/sci/ - Science & Math

the fringon

>>5883998

f- fag ^3

Trust me, i work for science

>>5883998
implying friction is a fundamental force

Stop making this topic everyday

The more interesting version of OP's question is what symmetry belies friction?

>>5884045

Sage am i cool yet...


plz respond


YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

photon

funny yam yam xDDDDDD

>>5884052
>>5884049
>>5884045
>>5884043

So edgy....

your mom would have bled to death during childbirth

>>5884048
Whats wrong?
The question, childish as it is, actually is more interesting and entertaining than the rest of the content at this section, and it gives some room for fantasy.
Yet I did not want to bump the thread, hence sage.

>>5884055

This ...them double fives.... sweating ...

>>5884055

Except photon is accurate. Almost friction is due to EM forces. Now go fuck yourself.

>>5884071

almost all friction, even.

>>5884071
Please verify your theory

btw I'm a drunk truck mechanic

please post educational links (if possible)

>>5884082

Friction is caused by unsmoothness between two objects (solid on solid friction) or by molecule impacts in the direction of relative motion (fluid friction). Note: this is an oversimplification, there are actually five types of friction. Unsmoothness is also impacts of molecules.

Molecules impact each other by electron shell repulsion, which is all EM forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction gives an actually useful overview of friction (It's usually pretty good for physics and math articles). I'm not personally familiar with other educational links as I pretty much worked out that friction was EM from applying logic.

We just do not know.

>>5884096
>I pretty much worked out that friction was EM from applying logic.

What kind of logic did you apply?

>>5884061
You do not make any sense

>>5883998

>>5886220

"Hmm, what causes friction? The smoother a surface is, the less friction it is. It is also related to the normal force, which prevents solid objects from passing through each other. Therefore, an absolutely smooth surface would have almost no friction. The normal force is caused by electrons repelling each other, and maybe the pauli exclusion principle, otherwise there would be nothing preventing atoms interpenetrating. Also, friction in a fluid is caused by atoms 'hitting' each other. So in all cases I can think of, friction is E&M."

>>5887390
>The normal force is caused by electrons repelling each other

I thought the normal force was caused by gravity.

>>5888775

In a way, yes, in that gravity is attempting to move your feet through the ground, and then the normal force is the ground's electrons repelling your feet's electrons. But the force itself comes, fundamentally, from EM.

>>5888775

The normal force is any force perpendicular to a solid surface preventing things from moving through that surface.

>>5887368
Romney?

>>5888793
That is not electromagnetism. It is anti-gravity.

>>5889582

No, it is electromagnetism. Antigravity would be require exotic matter (where gravitational mass is not equal to inertial). This is electrons pushing each other. It opposed gravity, yes. It opposes ANY force that attempts to move one solid object through another.

>>5887390

What does the pauli exclusion principle have to do with anything in this situation? are you retarded?

guys, would an anti graviton give antigravity?

>>5889645

Pauli exclusion principle is, essentially, two fermions can't be in the same state at once, thus you can't have two atoms with their electrons in the same place at once.

>>5889671

that is a very.. interesting interpretation of the pauli exclusion principle

>>5890005

or rather, a completely incorrct interpretation

>>5884061
>What's going on in this pic?

>>5890068

irl qwop

photon

gluon, because friction is the scientific name for stickiness

>>5890130
>>5890133
>photon
>gluon

I'm confused. Aren't these the gauge bosons for electricity and gravity? How can a gauge boson work for more than one force?

>>5889609
>Antigravity would be require exotic matter (where gravitational mass is not equal to inertial).
Wrong.
>This is electrons pushing each other.
This is not anti-gravity. Please learn basic physics.

>>5891353
>This is not anti-gravity.

Why isn't it? It makes things hover. That's what we call anti-gravity.

>>5893063
It makes things hover by opposing the mass directly, so you need an amount of energy relative to the amount of mass whose gravity you want to oppose.
Anti-gravity on the other hand would require some amount of energy to power, but should cancel out the gravity of all mass in a certain area without energy requirements directly related to the mass whose gravity you are opposing, otherwise you aren't doing anti gravity, you are just creating a force that opposes the effects of gravity, but not the force of gravity itself.

>>5893063

technically anything that opposes gravity is anti-gravity, but what we're talking about is what makes a gravitational force negative, and there isn't any

>>5890662
No. Electromagnetic force and strong force. Gravity is graviton. Electricity is not a force.

>>5891353
Are you misinformed, aggressively ignorant, or trolling?

If it's the latter, okay, 4/10, kept responding. If it's one of the two former, I would recommend shooting whoever taught you this 'basic physics'.