Why do we say there are four fundamental forces instead of some other number?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












In my physics textbook (and in popular science culture) it is stated that there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, strong, weak, and gravity.



But Wikipedia tells me that there is a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction, and that this model is generally accepted in a way that eludes e.g. Grand Unified Theories which would unify the three non-gravity forces.



So why don't we say that there are three fundamental forces instead?






forces gravity standard-model interactions







share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    In my physics textbook (and in popular science culture) it is stated that there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, strong, weak, and gravity.



    But Wikipedia tells me that there is a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction, and that this model is generally accepted in a way that eludes e.g. Grand Unified Theories which would unify the three non-gravity forces.



    So why don't we say that there are three fundamental forces instead?






    forces gravity standard-model interactions







    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      In my physics textbook (and in popular science culture) it is stated that there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, strong, weak, and gravity.



      But Wikipedia tells me that there is a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction, and that this model is generally accepted in a way that eludes e.g. Grand Unified Theories which would unify the three non-gravity forces.



      So why don't we say that there are three fundamental forces instead?






      forces gravity standard-model interactions







      share|cite|improve this question















      In my physics textbook (and in popular science culture) it is stated that there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, strong, weak, and gravity.



      But Wikipedia tells me that there is a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction, and that this model is generally accepted in a way that eludes e.g. Grand Unified Theories which would unify the three non-gravity forces.



      So why don't we say that there are three fundamental forces instead?






      forces gravity standard-model interactions




      forces gravity standard-model interactions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 44 mins ago









      Qmechanic♦

      98.6k121761079




      98.6k121761079










      asked 1 hour ago









      Eli Rose

      23229




      23229




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          I would say it's because of history, as each of the four forces were discovered as separate forces.



          I will also say it's due to how we experience them today. They are currently four separate forces. They become unified at very large energies/temperatures, which were present very soon after the big bang. But once the universe cooled the electroweak force split into two forces.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'll add some clarification about what we really mean when we way that the EM and weak forces are "unified".



            In the Standard Model of particle physics, which is part of the foundation for our present understanding of nature, there are three distinct force fields (physicists call them gauge fields).



            • One corresponds to the strong force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons. In the technical literature, this one is sometimes denoted $SU(3)$.

            • The other two gauge fields are the ones relevant to your question. In the technical literature, these two gauge fields are described by the cryptic symbols $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively, and I won't try to invent better names for them here. The important point is that the familiar EM force is a special mixture of $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, and the remainder (a different mixture) is what we call the weak force.

            In the Standard Model, each of these three force fields — namely $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$, couples to matter with a different strength than the others. That's why they are considered to be three distinct fields, not really unified in the strictest sense. However, as indicated in Aaron Stevens' more-concise answer, at a low enough temperatures (what we would call "normal" temperatures today) the famous Higgs field causes the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields to mix with each other, resulting in two different mixtures that we experience as the long-range electromagnetic force and the very-short-range weak force.



            The point of this long monologue is to clarify what "unified" really means in this context. The EM and weak forces are two different mixtures of the more-fundamental $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ fields. So there are still four fundamental force fields in our current understanding of modern physics: the strong force $SU(3)$, the one called $SU(2)_L$, the one called $U(1)_Y$, and gravity. (The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity.)



            On the other hand, we do have indirect theoretical reasons to suspect that $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$ really are unified in the strict sense of being different parts of a single field with a single coupling strength to matter. We do not yet know exactly how to implement this strict form of unification theoretically. Even if the idea is correct, this higher symmetry would only be evident at even higher temperatures than the ones we would need to "un-mix" $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437717%2fwhy-do-we-say-there-are-four-fundamental-forces-instead-of-some-other-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest

















              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              3
              down vote













              I would say it's because of history, as each of the four forces were discovered as separate forces.



              I will also say it's due to how we experience them today. They are currently four separate forces. They become unified at very large energies/temperatures, which were present very soon after the big bang. But once the universe cooled the electroweak force split into two forces.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                I would say it's because of history, as each of the four forces were discovered as separate forces.



                I will also say it's due to how we experience them today. They are currently four separate forces. They become unified at very large energies/temperatures, which were present very soon after the big bang. But once the universe cooled the electroweak force split into two forces.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  I would say it's because of history, as each of the four forces were discovered as separate forces.



                  I will also say it's due to how we experience them today. They are currently four separate forces. They become unified at very large energies/temperatures, which were present very soon after the big bang. But once the universe cooled the electroweak force split into two forces.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  I would say it's because of history, as each of the four forces were discovered as separate forces.



                  I will also say it's due to how we experience them today. They are currently four separate forces. They become unified at very large energies/temperatures, which were present very soon after the big bang. But once the universe cooled the electroweak force split into two forces.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Aaron Stevens

                  5,5422829




                  5,5422829




















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'll add some clarification about what we really mean when we way that the EM and weak forces are "unified".



                      In the Standard Model of particle physics, which is part of the foundation for our present understanding of nature, there are three distinct force fields (physicists call them gauge fields).



                      • One corresponds to the strong force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons. In the technical literature, this one is sometimes denoted $SU(3)$.

                      • The other two gauge fields are the ones relevant to your question. In the technical literature, these two gauge fields are described by the cryptic symbols $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively, and I won't try to invent better names for them here. The important point is that the familiar EM force is a special mixture of $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, and the remainder (a different mixture) is what we call the weak force.

                      In the Standard Model, each of these three force fields — namely $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$, couples to matter with a different strength than the others. That's why they are considered to be three distinct fields, not really unified in the strictest sense. However, as indicated in Aaron Stevens' more-concise answer, at a low enough temperatures (what we would call "normal" temperatures today) the famous Higgs field causes the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields to mix with each other, resulting in two different mixtures that we experience as the long-range electromagnetic force and the very-short-range weak force.



                      The point of this long monologue is to clarify what "unified" really means in this context. The EM and weak forces are two different mixtures of the more-fundamental $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ fields. So there are still four fundamental force fields in our current understanding of modern physics: the strong force $SU(3)$, the one called $SU(2)_L$, the one called $U(1)_Y$, and gravity. (The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity.)



                      On the other hand, we do have indirect theoretical reasons to suspect that $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$ really are unified in the strict sense of being different parts of a single field with a single coupling strength to matter. We do not yet know exactly how to implement this strict form of unification theoretically. Even if the idea is correct, this higher symmetry would only be evident at even higher temperatures than the ones we would need to "un-mix" $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'll add some clarification about what we really mean when we way that the EM and weak forces are "unified".



                        In the Standard Model of particle physics, which is part of the foundation for our present understanding of nature, there are three distinct force fields (physicists call them gauge fields).



                        • One corresponds to the strong force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons. In the technical literature, this one is sometimes denoted $SU(3)$.

                        • The other two gauge fields are the ones relevant to your question. In the technical literature, these two gauge fields are described by the cryptic symbols $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively, and I won't try to invent better names for them here. The important point is that the familiar EM force is a special mixture of $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, and the remainder (a different mixture) is what we call the weak force.

                        In the Standard Model, each of these three force fields — namely $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$, couples to matter with a different strength than the others. That's why they are considered to be three distinct fields, not really unified in the strictest sense. However, as indicated in Aaron Stevens' more-concise answer, at a low enough temperatures (what we would call "normal" temperatures today) the famous Higgs field causes the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields to mix with each other, resulting in two different mixtures that we experience as the long-range electromagnetic force and the very-short-range weak force.



                        The point of this long monologue is to clarify what "unified" really means in this context. The EM and weak forces are two different mixtures of the more-fundamental $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ fields. So there are still four fundamental force fields in our current understanding of modern physics: the strong force $SU(3)$, the one called $SU(2)_L$, the one called $U(1)_Y$, and gravity. (The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity.)



                        On the other hand, we do have indirect theoretical reasons to suspect that $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$ really are unified in the strict sense of being different parts of a single field with a single coupling strength to matter. We do not yet know exactly how to implement this strict form of unification theoretically. Even if the idea is correct, this higher symmetry would only be evident at even higher temperatures than the ones we would need to "un-mix" $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'll add some clarification about what we really mean when we way that the EM and weak forces are "unified".



                          In the Standard Model of particle physics, which is part of the foundation for our present understanding of nature, there are three distinct force fields (physicists call them gauge fields).



                          • One corresponds to the strong force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons. In the technical literature, this one is sometimes denoted $SU(3)$.

                          • The other two gauge fields are the ones relevant to your question. In the technical literature, these two gauge fields are described by the cryptic symbols $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively, and I won't try to invent better names for them here. The important point is that the familiar EM force is a special mixture of $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, and the remainder (a different mixture) is what we call the weak force.

                          In the Standard Model, each of these three force fields — namely $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$, couples to matter with a different strength than the others. That's why they are considered to be three distinct fields, not really unified in the strictest sense. However, as indicated in Aaron Stevens' more-concise answer, at a low enough temperatures (what we would call "normal" temperatures today) the famous Higgs field causes the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields to mix with each other, resulting in two different mixtures that we experience as the long-range electromagnetic force and the very-short-range weak force.



                          The point of this long monologue is to clarify what "unified" really means in this context. The EM and weak forces are two different mixtures of the more-fundamental $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ fields. So there are still four fundamental force fields in our current understanding of modern physics: the strong force $SU(3)$, the one called $SU(2)_L$, the one called $U(1)_Y$, and gravity. (The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity.)



                          On the other hand, we do have indirect theoretical reasons to suspect that $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$ really are unified in the strict sense of being different parts of a single field with a single coupling strength to matter. We do not yet know exactly how to implement this strict form of unification theoretically. Even if the idea is correct, this higher symmetry would only be evident at even higher temperatures than the ones we would need to "un-mix" $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'll add some clarification about what we really mean when we way that the EM and weak forces are "unified".



                          In the Standard Model of particle physics, which is part of the foundation for our present understanding of nature, there are three distinct force fields (physicists call them gauge fields).



                          • One corresponds to the strong force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons. In the technical literature, this one is sometimes denoted $SU(3)$.

                          • The other two gauge fields are the ones relevant to your question. In the technical literature, these two gauge fields are described by the cryptic symbols $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively, and I won't try to invent better names for them here. The important point is that the familiar EM force is a special mixture of $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, and the remainder (a different mixture) is what we call the weak force.

                          In the Standard Model, each of these three force fields — namely $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$, couples to matter with a different strength than the others. That's why they are considered to be three distinct fields, not really unified in the strictest sense. However, as indicated in Aaron Stevens' more-concise answer, at a low enough temperatures (what we would call "normal" temperatures today) the famous Higgs field causes the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields to mix with each other, resulting in two different mixtures that we experience as the long-range electromagnetic force and the very-short-range weak force.



                          The point of this long monologue is to clarify what "unified" really means in this context. The EM and weak forces are two different mixtures of the more-fundamental $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ fields. So there are still four fundamental force fields in our current understanding of modern physics: the strong force $SU(3)$, the one called $SU(2)_L$, the one called $U(1)_Y$, and gravity. (The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity.)



                          On the other hand, we do have indirect theoretical reasons to suspect that $SU(3)$, $SU(2)_L$, and $U(1)_Y$ really are unified in the strict sense of being different parts of a single field with a single coupling strength to matter. We do not yet know exactly how to implement this strict form of unification theoretically. Even if the idea is correct, this higher symmetry would only be evident at even higher temperatures than the ones we would need to "un-mix" $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 19 mins ago









                          Dan Yand

                          6689




                          6689



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437717%2fwhy-do-we-say-there-are-four-fundamental-forces-instead-of-some-other-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest
































































                              Comments

                              Post a Comment

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

                              Image
                              Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
                              Read more

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              Image
                              Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only
                              Read more

                              One-line joke

                              A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala
                              Read more