universal gravity law applied either way. In 1692, Newton wrote his friend Bentley that it was inconceivable anyone skilled in science would ever think brute matter could attract other brute matter. Newton believed something material had to act constantly on bodies in orbit to keep them in orbit.