Because they are transmitted by massless particles, that are massless due to particular gauge symmetries: internal U(1) symmetry for electromagnetism and diffeomorphism invariance for gravity. Were these symmetries not exact, there would have been consequences that are not observed. The physics is well understood-classical electrodynamics in one case, general relativity for the other. 

The finite range of the weak interactions is described by the fact that the particles that transmit them are very massive; the finite range of the strong interactions is harder to describe in simple terms-it's due to the fact that the strong interaction is weak at short distances, becomes very strong at ``large'' distances and the particles that are charged under the strong interactions are neutral under it, beyond that range. 

That the  gravitational interaction interaction is much weaker than the others is more subtle, cf. for instance http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2287

@Ales,

Thank you for this frank view (I'd have a bit expected ...). Yes, after  the sensational advances in the XXth century, theorical physics looks a bit in a jam at present time although the world has developed a lot and there are huge advances in other domains (WMAP, Planck, Higgs boson, Internet, IT, robotics, i-phones and the rest....). Ok, one has to make the best of it !

@Stam,

Thank you for this enlightenment ! I understand that there is a lot of theoretical modeling and calculations behind these particular gauge symmetries of electromagnetism and gravity. Surely, the link with "infinite" range cannot be explained in a nutshell. Concerning the finite range of the strong interactions, it can probably be made clear for the non-expert thanks to the popular "elastic band" analogy. Thanks also for the arXiv link.  

Gauge symmetries *are* the explanation in a nutshell, because they ensure the existence of massless particles, that transmit the interactions, which, thus, have infinite range-provided there isn't confinement. The finite range of the strong interactions doesn't have anything to do with any ``elastic band'' analogy, that's, simply, wrong. 

Ok, it's quiet clear now ! Thus the fact that the strong interaction is weak at short distances and becomes very strong at ``large'' distances cannot be compared to "elastic bands" holding e.g. the 2"u" and 1"d" quarks together in a proton (= more strongly bringing them back together the more one tries to separate them) as described in popular books. It is probably an over-simplification or even totally wrong !

Guibert:

Permit me to try to add some insight (as well as to agree with the "finite time" concept Ales mentions and as well as to posit that I may have something to offer regarding his suggestion regarding a need to address unifying 'gravity and QM').

Some attempted research of mine exhibits a somewhat coherent set of models covering a variety of elementary-particle and cosmology topics. For example, the models provide a possible analog for (all known and some possible) elementary particles to the periodic table for elements and atoms. (The models exhibit a single math-basis - isotropic pairs of isotropic quantum harmonic oscillators.)

Regarding your question, some aspects of the models correlate with the following notions.

(1) Interaction vertices (for interactions between elementary fermions and elementary bosons) correlate mathematically with points. (Perhaps, no surprise here.)

(2) For interactions mediated by free-ranging elementary bosons (gluons are not free-ranging), ranges (R) of interactions (distances between the creation and destruction of an elementary boson) correlate with R mc2 ~ ħ c / 2, with m being the mass of the boson. (This seems compatible with the range of the weak interaction and with 'unbounded' ranges for electromagnetism and gravity.)

A possibly interesting related result that correlates with the models is an approximate ratio of squares of masses - 7 : 9 : 17 for W boson : Z boson : Higgs boson.

People might say that the work provides insight regarding 'quantum gravity,' (forces governing) the rate of expansion of the universe, and other 'unsolved problems in physics.' (For example, the models correlate with possible zero-mass bosons having 'force spatial dependencies' people might correlate with r−4, r−6, and r−8. The last of the forces would have 'driven' rapid expansion correlating with the big bang. Forces correlating with r−6 would correlate with deceleration. Forces correlating with r−4 would correlate with acceleration.)

For more information, perhaps see (hopefully, soon) an anticipated book - http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789462391659 .

Thomas,

Thank you for these new ideas ; I've to check them a little bit deeper ! Thanks for the Springer reference.

I wonder where the inverse cube interaction that was experimentally confirmed between the magnetic aspect of two electrons fit in the 4 forces picture.

Any idea?

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

The magnetic interaction between bound electrons of different atoms is a consequence of their electromagnetic interaction, due to the fact that they carry electric charge and have spin. 

As Stam Nicolis points out, it is indeed known that both classical gravity of General Relativity and Maxwell’s electrodynamics are transmitted by massless force carriers and have therefore infinite distance ranges. 

But where does the hierarchy of force scales in Nature (strong, electroweak and gravity) come from remains an outstanding puzzle of theoretical physics. We were able to derive this natural hierarchy starting from the Renormalization Group program of quantum field theory and the concept of space-time endowed with minimal deviations from four dimensionality, the so-called Minimal Fractal Manifold. For details, see:

Goldfain, E. “Introduction to Fractional Field Theory”, Aracne Editrice, 2015:

http://www.aracneeditrice.it/aracneweb/index.php/pubblicazione.html?item=9788854889972

Same reference can be located at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278849474_Introduction_to_Fractional_Field_Theory_consolidated_version

Research Introduction to Fractional Field Theory (consolidated version)

Ervin,

Thank you for your interesting answer. Indeed, the question is not only « Why are the 4 interactions so ? » with answer « Because very well verified theories (Standard model of particles / Quantum Field Theories, …. General Relativity …) imply that they are so ». The question is also to be seen as a fully open question : « Why does anything such basic look so odd ? Is there perhaps any logic behind those big differences between interactions ? ». Your fractal approach could indeed be a path in this direction (now that the quest toward a Grand Unification Theory and a Theory of Everything have a bit been put aside ?).

Gilbert,

It is interesting to note that the approach I developed in the book, (based on my research published along the last decade or so) opens many unexplored avenues towards answering the questions you raise.

I suggest you take a look at these two sites:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ervin_Goldfain/publications

http://vixra.org/author/ervin_goldfain

Sincerely,

Ervin Goldfain

Guibert:

Thanks. I apologize that I do not know a definitive anticipated publication date for the book. (The publisher has acknowledged receiving my suggestions for [specific small] changes, based on my reviewing 'proofs' the publisher sent to me.) If you would like, (send me a message and) let's arrange a conversation (e.g., via Skype).

Guibert,

Apologies for misspelling your first name.

Ervin Goldfain

Ales,

Physical interactions bear similarities (in the sense that they may be all interpreted as result of local gauge symmetries), yet they are also different in many respects.

For example, they develop at largely separated energy scales: the weak interaction transmitted by massive vector bosons occurs at the Fermi scale of about 250 GeV, the strong interaction of quarks and gluons  (forming hadrons) develops around 200 MeV, the scale where gravitation becomes strong is near the Planck scale of 10^19 GeV. By contrast, classical electrodynamics does not have its own scale and it extends over "infinite" spatial distances.

All gauge interactions of the Standard Model correspond to different symmetry groups, have different numbers of field components  and carry different conserved charges associated with these groups (electric charge, weak isospin charge and color).       

Ales,

You answered Guibert's question:

"Is there perhaps any logic behind those big differences between interactions ?"

stating that:

"There is no essential difference". 

My response disputes your statement. The fact that all interactions are finite, as you indicate, does not mean that they are not fundamentally different in many respects.

Dear Ales,

>The maximum range of any interaction equals the size of the visible universe.

What about the very short maximum ranges for the strong (10-15 m) and weak (10-17 m) interactions ? Or did I misunderstand the meaning of your statement ?

The range of the interactions doesn't have anything to do with the decay rate of the interacting particles and everything to do with the mass of the particles that transmit them. The range of the weak interactions is described by the mass of the W and Z bosons, not their width, for instance. The difference in range is completely described by this fact and all screening effects follow from it.

That weak interactions have finite range, while electromagnetic and gravitational interactions have infinite range is described by the fact that the global part of the gauge symmetry of the electroweak interactions is spontaneously broken by the interactions of the Higgs field, which gives mass to the W and Z; while the part of the gauge group that's not broken, defines the electromagnetic field, whose carriers remain massless this way. 

Similarly, gravity, as described by the dynamics of the metric tensor, has infinite range, because any mechanism that can make its range finite, breaks general coordinate invariance. Attempts to realize a finite range, in fact, replace one fine-tuning mechanism by another, since the models of what's known as ``massive gravity'' inevitably must have a length scale (known as the Vainshtein radius), within which the description agrees with general relativity, from experimental tests. 

Infinite range doesn't mean infinite speed-it means that the signals, that describe the interactions, move at the speed of light in vacuum-which is known for, at least, a century. That spacetime variations carry energy and momentum is known, for at least as long, also. 

Guibert

I think the Coulomb force is assumed to have infinite range due to the confirmed inverse square interaction at play between charged particles.

The assumption of infinite reach is no doubt grounded on the fact that such an interaction mathematically reduces to zero at infinity.

If the same inverse square interaction is assumed for gravity, then we also have mathematical reduction to zero at infinity.

The range of an interaction doesn't  have anything to do with the age of the Universe. A certain level of understanding of equivalent statements is required, in order to distinguish meaning from literal expression. The statement about its range, once more, is a statement about the its properties-that it is transmitted at the speed of light in vacuum, at the case at hand and, if it isn't, that this can be described by a screening mechanism. A certain background of physics of the last hundred years is assumed, to understand these statements. The properties of electromagnetism, whether classical or quantum and of classical gravity, in the form known as general relatvity, are well understood, theoretically and experimentally.

Guibert

Note also that what is called the electromagnetic interaction involves 2 different forms of interaction: The electric Coulomb force in action between charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them, and the magnetic inverse cube interaction at play between the same particles, and that was confirmed as recently as 2014 between two electrons as reported in the Nature paper that I previously gave a link to.

Yes, both interactions (gravitation and electromagnetic) have infinite range because “they are transmitted by massless particles”. Of course, in standard cosmology the universe is finite. It began with a big bang (with a possible inflationary episode just after the big bang), then expanded in a decelerated way during say 7 billions years and afterwards in an accelerated way for 7 more billions years. Now, it is 13.8 billions years old, and we don’t know its actual dimension, but it is most probably finite. Its expansion is expected to continue to accelerate so its dimension will continue to increase. As I understand it, standard physics just says that at each increment of dimension of the universe, the actual ranges of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces in our expanding universe will continue to increase (while the 2 other forces, the weak and strong forces, will continue to hold their very low fixed range in the whole subatomic baryonic matter of the universe). And this up to the end of times !. Or to the infinity of time and space, what one prefers ….! I do not see any problem or contradiction here (?).

André,

 About your previous question on “where the inverse cube interaction that was experimentally confirmed between the magnetic aspect of two electrons fit in the 4 forces picture ? ”, Stam gave already an answer to it 1 day ago (see last post in the 1st page of posts).

Guibert

It seems to me that there is more to it than just asserting the obvious fact that both electric and magnetic interaction are part of the electromagnetic interaction, because since the magnetic inverse cube interaction overcomes the electric inverse square interation at short range, this directly explains why two electrons that repel each other electrically, can unite in pairs on electronic orbitals and in covalent bounding when in antiparallel alignment.

To address a ``why'' question, one must spell out clearly what's assumed known and what's not (Feynman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM ). 

So to explain *why* gravitation and electromagnetic interactions, at the classical levl,  are infinitely ranged, classical physics is sufficient: the reason is the gauge invariance of the description (U(1) gauge invariance for electromagnetism, diffeomorphism invariance for gravity).  One doesn't need to appeal to quantum effects at all. Indeed, it's the other way around: one asks what are the properties of the quantum description that leads to the above classical properties. For electromagnetism the answer is, also, known. For gravity it is not. 

Because of Gauss's radial inverse square law.  It's pure mathematics.

What is spherical (or about) and absorbs or emits something has an infinite radius of action according to an inverse square law. Both in the case of gravity (Gauss's law for gravity) and electrostatic interaction (Coulomb), Gauss describes an incoming / outcoming flux.

I go on and suppose that in Gauss's law for gravity this flux is not virtual but REAL and consists in a flow of space's quanta (absorbed by fermions, described as superfluid vortices in a superfluid quantum space). This single hypothesis is able to produce a theory of everything and to explain relativity.

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

No-superfluids are not invariant under general coordinate transformations. 

André,

To my understanding, Stam didn’t just assert that both electric and magnetic interaction are part of the electromagnetic interaction, but gave a precise answer to your question. See also the article about “Virtual particle” on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Concerning the magnetostatic inverse cube law, I read your interesting article of 2013 on your RG page (pdf enclosed). However, as this is rather new to me, I still have to actually assimilate it ! Concerning the letter of 2014 in Nature you are referring to in your first post, I think it is merely a noteworthy measurement achievement (a “prouesse expérimentale” in French). The authors show indeed an inverse cubic distance dependence in the magnetic interaction between two electrons (consistent with the inverse-cube law). But they reach this result thanks to a set of subtle measurement settings because they have to tide over two big difficulties : (1) at atomic scale – where it is large – the magnetic coupling is often dominated by the much larger Coulomb exchange counterpart ; (2) on larger scales than atomic – where it is weak – the magnetic coupling can be well below the ambient magnetic noise. Thank you anyway for this astounding reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Article On The Magnetostatic Inverse Cube Law and Magnetic Monopoles...

Electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are continuous (even smooth): No finite range can correspond to continuity (smoothness).

The logic of range might be the following: a (co-) tangent bundle is chosen on a smooth manifold, that of electromagnetic & gravitational interaction(s), by the Standard model. Solving that equation, a point or set of points of the manifold will be chosen by resolving. That point or those points should be singular as reference frames of the EG manifold for example that of the Big Bang or that of our reference frame in the universe or something else singular. So the logic of range might be reducible to the choice of one or more singular reference frames involvable for the smoothness of that manifold (EG) implying their infinite range. 

Guibert

I must say that I was addressing only your title question as such, which was "Why do gravitation and the electromagnetic interaction have an infinite range ?".

I must say that I default never to be so assertive about what we think we know about physical reality. So, in my mind, this just translated to "Why do gravitation and the electromagnetic interaction are assumed to have an infinite range ?" This is to this question that I first answered.

I just read Stam's series of answers. His view is based on quantization of forces exclusively. This view originated with Feynman's definition in 1949 of virtual photons as a mathematical artefact to make interaction calculation easier by means of the Lagrangian method. The idea took root and soon became understood as if "virtual photons" really existed, despite the caution that Feynman himself took care of including in his 1949 paper,  about the need not to confuse what he termed "real quanta" and "virtual quanta". The idea was then extended to be used for all sorts of interactions at the fundamental level, like Stam's massless particles that would physically mediate the interaction.

It is important to note that the virtual photon as defined by Feynman bundles together  the Coulomb force plus the amount of kinetic energy induced by the force at the distance considered, contrary to real electromagnetic photons that are made of only kinetic energy, which leads to quite a bit of confusion due to the word "photon" being used in both cases.

It must be said also that choosing discontinuity or continuity as characterizing interactions at the infinitesimal level while excluding the other possibility is a philosophical choice that completely determines how the individual will analyze the nature of the fundamental level of physical reality. But in my view, there is no reason to reject either of them since both hypotheses have qualities and allow possibilities that the other method does not provide; ease of calculation of stable states in the case of discontinuity and ease of motion representation in the case of continuous progression.

The continuously progressive approach allows separating the force from the energy that it induces, which the quantized approach cannot do by definition. This leads to understanding that it is not the force that can move only at c, being permanently in action between charged particles, but that it is the kinetic energy induced by the force that has a limited velocity. It can be understood that the force per se is not moving by structure.

I see you have spotted my little lab bench experiment on the inverse cube interaction. Thank you for appreciating. I carried it out in 1998, and to me, the 2014 experiment with electrons simply is direct confirmation for the magnetic aspect of particles for which both poles have to coincide by structure, since electrons behave point-like in all scattering experiments. Conclusions drawn from preponderance of the evidence in my case.

I fully appreciate the difficulty of assimilating and coming to some form of definite conlusion about material completely at odds with current tendencies, and I appreciate your open mindedness as witnessed by the simple fact that you even read my material.

I have found that exploring with the continuously progressive approach for forces brought an entirely new perspective on the extensive experimental results that have been gathered over the past century.

Thank you for posting my paper in this thread.

Here is a link to Feynman's 1949 paper:

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3523/1/FEYpr49c.pdf

Aleš

Thank you for appreciating. I note that Vasil also thinks along these lines.

Note that I have been analyzint fundamental interactions from the continuity viewpoint all my life, while not discounting the benefits of quantization for calculations of stable states.

André,

Thank you for this enlightening explanation. Yes, virtual photons, renormalization (subtracting infinites …), etc…. are a bit difficult to accept. But QED, Feynman’s diagrams and further QFT extensions have proven very efficient with excellent experimental confirmations (cutting-edge in physics). In spite of this, the picture given by quantum field theories and general relativity is not unified and it appears even very difficult to develop a convincing (in the sense of experimentally proven) quantum gravity theory. It therefore surely remains worth checking non-mainstream approaches.

By the way, on the continuity / discontinuity choice, do you – or does anybody else reading this thread – have knowledge of following ancient articles and book : (1) M. Sachs, Nuovo Cimento 53B, 398 (1968) - (2) M. Sachs, Nuovo Cimento 55B, 199 (1968) - (3) Nucleon Structure, eds. R. Hofstadter, I. Schiff, Stanford University press (1964) ? If yes, I’d be interested in comments on these documents and/or hints concerning their availability.

Guibert,

I agree about the precision of QFT calculations. I also think that the same precision can be had from the continuity perspective.

I have heard of Hofstadter's work but do not have specific references.

By the way, regarding my 2013 paper on the inverse cube interaction, note that the beginning of section "I. Correlating the frequencies of the particles involved" contains transcriptions errors. The erratum is located here:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2264

Guibert,

I just read all contributions in this thread, and it just hit me that the word "causality" never came up.

I just wish to put in perspective that what historically caused the cleavage that ended up inducing the community to eventually chose discontinuity while excluding continuity, when Feynman came up with is quite interesting "virtual photon" idea, was the general acceptance of the Copenhagen school of thought in the community 20 years earlier, after the 1927 Solvey Congress.

Heisenberg and Bohr had become convinced that the wave function, which cannot describe localized particles in motion really physically described fundamental particles as non-localized events, which, in their minds, made it impossible for particles to remain localized when moving and made them unable to follow precise trajectories.

As a consequence, the idea of particles remaining permanently localized and following discrete trajectories (which implies continuouly progressive application of force) ceased to be considered a reasonable possiblity for most in the community and generally ceased to be studied.

During the following 20 years, even if no replacement solution had been found to explain interaction, the continuously progessive option had ceased to be considered.

When Feynman finally came up with his "virtual photon" idea, the idea of virtual particles as mediating the force appeared as the ideal solution to describe interactions and finally completely replaced the continuous progression idea.

In my view, this is what led to the current sorry state of apparent lack of real progress in fundamental physics that you comment about in your first answer to Aleš.

Planck, Schrödinger, Einstein and de Broglie among other, vocally disapproved the trend after the Solvey Congress, but they could not prevail.

You can find a fine analysis of the consequences of this trend in a book by Franco Seleri. Le grand débat de la théorie quantique, Flammarion, France 1994, with preface by Karl R. Popper.

My view is that both approaches have values, and that it is time to bringing back study from the continuously progressive viewpoint, which should bring answers that cannot be provided by the other method. I think this could contribute to deeper understanding of the fundamental level.

André,

Thank you for your interesting answer about the historical process which led most of the community to abandon the idea of continuouly progressive application of force.

Thank you also for the reference to Seleri’s book.

>  current sorry state of apparent lack of real progress in fundamental physics

Concerning this interpretation of my first answer to Ales, I’d like to mitigate a little bit the impression my wordings could have made. I actually wrote that « theoretical physics looks a bit in a jam at present time ».

What did I actually allude to ?

I don’t think that there is a current sorry state of apparent lack of real progress in fundamental physics which could be allotted to the Copenhagen interpretation and Feynman’s idea of « virtual photon » mediating force.

My meaning is rather that there were fundamental difficulties interpreting different facts brought into light by the quick developing theory of quantum mechanics (QM) in the years 1920 – 30 and afterwards. I put it pell-mell : irreducible uncertainty in the very small, quantized nature of reality, wave-particle duality, anti-commutativity, apparent contradiction wave function vs. measurements, probability aspects, completeness of QM, …. There were these discussions between Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger … with « thought experiments », the EPR article, Bell’s inequalities, ….

So, after a while Bohr thought it necessary for the progress of QM to put aside these discussions on the bases of QM and to stay just practical, using what works. He put the « interpretation of Copenhagen » in a concrete form. This allowed quick development of the mathematical formalism (Hilbert state, hamiltonian, …) and the way to design experiments. Others like Feynman with his « virtual photon » and « diagrams », went into the same « practical » direction (« practical » still in the sense of « don’t worry too much about the bases of QM and avoid endless discussions on its counterintuitive aspects ») which brought astonishing progress not only in fundamental physics (QED, electroweak theory, QCD, standard model of elementary particles, prediction and discovery of the Higgs boson, ….) but also with applications in several connected domains (quantum chemistry, atomic – molecular models, chemical bindings, solid-state physics, lasers, masers, IT, cryptography, …).

So, there is no apparent lack of real progress in fundamental physics. And opting to work according to the Copenhagen interpretation and with virtual particles conveying the forces was probably not a bad decision.

Note that, in parallel, discussions on the bases of QM still continued, more especially as new odd features of QM like non-locality, entanglement of particles, …. were put into light. These discussions remained however in margin of the main « Copenhagen » stream. Interesting experiments were also performed like trying to violate Bell’s inequalities, checking non-locality, …. see experiments by Aspect, Zelinger, … And valuable alternative interpretations of QM were attempted too, like those of Bohm, Everett, Dieter Zeh, …

In summary, my remark on the state of theoretical physics nowadays is not a criticism of the way followed by it since decades, on the contrary in view of the results. It only expresses a frustration. The frustration that there are two great theories available for describing the world (general relativity and quantum mechanics) which should apply together in a few domains (big bang, black holes, …), but they cannot because they are incompatible. I have read several books from Einstein, Hawking, Susskind, Greene, Green, Smolin, Rovelli, Barrau, Penrose, and others. And after such readings, one can only ask : why the sole things one gets after decades of hard and brilliant work to build up a theory of quantum gravity are highly speculative theories (like strings theory, loop quantum gravity, twistors theory, …), very interesting, sometimes poetical, but essentially speculative ?

The answer could be - as you propose - because the main stream of theoretical physics was to follow the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It could be that too much energy has therefore been devoted to this main stream and not enough to the idea of continuously progressive application of force and other ideas. But, it could also be that the development of a convincing theory of quantum gravity is restrained because there are things which are not really understood in the bases of QM. I don’t know. Anyway, the Copenhagen interpretation and the concept of virtual particles invented by Feynman and further developed by others have proven useful and efficient.

Guibert

What an interesting conversation.

You painted a rather complete picture of the evolution of events since the 1930's.

I fully agree that the progress you describe is real and that Feynman's virtual photons allow precise calculation of interactions.

The crux of the matter lies in my view in the question you ask: "Why the sole things one gets after decades of hard and brilliant work to build up a theory of quantum gravity are highly speculative theories"

This reminds me of something that Alfred Korzybski wrote in the 1920's:

" Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised."

My question are:

Is it conceivable that after 80 years of the best minds at work on this issue, no definite progress could be made in unifying GR/SR with QM if they really could converge?

Couldn't this be the sign that they may be incomplete, or not correctly focused on the only existing physical reality despite general expectations?

Well, maybe the way is to go back to what really has been verified, irrespective of current theories and build the whole structure back from scratch.

The infinitesimally progressive interaction perspective that allows seeing that the Coulomb force is something different from the energy that it induces by the force has been integrated into any theory.

Also, the only scatterable subcomponents of protons and neutrons are charged, point-like behaving and massive up and down quarks. No other sub-particle was ever scattered against inside nucleons. This means that only three scatterable (thus experimentally proved to physically exist) point-like behaving (thus elementary) and charged (thus subject to the Coulomb law) are the only building blocks of all atoms in existence. 

These inner components of nucleons were discovered only end of the 1960's at the SLAC facility, that is half a century after SR/GR were conceived of, and no effort was made to try incorporating this further experimental knowledge about nucleons. Still considered to have invariant rest masses like the electron despite the fact that they are made of charged particles that de facto are sensitive to the charges of other elementary particles in the vicinity (contained in other atomic nucleons).

The magnetic inverse cube interaction law at play between point-like behaving particles is taken account of nowhere.

Also, the habit of thinking with "the electromagnetic force" as a single nondescript concept (the electromagnetic tensor) constantly hides the fact that the electric field and the magnetic field are different with unreconcilable properties when trying to describe more finely the ultimate level.

And possibly other stuff that doesn't come to mind right now.

My view is that all theories failing to take these and other facts learned after QM and SR/GR were conceived of are bound to fail.

André, Ales, thanks for these reactions ! A bit disillusioned but also full of hope for a big upheaval ! Gravity, the first force put into mathematics (more than 350 years ago), now the sole resisting to quantization ! Yes, if only a fundamental theory could arise from General Relativity (there are attempts to become this fundamental theory, just to mention the spinfoams in Loop Quantum Gravity or alternative possibilities as alluded by you and others in this thread) with Quantum Mechanics as a limit case (see a.o. work by Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara) ! Anyway, one can only fully agree with Alfred Korzybski’s quotation given in André’s recent post…

André,

Sorry, I didn't see your last post !

Guibert

We must have posted at the same moment.

I am convinced that a solution will be found.

If all real experimental data obtained since SR/GR and QM were conceived of are taken into account, and all axiomatic assumptions discarded, I am convinced that the next model will take us closer to the final solution.

This is how it always happened in the past. It will happen again.

André,

The four other quarks c, s, t and b + leptons muon and tau also exist and have been found experimentally. Even if they have very short lifetime (from 10-25 s for the quark top to 10-6 s for the muon), they must be integrated in the relevant theories. But I agree that they don’t exist in atoms.

Guibert

There is no denying that they exist.

But you said it yourself: they don't exist in atoms.

Muons and taus are only hyper energized electrons, that quickly decay, leaving behind only one electron (a positron for their antiparticle) as a stable end product.

All other particles you mention are partons, produced by means of desctructive scattering. All partons, without exception, almost instantly decay, leaving behind as stable end product either electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons and electromagnetic photons, and also neutrinos that also don't become part of normal matter, which makes fleetingly existing particles totaly useless for the purpose of understanding how the stable universe is structured, they all are transient energy states that decay to become the usefull stable states.

My view is that if we want to understand how the universe is structured, we need to understand how its stable building blocks interact.

André,

Thank you for all your comments and references. There is really much to read (and to further deeply understand) in what was written by you and different other intervenors in the present thread !

In addition, I discover (thanks to an hint from Ales ?) that there are several RG discussions which have some similarities with it. It seems that further useful answers can be found there  ! For instance, following link :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_remark_of_Richard_Feynman_I_think_I_can_safely_say_that_nobody_understands_quantum_mechanics_still_valid_or_acceptable

could be a kind of continuation of the discussion raised by my question. The pity is that the above mentioned thread on « the remark of Richard Feynman » has stopped 1 year ago ! Probably there are others of the same kind which are even older ? As I joined RG only a few months ago, I missed all this.

It is of course loss of time to start again and again the same discussions, so could anyone provide me the links to other similar (interesting …) threads ?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_remark_of_Richard_Feynman_I_think_I_can_safely_say_that_nobody_understands_quantum_mechanics_still_valid_or_acceptable

Guibert

I scanned the thread you gave a link to.

One contribution attracted my attention, this short answer by George E. Van Hoesen:

"QM is just a way to calculate the sum of what is going on it is not what is going on. I think that we make the mistake of thinking it describes something real.  It is like describing a mole of some gas and calling that the description of the element."

I must say that this reflects my own opinion.

You may have noticed also that nowhere in this thread was there any mention of the Coulomb inverse square law that we all know is in permanent action between charged electrons and nuclei or between electrons. The question is: Why?

The answer is simple from my perspective. No aspect of QM makes it come to mind, so it never get mentioned in any discussion about the fundamental level. This has been so for decades in the community, since QM is the only perspective that the majority in the community has learned to consider the fundamental level with.

I agree with you that it seems useless to try rekindling such old threads. But you only need to add a contribution and discussion would start again from your possibly new angle even if no one contributed for a year or even more.

There are a few threads I could give a link to that may possibly be of interest to you at the general level. In one in particular, I had an interesting discussion with Charles Francis, a contributor deeply knowledgeable with all aspects of quantum and relativistic theories.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_excite_more_than_one_electron_by_only_one_photon_with_high_enough_energy/1

If you look at other questions to which Charles Francis contributed, you are likely to find material of interest to you.

Another interesting party to look at is Robert Shuler:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_derive_the_constant_uniform_velocity_of_light_the_Lorentz_transform_without_starting_from_the_principle_of_relativity

and Richard Gauthier

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_origin_of_the_electrons_inertia

Hope this helps.

Ales,

>On other threads, here at RG, we discussed the problem of GR and QM disparity quite fiercely.

Could you give the links to these threads ?

>…the new gravitation theory update for strong fields is likely to replace Standard model as a whole, and present QM as a special case ….

and

>  Gravity could enable peering into the inner working of the quantum mechanics.

Could you give some more insight on this « new gravitation theory update for strong fields » ? Does it have main reference name ? Can you provide references of / links to recent articles on it ? Thanks in advance.