quantized unit of force.

[gre]

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

[thedarkshade]

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

Maybe its kinda stupid but this is how I think about it.

Force is the product of mass and acceleration ([math]F=ma[/math]), so in order for there is be a quantized unit of force, there would have to be a quanta of mass and quanta of acceleration (neither of which I am aware of), so you'd have 'smallest mass' doing 'smallest acceleration' which would mean you had 'smallest force' acting on that mass. But this implies something else, like would that quanta of force overcome the friction force of the medium where the experiment is taking place? So it's kinda stupid!

[gre]

Electrons could probably be considered quanta of mass. And maybe the coulombs within a hydrogen atom could be coulombs force? I don't know.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't know much about this, but aren't virtual photons the quanta of the electromagnetic force?

[north]

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

 

I don't quite get you here

 

so are you suggesting a quantization of force with no mass ?

 

just asking

[Baby Astronaut]

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

Nice thought. It would probably have to be figured by way of quantum mechanics, yeah I know obvious. Don't know if anyone tried such a measurement, but seems it would have very practical use at the quantum level.

[D H]

gre,

 

If you mean that the fundamental forces are carried by particles, then the answer is yes. That is exactly what quantum mechanics dictates. The carriers of the fundamental forces are the gauge bosons.

 

If on the other hand you mean that "force" itself is quantized, that is a far different question. You are essentially implying that photons come only in discrete set of frequencies. There is no evidence of this (yet).

[gre]

gre,

 

If you mean that the fundamental forces are carried by particles, then the answer is yes. That is exactly what quantum mechanics dictates. The carriers of the fundamental forces are the gauge bosons.

 

If on the other hand you mean that "force" itself is quantized, that is a far different question. You are essentially implying that photons come only in discrete set of frequencies. There is no evidence of this (yet).

 

 

I was mostly curious about "force" itself being quantized.

 

I was also wondering if a phonon could be considered a gauge boson, and if they were also carriers of momentum, centrifugal, centripetal force, as well as vibrational energy

*edit* and gravity possibly as well (?)

 

 

The way I understand it: phonons transfer vibrational energy within electric circuits (or any other direct mass to mass energy/force transfers) and photons transfer EM energy from (mass to space to mass). Could they be responsible for transferring all "mass to mass" forces?

 

 

...Another thought I just had regarding quantization. Could the Rydberg constant mass be considered the quantum for mass?

 

m = 2.17987e-18 / c^2 = 2.425e-35 kg (for energy levels etc)

Edited December 26, 2008 by gre
multiple post merged

[D H]

I was mostly curious about "force" itself being quantized.

In that, case, you engaging in purely speculative behavior. There is nothing wrong with that per se. However, we have a place for speculations.

 

Thread moved to the speculations section.

[granpa]

AFAIK 'first quantization' replaces the continuous field of classical physics with a sort of network of masses and springs (quantum oscillators). but the velocity and position of each mass is still continuous. this is quantum field theory. second quantization quantizes even the values that the velocity and position of each mass can take (actually it quantizes the displacement of the masses). (or something more or less along those lines)

 

thats my understanding of it. if I'm wrong then I'm sure someone will tactfully point out my error.

 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Vacuum_energy

 

In a naïve sense, a field in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position.Vibrations in this field propagate and are governed by the appropriate wave equation for the particular field in question. The second quantization of quantum field theory requires that each such ball-spring combination be quantized, that is, that the strength of the field be quantized at each point in space.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

 

so yes the field is quantized

Edited December 26, 2008 by granpa

[Sovereign]

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

 

Well first you should define quantum and force. Quantum is a continuous particle, while force is a mathematical concept relating to motion. So what you're asking is if there is a particle of a concept. Seeing that concepts are relationships amongst objects the question becomes easy to answer. No.

[gre]

I started wondering about this again the other day.

 

What is the smallest mechanical force (nano scale) ever observed? How was it done? I couldn't find anything useful on google.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can this thread be moved out of speculation.. Most of the "speculation" is really just a question.

Edited October 8, 2009 by gre
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

To make a more specific example, the classical attraction between two particles is [math]F=-\frac{kq_1q_2}{r^2}[/math], where k is a constant, the q's are quantized in terms of the charge of an electron, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to r. So by increasing r arbitrarily, we could get an arbitrarily small force... unless there was some limit to that.

 

Is that what you mean, gre?

[Baby Astronaut]

What is the smallest mechanical force (nano scale) ever observed? How was it done?

Perhaps lab measurements of the Casimir Effect?

 

In physics, the Casimir effect and the Casimir-Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field.

 

 

To make a more specific example, the classical attraction between two particles is [math]F=-\frac{kq_1q_2}{r^2}[/math], where k is a constant, the q's are quantized in terms of the charge of an electron, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to r. So by increasing r arbitrarily, we could get an arbitrarily small force... unless there was some limit to that.

What's [math]r[/math] stand for, radius?

 

Also, is there a site for what all the letters used in physics equations represent? (not sure how to ask Google that)

[gre]

To make a more specific example, the classical attraction between two particles is [math]F=-\frac{kq_1q_2}{r^2}[/math], where k is a constant, the q's are quantized in terms of the charge of an electron, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to r. So by increasing r arbitrarily, we could get an arbitrarily small force... unless there was some limit to that.

 

Is that what you mean, gre?

 

 

Sort of. But I was wondering if there would be some sort of (quantized) relationship (I doubt it now). The electrostatic force between a proton and electron in a hydrogen atom should be around 8.23e-8 N (i believe, using bohr radius) .. Is this there maximum electrostatic force possible between a + and - charge, or a - and - charge? If so, could it be consider quantized like angular momentum or some other quantities .. 8.23e-8 N / (2,3,4) etc.

Edited October 9, 2009 by gre

[gre]

Did that make any sense?

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think quantization is related to a maximum, rather to a minimum.

[granpa]

I suppose that the weakest possible force would be the gravitational fonce between 2 electrons at opposite ends of the unierse.