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]

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).

 

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]

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]

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]

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..

[Mike C]

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

 

Well, I removed Einsteins Mass/Energy formula by showing that FORCES create all the energies.

 

I also consider Einsteins GR that is based on Newtonian gravity as false because it has NO explanation for the 'enhanced' galactic cluster gravity that I call 'Zwicky gravity' since he was the first to point out that the increased galaxy velocities did not match their calculated mass/luminosity ratios.

 

NS

[Mike C]

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..

 

Forces are 'intrinsic' to matter portrayed as two 'charges' (+ and -) such as the Coulomb charge that I call a force that can attract dis-similar charges and repel similar charges.

 

According to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, they imply that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.

So my conclusion is that matter always existed.

 

That is the most important reason why I refute the BBU.

 

NS

[arkain101]

To say matter has always existed, is quite a leaping thought.

 

Firstly, we know that we do not know what matter is. Infact, without us trying to describe what it is, it is relatively nothing.

 

We also know in quantum mechanical experiments that matter is not in the same stable-certain catagory as we put mental construct objects, such as a grain of sand. Matter or say at the quantum level of matter, it is in a catagory of its own, behaving like mental contructs, but also not like mental constructs.

 

(sorry if this sounds obvious, I am using it to make a point)

 

In all the ways I can think about it, trying to see what matter is, by interacting the system of reality of energy(emr) and mass, while excluding the mental construct interpratation, we disect reality itself to the point of which of course things then become unreasonable, because all that is reasonable is based on what we know as mental constructs which of course requires a 3 part system.

 

If our mind was not capable to take momentary pictures and send them into memory, and instead, it (the mind) resided in each picture reality of course would be defined in an entirely different way. A way in which time would be experienced differently, which I can imagine would be like existence growing, but life itself being unrestricted to time, and in a sense time travel would exist.

 

So we can see I think that reality is very much defined on our mental construct and design logic.

 

To assume matter has always existed is under this stated logic is to say the state of consciousness we experience has always existed, including all the known colors produced in the consciosness and other such related pehnomina if I may use such a word.

 

It is also to state, a sort of paradox of sorts to say, matter has always existed when matter itself is undefined and undesribed, likewise can not necessaraly be given much for characteristics without a comparison or learned mental construct.

 

I understand some people view that because existence is, it may have always been, and does not even need a creator or source, but this is infact an unreasonable thing. If we see a painting we never say or assume nature naturally stained a canvas with such care and creativity as to make itself.

 

The mental is there, it is important to include, it is what is, not the other way around, as reasoned here.

 

So I would be interested in knowing how you may say mind has always existed.

 

[Mike C]

It is also to state, a sort of paradox of sorts to say, matter has always existed when matter itself is undefined and undesribed, likewise can not necessaraly be given much for characteristics without a comparison or learned mental construct.

 

I understand some people view that because existence is, it may have always been, and does not even need a creator or source, but this is infact an unreasonable thing. If we see a painting we never say or assume nature naturally stained a canvas with such care and creativity as to make itself.

 

So I would be interested in knowing how you may say mind has always existed

 

I never said mind always existed. The bible implies that with its existence of spirit as having 'everlasting life'.

Also, do not confuse the 'biological' with the 'physical' because they are NOT the same.

The biological can reproduce (stem cells) but the physical cannot (hydrogen atom, HA).

 

The components of the HA such as the proton and the electron have been studied to its limitations. These two particles are known to have mass, charge, dimensions, densities and momentum that there is nothing else to evaluate regarding them.

All this data is the result of RESEARCH, not mental constructs like math that is a human language although it may be needed to refine and predict further data regarding same.

That is why I give more credibility to research and developement that can be visualized into a picture than a language of symbols.such as math.

 

NS

 

 

.

[Erasmus00]

According to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, they imply that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.

So my conclusion is that matter always existed.

 

I've said this many times on this forum, and I'll say it again. Energy conservation is a consequence of the time translation symmetry of physics. (I.e. results are independant of time- tomorrows experiments yield the same thing as todays).

 

What this means is that you cannot use conservation of energy to say there could not have been a beginning- IF there were a beginning, conservation of energy would obviously break down near the beginning, which is to be expected, there is no time translation symmetry at the beginning.

-Will

[livingproof]

For the law of conservation to be applied, wouldn't there have to be something pre-existing to apply it to? If forces create all the energies, then is force not an energy? Are all energies then created by the interaction of pre-existing forces on matter and/or other form of energy as they emerge under force influence? Is force then always the catalyst for transformative processes?

[CraigD]

It’s important to be precise in the use of terms and concepts when discussing astronomy and physics – to “get the basics right”. So, please pardon a brief off-topic excursion into some essential classical mechanics and modern physics.

For the law of conservation to be applied, wouldn't there have to be something pre-existing to apply it to?

Yes, basically. The classical conservation laws – mass, momentum, and energy – require that they system to which they are applied is “closed” – no mass or energy may be added or removed from it. Though tremendously useful for calculating many practical, everyday physical problems, classical mechanics fails when explaining more exotic systems, such as ones including nuclear fission and fusion, where the mass and energy of the system are allowed to change.

 

If forces create all the energies, then is force not an energy?

Force is not an energy.

 

Here’s classical mechanics, in brief:

• Fundamental properties (and standard units):
  • Mass (kg)
    
  • Distance (m)
    
  • Time (s)

  [*]Definitions:

  • Velocity = Distance / Time (m/s)
    
  • Acceleration = Velocity / Time (m/s/s, m/s[math]^2[/math] or m/s^2)
    
  • Force = Mass * Acceleration (kg m/s[math]^2[/math], or N)
    
  • Energy = Work = Force * Distance (N m, or J)
    
  • Power = Work / Time (J/s, or W)
    

Note that energy and work share the same units, and can be used somewhat interchangeable. Energy is the potential for or consequence of work, work the use or creation of energy.

 

A little simple calculus allows the following equation for energy to be derived from the above definitions:

• [math]E = \frac12 M V^2[/math]
  

Here’re the laws of conservation of momentum and energy, in 3 spatial dimension, x, y, and z (there are other notations for them, but this is a nice, simple one):

• Momentum (“M” the usual symbol for mass, “P” is usually used for momentum)
  • [math]P_x_{\mbox{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\mbox{number of bodies}} M_n V_{x_n}[/math]
    
  • [math]P_y_{\mbox{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\mbox{number of bodies}} M_n V_{y_n}[/math]
    
  • [math]P_z_{\mbox{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\mbox{number of bodies}} M_n V_{z_n}[/math]
    

Because [math]V_x[/math], [math]V_y[/math], and [math]V_z[/math] can be positive, zero, or negative, [math]P_x[/math], [math]P_y[/math], and [math]{_z[/math] can be positive, zero, or negative. It’s convenient to have them be zero.

• Energy
  • [math]E_{\mbox{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\mbox{number of bodies}} \frac12 M_n (V_{x_n}^2 + V_{y_n}^2 + V_{z_n}^2)[/math]
    

Because a real number squared must be non-negative, [math]E_{\mbox{total}}[/math] must be non-negative.

 

What a “body” is in classical mechanics depends on how its being used. It may be as larger than a planet, or smaller than an atom. Essentially, as long as it doesn’t come apart within how the system is used to make calculations, anything can be a body.

Are all energies then created by the interaction of pre-existing forces on matter and/or other form of energy as they emerge under force influence? Is force then always the catalyst for transformative processes?

Pretty much, yes. “Catalyst” and “transformative” should be considered imprecise and metaphorical in this context, but convey the basic concept.

 

Modern physics expands classical mechanics in several important ways. As it pertains to the summary above, the most important expansion allows mass and energy to be considered equivalent, per the following, famous relationship:

• [math]E = M c^2[/math], where [math]c[/math] is the speed of light in vacuum.
  

The classical definition of energy can be show to be an approximation of this equivalency via this other, slightly less famous modern physics equation:

• [math]M = \frac{M_{\mbox{rest}}}{\sqrt{1 – (\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/math]