So there are four fundamental forces of nature, supposedly. Gravity, electromagnetism (which pretty much is responsible for every force we experience except gravity), the strong force, and the weak force. For each type of force, particles can have a field around them of that force (e.g. gravitational field, magnetic field, electric field, etc), which affect other particles in the field. But what I've recently discovered is that PEOPLE have a field of force around them that ISN'T ANY OF THE ABOVE. Yes, we have gravitational fields around us, and electric and magnetic fields (weak though they may be)... but there's another force of nature surrounding each human being. It seems to always cause a repelling force most of the time (like the electromagnetic force with like-charged particles, or like dark energy, not so much like gravity); and like gravity and electromagnetism, this force is inversely proportional to some power of distance (most likely 2, but I have yet to experimentally prove this... a possible experiment is discussed below)
Evidence? I've got plenty. Everything I'm going to say, you already know to be true - you've just never realized the implications of it.
FACT 1: People in a small enclosed space (such as an elevator) spread out so as to evenly fill the space.
EXPLANATION: This is exactly what a repelling force, inversely proportional to distance, would be expected to do. A system of electrons constrained to a given space, will naturally develop over time into a configuration of least potential energy - essentially, when the electrons are as far apart as possible. Once it reaches this position of equilibrium, any change in the system will result in two charges being brought closer together, giving a higher potential energy - which can only happen if some external force is applied. Of course, the electrons may not actually find the "best" arrangement; the most one can say is that they will achieve a local minimum of potential energy.
Likewise, in an elevator, people naturally arrange themselves to be in a position of furthest distance from their neighbors - maybe not the best possible configuration, but a configuration in which any change would only bring two people closer together. If my theory is correct, this can easily be interpreted, as above, as finding a local minimum in the potential energy of the system. And when new particles (humans) are introduced to the system, or when particles (humans) are removed, the system rearranges to find a new local minimum in potential energy.
FACT 2: Bringing people together causes complex phenomena.
EXPLANATION: Considering the above result, one may then ask "if the force field surrounding humans is a repelling force, then what brings people together?" The simple answer is that there are many other variables, many other forces at work besides just the predictable, natural "human force" I'm postulating. For example, a force of friendship may easily overcome the natural human force field; and the force of gravity will clearly overcome this force field if one human is positioned directly above another with no solid object in between. The human force is a comparatively weak force - its effects only come out in situations in which no other force can override it (such as in a closed elevator, in which the only other significant forces are vertical - gravity and the normal force - so the horizontal effects of the human force field may show).
But a more complex and enlightening answer is a direct result of the repelling nature of the force - In any system in which a repelling force is the dominant force in question, then smaller distances will result in higher energies, and thus more complex behavior. Consider, for example, how two colliding molecules don't just bounce off each other if a certain energy level (the activation energy) is reached; they may undergo a chemical reaction. And in high-energy particle collisions, higher energies will result in more complex results, which is why further research can only happen when higher-energy particle accelerators are built.
So what does this mean for humans? Well, as mentioned in the explanation of fact 1, without the application of some external force, humans will naturally stay apart from each other. But if some force is applied, two particles can actually be brought together; and if the inverse relationship between force and distance holds, this will result in a higher potential energy. Potential energy will equal the ability for a system to do work - so when people are brought together, and the energy of the system increases, more work can be done by the system.
This, essentially, is how civilization was possible. This is the physical basis of sayings such as "two heads are better than one" and "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Bringing people together results in, quite literally, a large potential. Potential energy can be converted into many different forms - which is why people in groups can achieve so much. Rather than seeing the natural repelling force as a reason for humans to stay apart, it should be seen as a reason to come together - because for forces inversely proportional to distance, energy is stored in the force field, and the energy is larger if the distance between particles is smaller.
FACT 3: Animals tend to "bounce away from" humans, even at a distance.
EXPLANATION: This was actually the inspiration behind the discovery of this new kind of force. Animals too, seem to be affected by this human force field (perhaps all conscious life forms actually have this field around them?). There are actually many different reactions of animals towards humans - some attack, some run up with wagging tail, some instantly dart away, etc. - as mentioned above there are countless other forces at work in determining how a given animal responds to a given human, and most will override this realtively simple human force. But we can find a "control" case in a particular species which is neither domesticated nor wild - neither friendly to nor completely fearful of humans - the pigeon. This species likely has the simplest, most repeatable (and therefore testable) reaction to human beings out of any vertebrate; barring the imposition of additional variables (such as bread crumbs), the behavior of pigeons can give us the most raw data about the way this force surrounding human beings truly works.
Imagine approaching a stationary pigeon at a relatively low velocity. There will be a certain distance, an "event horizon" if you will, at which the pigeon will begin to move away, but then return to being stationary. The "event horizon," in this case, is the distance at which the human force is equal to the other forces acting on the pigeon (such as the unwillingness-to-move force), resulting in a net force of 0 on the pigeon; once the distance of separation is smaller than this distance, the human force becomes stronger than the other forces acting on the pigeon, causing a net acceleration away from the human, until it is far enough away that the other forces once again overcome the human force.
An analogy to magnets would be helpful. Imagine slowly bringing one magnet A closer to another magnet B, with like poles facing each other. Up until a certain point, magnet B will remain stationary. Only once the distance of seperation is small enough so that the magnetic force can overcome the force of static friction acting on magnet B will magnet B move away from magnet A, just to, once again, remain stationary.
Now, if you move magnet A close to magnet B really quickly, magnet B will respond with a higher acceleration away from A, because the quicker you are, the closer A can get to B before B can accelerate away, resulting in a stronger force on B and more pent-up energy, which will give B a stronger push. This behavior can also be seen in pigeons - the faster you approach them, the faster they move away. In fact, up to a certain critical distance, the behavior of pigeons near humans is very much like the behavior of a magnet in another magnet's magnetic field. They literally "bounce away" from the human's force field, and bounce off faster if the human moves towards them faster.
At a certain critical distance, something unexpected happens - the pigeons change modes of transportation and take flight. But this is exactly what I mentioned in Fact 2: once a certain energy threshold is reached, behavior may drastically change. In fact, in a way that is very analogous to the pigeon, string theory predicts that at high enough energies, a collision between high-speed particles may actually send gravitons out of our regular three dimensions, so as to be unobservable. Analogous to the pigeon, I say, because a high-energy encounter with pigeon and human will send the pigeon out of the regular two dimensions of interaction (confined to staying on the ground) to a third dimension, resulting in completely different behavior.
The above fact leads to a possible experiment. Roughly stated (I'll have to work out the precise details on my own), we would approach a given pigeon at different constant velocities, and observe the velocity of the pigeon at various points in time throughout the interaction. By calculating the acceleration from the velocity data, we will be able to calculate the force acting on the pigeon at each point in time. Comparing this force as a function of time to the distance of separation between human and pigeon as a function of time, we may be able to determine some form of relationship between force and distance.
This would have to be tested on many different pigeons, because each pigeon will have a different reaction to the human force - likely due to an as yet unknown property, similar to mass and charge, that can be calculated into the force formula. However, when we do the above analysis on a given pigeon's motion, this property (assuming it is constant) should cancel out when various data points are compared with each other, yielding a pure ratio between forces and distances - the relationship between forces and distances can be analyzed to see what the precise relationship between force and distance is. (I hypothesize that it is, like gravity and electromagnetism, an inverse square relationship).
I still have a long way to go before this theory is completely developed - I hope to perform the experiment sometime soon (though I lack sufficient tools to perform it with much accuracy), and this will give me the mathematical foundation to this otherwise very qualitative theory. But I'm convinced that either the data will support this theory, or lay the groundwork for an even more profound, effective theory.
Call me crazy if you will. But mark my words: by the time I'm done... you'd be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment