Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 9 December 2023

Template:Vital article

Physics C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Muon g-2 Experiment and Potentially Newly-Discovered Fundamental Interaction

There is significant, albeit not overwhleming, evidence for a fifth fundamental interaction that is an ad hoc explanation for muons' motion in magnetic fields, the unexpected motion being called "the g-factor". (Akshit Sangomla, Scientists have come closest to confirming a new fundamental force, DownToEarth, April 9, 2021, , accessed on November 4, 2021) CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I also found this article(Harry Cliff. New physics: latest results from Cern further boost tantalising evidence. October 19, 2021. . Accessed on November 4, 2021.) CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great! The appropriate place for this content is Fifth force --Chetvorno 03:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental interaction representation

I think the removed diagram: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Standard_Model_Forces.png should be in place in the article, as is more on topic and complete then the ones already there.
The diagram focuses on interactions and not on elementary particles shown in other diagrams.
One of my sources with an explanation of the diagram is this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-map-of-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-20201022 --Efa (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

nuclear pasta, neutronium and black holes

Is the strong interaction what makes nuclear pasta really strong? Neutron stars have a radius on the order of 10 kilometres. However, each nucleon has its own strong interaction. So, it could be the strong interaction what makes nuclear pasta really strong. If so, are neutron stars entirely extremely hard, unlike Earth, and is neutronium stronger than nuclear pasta, because neutronium has no protons, unlike nuclear pasta, neutrons are neutral, while protons are positive and like charges repel each other, and is solid, while nuclear pasta has some gaps?

Also, is the "gravity" of a black hole actually electromagnetic attraction? Electromagnetism has a relative strength of 10, compared to 1 for gravity, and infinite range, compared to 10 m for the weak interaction and 10 m for the strong interaction. 84.151.242.207 (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

relative strength and range

The strong interaction has a relative strength of 10, but a small range of 10 m. If the relative strength of 10 had infinite range, the strong interaction would pull everything in and make 1 giant atomic nucleus.

But, what if the small range of 10 m had infinite relative strength? 84.154.74.115 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Jugs of water example

So, not a physicist here, Is there any reference for this jugs of water example? Also how is this even possible there is probably no way to make two jugs of water with the exact amount of water and the example claims that the electromagnetic forces between the two just cancel each other out. I'm not sure if the example is just not correct or what is going for anyone who knows more physics that I do please take a look and maybe replace with a believable example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanguy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to delete that paragraph: as you say it is unreferenced which means any editor can challenge it.

All the example is saying is that neutral atoms have no force between them despite the strong electromagnetic force between the electrons themselves and the protons themselves: each atom has an matching number of each charge. Multiply by the number of atoms in two jugs of water, same result: zero times any number still zero. The jugs part just makes the electron-electron repulsion large.

(There is a small London force between neutral atoms). Johnjbarton (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

heat death

my guess for 3 Ways to Destroy the Universe

Over large (astronomical) distances, gravity tends to be the dominant force, and is responsible for holding together the large scale structures in the universe, such as planets, stars, and galaxies. However, gravity is the weakest of the four interactions. With these 2 properties of gravity, I guess, the death of the universe will be the heat death. 94.31.85.138 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• C-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of High-importance