Grand Unified Theory

[Mike C]

A New Gut Theory

The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the
only force that can not be unified. However, I would like to propose a
theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while
eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only
one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature
and which we know exists and thoroughly understand.

The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have two pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same velocities. therefore, there are now three similarities.

On the other hand, the other two forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.

Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than the
repulsion component, by about 10^-36, this would create a
gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity (1).
And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable
that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a
short range as 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon
(proton or neutron). Another fact to discredit the strong force is the
lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 (2). Also,
atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding
forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium
nucleus) that has the strongest binding force within the low mass
range.

I was unable to transfer my drawings of how the 'atomic mass numbers'
(AMN) 5and 6 would differ in binding power in comparison to the helium nucleus that has 6 contact points.
In the 5 nucleon nucleus, there would be eight contact plus about one half This would have to be a stronger bound nucleus than the helium nucleus. In the atomic mass number 6 nucleus, there would be twelve contact points that should be bound much more strongly than the helium nucleus. If the strong force is real, then these discrepancies would not exist since the SF acts as a binding force only.

Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the
nuclei referred to as the magic numbers. There is also the spectral
characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a
gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force)
would not possess (3).
If the SF does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei?

In the centers of the stars, where the particles are compressed to extremely close proximaties where the electrons have very high velocities and bypass the protons in 'open' orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very rates, my theory then is that the protons within these central regions spin at extremely high velocities where the outer portions approach closely to the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold 2 protons together with an electron in between for added binding to create the SF to bind the 'deuteron' together. These deuterons, acting as 'bi-polar' bar magnets will automatically orient themsrlves to clamp together to form a hellium nucleus,

The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these particles and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the other characteristics.

(1) Although I arrived at my theory independently, H. A. Lorentz, the
famous physicist, had the same idea at the beginning of this century.
Refer to "Progress in physics" by A. Shuster, pages 156-157.
(2) Refer to "Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics" by H. Semat"
4th edition, p. 588.
(3) Refer to "Basic Concepts of Nuclear Physics" by Stearns, p 36 and
60.

NS

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

On the other hand, the other two forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.

This is not true. The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are all described by the same phyiscal structure (quantum field theory). The strong forces is just an extension of the electromagnetic force to an interaction between 3 objects.

[quotq]Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than the
repulsion component, by about 10^-36, this would create a
gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity (1). [/quote]

Except this force would be equal the proton density of matter, not the mass. Since neutrons are massive, this theory is broken.

Another fact to discredit the strong force is the
lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 (2). Also,
atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding
forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium
nucleus) that has the strongest binding force within the low mass
range.

You seem to be thinking of the strong force as some force that binds nucleons which touch. You use this to claim that if 6 and 5 existed it would have stronger binding than helium. However, this is not at all how the strong force works, and stability of nuclear matter is much more complicated. See, for instance, t-Hooft or Rob Leigh's work on meson spectra.

Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the
nuclei referred to as the magic numbers. There is also the spectral
characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a
gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force)
would not possess (3).

The strong force is not at all a gravitational force!

I suggest learning a little of the theory of the strong force before you try to rewrite the books.
-Wil

[Mike C]

Will

The strong force is not at all a gravitational force!

I suggest learning a little of the theory of the strong force before you try to rewrite the books.

Rather than deal with your entire reply, I will just reply to the last part.

I never said it was. I just compared it to the gravitational force that attracts only.
The 'strong force' (SF) does the same thing. It is 'only' a binding force within the nuclei.
Its utterly short range is the unbelievable part.

So I prefer my own explanation of the SF that is realistic and based on the real forces such as the coulomb attractive force and its magnatic component. These two forces working together can easily equal the given strength of the SF, to overpower the coulomb repulsion between the protons.
IMHO.

NS

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

So I prefer my own explanation of the SF that is realistic and based on the real forces such as the coulomb attractive force and its magnatic component. These two forces working together can easily equal the given strength of the SF, to overpower the coulomb repulsion between the protons.
IMHO.

Well, there can't be coulomb attraction between protons (the coulomb force is repelling them!). That leaves only a magnetic force, but the observed magnetic moment of protons (around a bohr magneton) leads to forces much smaller than the coulomb repulsion by the observed charge.
-Will

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Well, there can't be coulomb attraction between protons (the coulomb force is repelling them!). That leaves only a magnetic force, but the observed magnetic moment of protons (around a bohr magneton) leads to forces much smaller than the coulomb repulsion by the observed charge.
-Will

If you understood my article, you would have known that I said a coulomb attractive force is present in the deuteron by the presence of an electron between the two protons with similar magnetic spins to complete the SF binding.

I said these protons have 'very' high spin rates in these central regions of the stars to create 'very' powerful magnetic binding to enhance the electrons attraction between the two protons, IMHO.

Naturally, the electron and one proton comprise the neutron in the deuteron.
It is a known fact that the neutron decays into a proton and electron when isolated from the other proton.
This happens because the high spin separates the two that have opposing magnetic fields that cause the separation plus the fact that in this case, the electron also acqures orbital momentum because of this separation, IMHO.

The 'nuclear magneton' you mention above is in a hydrogen atom and has no comparison to the protons in the central regions of the stars.

NS

[arkain101]

Black Hole:

-Massive object with strong magnetic gravitational field.

-Electromagnetic Radiation level: none. or nearly none.

-Rate of time inside field, relative to observers outside of field: relatively frozen, static.

Differences: Gravity working without EMR

Simularities: Time intwined with gravitational fields.


In a humble and curious statement, does this equate trouble for your speculation on gravity?

My speculation:
When Electromagnetic frequency sources are found in relatively the same field, they can be considered to exist within the same relative system where the laws of physics apply relatively the same (difficult to measure differences). Thus the frequencies themselves have specific values and wavelengths.

However, when dealing with sources of energy (we are speaking of large bodies of mass) that are vastly different in field strenth and thus time fields, the frequency in the EMR is shifted amongst these two reference frames. Ie, dense body of matter, and small planet.

As we find with typical matter in small quantities, matter can reach a state known as a bose-einstein condensate. A state of which matter changes from a compound interaction, to a unified mass-energy-time-space density.

With this consideration, we could speculate that macroscale physics could attain a similar affect. An effect where relative shift amongst two relative frames of gravity systems becomes great enough that a new state of physics can form.

However, speaking realtively, if one were existing in a frame similar to that of a black hole but for thought experiments sake, they were able to survive. One could speculate that the shift of time and frequency one observed of the universe around them would be great! So great infact, that one should speculate an observed black hole may become visible due to increased rate of the passage of time in the surrounding observed universe.

Summerizing this:
the possibility of a connection to gravity and EMR is there to some degree if this speculation is contained inside another theory similar to or, that of, general relativity.
Where infact EMR can have two behaviors, that of quantum interaction, and that of macro mass interaction. Quantum (or small atomics) of which has observable frequencies, and macro behavior of which may have difficult detectablility due to its macro interaction, and a micro detection system.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by New Science

I just compared it to the gravitational force that attracts only.

This may be a very elementary question, but do we know for certain that gravity is only an attractive force? Is there no inverse?

Bill

[Mike C]

Arkain

I do not believe in 'black holes' or GR.

Bill

Gravity attracts only as proven by the Cavendish and the Boys' experiments that gave it a fixed value of attraction reative to mass (Constant).

NS

[Vagabond -SC2-]

I thought that Einstein removed gravity that it does not really exist. It is a function of curved spacetime??

[arkain101]

He may have,

but ya, all motion originated from a force.

Since everything is in motion, they all came from a force.

Force came first. What could it be? could it be thought related, or mechanical realted..