 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2005Looking for answers.
just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask. i have no education in mathematics or physics. i'm actually a struggling art major. though its probably obvious that i'm nither a math nor physics major...just dont wanna get flamed for this if its an "uneducated question". was just thinking about mass and how particles in a gas cloud, out of the influence of any other mass, eventually come together and become concentrated enough in certain areas to have a gravitational impact. is there a certain point where, when enough of a given particle or molecule comes together in a given space, a gravitational force emerges? or is my assumption, that particles simply move towards each other over time false? or is it based on the probability that, given enough of a certain particle and its characteristics and initial conditions, a number of particles will come into close enough contact with one another that other, more sub atomic forces can come into play, such as the strong force? or, is the distribution of mass, influenced by the forces in a constantly evolving and expanding universe, impact its constituent parts ie; its sub atomic particles, in a top down fashion? as if some external force set the whole process in motion? I was actually thinking about einstein and his theories and how he came to them. what he experienced or learned that gave him that perception of the world with its equivellences and laws that must have seemed to just exist somewhere waiting to be discovered. is it realistic to believe that one can understand the world in the way einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the equations that confirmed his understanding? thanks for yer patience. jtg > just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask. i > have no education in mathematics or physics. i'm actually a struggling [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gravitational force emerges? or is my assumption, that particles > simply move towards each other over time false? I assume you're thinking about how stars (and planets and galaxies) accrete out of space dust... Gravitational attraction is *always* at play in a collection of dust particles; it doesn't "turn on" at some threshold. If you had a collection of dust all at rest, gravity would pull them all together. The question, really, is whether the extraordinarily weak pull of gravity is strong enough to overcome other factors that tend to push them apart, such as thermal pressure. There can indeed be random fluctuations that make one region more dense than the surrounding area, and this can be a "seed" (like the microscopic lump that starts the formation of a bubble in a glass of beer) for a stronger gravitational pull. > or is it based on the > probability that, given enough of a certain particle and its > characteristics and initial conditions, a number of particles will come > into close enough contact with one another that other, more sub atomic > forces can come into play, such as the strong force? Not in the context in which I'm guessing you're asking. > or, is the > distribution of mass, influenced by the forces in a constantly evolving > and expanding universe, impact its constituent parts ie; its sub atomic > particles, in a top down fashion? as if some external force set the > whole process in motion? Top-down is not something that is customarily built into *most* physics models. Bottom-up is more customary. That's not a value judgement or a statement of correctness. > I was actually thinking about einstein and his > theories and how he came to them. what he experienced or learned that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the equations > that confirmed his understanding? This is a common misconception. Einstein knew the physics work that preceded him very, very well. He did not "clear his desk" and start from scratch with a brand new idea. What Einstein excelled at was to take a collection of assumptions and principles and current experimental results and, after looking at them very carefully, knowing which assumptions were solid and which were not crucial. Then he was able to dispense with the noncrucial assumptions and build, using all the tools in his toolbox (math and physics), a fairly bold and consistent picture from the solid ones. And, no, you can't do that without the toolbox, though many in this forum try. > thanks for yer patience. > jtg PD thanks for yer time jtg > > just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask. > i [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.