Talk:Fundamental interaction

relative strength and range
The strong interaction has a relative strength of 1038, but a small range of 10-15 m. If the relative strength of 1038 had infinite range, the strong interaction would pull everything in and make 1 giant atomic nucleus.

But, what if the small range of 10-15 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)

Gravity is not a force
Just a simple Google search produces results here; Dr Sabine Hossenfelder recently put out an explainer on YouTube.

This is a complex topic and referring to a YouTube video feels "un-academic," however myriad Google and Google Scholar results lead you to numerous explainers on why it is not a force. Thus, it is disingenuous to keep this article as it currently stands. My ability to convey this complex topic is limited, so I defer to more physics-minded users to rewrite the page, but my point stands: Gravity is not a force. 38.74.24.37 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * As a physics-minded user, I will point out that the name of this page is "Fundamental interaction", a term used in part to avoid such pointless discussions. It makes no sense to say "gravity is not a force" unless you define "force", which as it turns out is quite a complex and ambiguous business. F=mgh is one definition of force and the "g" there clearly makes gravity a force. This particular definition is wonderfully useful and I recommend it to you as a topic of study: Newton's law of universal gravitation. Hossenfelder's video is also not incorrect, but rather a sensationalization of the topic, choosing to emphasize the general relativity field-theory description of gravitation. Also a wonderful topic to learn more about. In that theory gravity appears as a consequence of 4D geometry, but you might think about what definition of "force" means in that geometry.
 * I don't consider this youtube video to be a valuable reference on the article topic. Nevertheless I suppose this article could call out the issue of force more directly. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, using YouTube is not an academic source. However, when academics (such as Dr Sabine Hossenfelder) post highlights of their and others' research, it becomes a valuable tool to jump off into deeper research, thus me saying that Google and, especially, Google Scholar maintain rigorous research and writing on this very topic.
 * This said, thank you for the informed response! My background is linguistics rather than physics, so I appreciate the input and would urge more clarity in the live article. 38.74.24.37 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Edit: YouTube can be an academic source as video essays with rigorously sourced materials and well-written research are valuable, I would like to note) 38.74.24.37 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not against youtube as a source, esp. for External links. In general however youtube is not considered a reliable source because the videos are not peer-reviewed nor typically cited by other authors. In this particular case, my reasons against the video is that it is off-topic: it is about general relativity and does not speak about gravity as one of the fundamental interactions in physics.
 * BTW a sizable fraction of the physics community believes that a theory of quantum gravity will eventually show that the underlying mechanism of gravity is the same as the other three interactions. Such a theory would not alter the curvature of spacetime aspect of gravity just give a different way to calculate it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)