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 transmission velocities. 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^-37, 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) which has the strongest binding force within the low mass
range.
Referring to the following illustrations on the next page(4), there are
three nuclei with mass numbers (A) 4, 5 and 6. The first is the helium
nucleus with mass number 4. Notice that there are six contact points
between each nucleon and the range of this strong force extends to just
the width of each nucleon. In the 5 nucleon nucleus, there would be
eight plus about one half (between the left and right nucleons). 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
which should be bound much more strongly than the helium nucleus. If
the strong force is real, then these discrepancies would not exist.
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 strong force does not exist, then what is the binding force
within these nuclei? My theory is that the particles within these
nuclei 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 these nucleons
together. 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.
(4) I cannot reproduce the drawings but decided to leave the text intact.
Mike CT
Grand Unified Theory
Grand Unified Theory
the electromagnetic force is the strongest force and gravity is the weakest.
all fundemental force carriers are virtual particles, the Photon and Graviton have 0 mass so they have infinite range while the other forces have mass makeing them limited.
the current theories point to the fact that we can't summon up enough energy to unite gravity with the other forces, remember that the temperatures of the early universe were infinite and enclosed in a very tight spacetime.
it's also that we lack the mathematical capability to model these conditions, due to no theory of quantum gravity which has been proved.
Mike CT wrote: Also,
atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding
forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
all fundemental force carriers are virtual particles, the Photon and Graviton have 0 mass so they have infinite range while the other forces have mass makeing them limited.
the current theories point to the fact that we can't summon up enough energy to unite gravity with the other forces, remember that the temperatures of the early universe were infinite and enclosed in a very tight spacetime.
it's also that we lack the mathematical capability to model these conditions, due to no theory of quantum gravity which has been proved.
Mike CT wrote: Also,
atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding
forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
Grand Unified Theory
Alfred quote
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
reply
All 'atomic mass numbers' exist in sequence except 5 and 8.
These two missing atomic masses in the low mass range prompted me to wonder why?
The current theory is that these nuclei are bound together by this strong force.
With the peculiar dimensions for this force, I came to the conclusion that it cannot be. So I developed the article above.
AMN's 6 and 7 are lithium nuclei with 7 being much greater in abundance than 6.
AMN 8 does not exist. AMN 9 is Berillium with no isotopes.
Mike CT
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
reply
All 'atomic mass numbers' exist in sequence except 5 and 8.
These two missing atomic masses in the low mass range prompted me to wonder why?
The current theory is that these nuclei are bound together by this strong force.
With the peculiar dimensions for this force, I came to the conclusion that it cannot be. So I developed the article above.
AMN's 6 and 7 are lithium nuclei with 7 being much greater in abundance than 6.
AMN 8 does not exist. AMN 9 is Berillium with no isotopes.
Mike CT
Grand Unified Theory
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
reply
All 'atomic mass numbers' exist in sequence except 5 and 8.
These two missing atomic masses in the low mass range prompted me to wonder why?
The current theory is that these nuclei are bound together by this strong force.
With the peculiar dimensions for this force, I came to the conclusion that it cannot be. So I developed the article above.
AMN's 6 and 7 are lithium nuclei with 7 being much greater in abundance than 6.
AMN 8 does not exist. AMN 9 is Berillium with no isotopes.
Mike CT
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
do any particles have atomic masses 6 and 5?
reply
All 'atomic mass numbers' exist in sequence except 5 and 8.
These two missing atomic masses in the low mass range prompted me to wonder why?
The current theory is that these nuclei are bound together by this strong force.
With the peculiar dimensions for this force, I came to the conclusion that it cannot be. So I developed the article above.
AMN's 6 and 7 are lithium nuclei with 7 being much greater in abundance than 6.
AMN 8 does not exist. AMN 9 is Berillium with no isotopes.
Mike CT
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
Grand Unified Theory
Alfred quote
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
reply
No, in the bottom half of elements and than the sequence of the AMN's are jumbled in the heavier elements so I did not check further.
Bismuth with atomic number 83, is the heaviest element that has a stable isotope.
Its AMN is 209.
Uranium is heavier as are other elements but none has a stable isotope although some have extremely stable ones that have a half life in the billion year range like uranium..
Where did you get the 137 figure?
This is a figure well known in physics that deals with the hydrogen atom. One of its aspects is the relationship between the electron velocity in the ground state orbit to the velocity of light.
Mike CT
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
reply
No, in the bottom half of elements and than the sequence of the AMN's are jumbled in the heavier elements so I did not check further.
Bismuth with atomic number 83, is the heaviest element that has a stable isotope.
Its AMN is 209.
Uranium is heavier as are other elements but none has a stable isotope although some have extremely stable ones that have a half life in the billion year range like uranium..
Where did you get the 137 figure?
This is a figure well known in physics that deals with the hydrogen atom. One of its aspects is the relationship between the electron velocity in the ground state orbit to the velocity of light.
Mike CT
Grand Unified Theory
Mike CT wrote: Alfred quote
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
reply
No, in the bottom half of elements and than the sequence of the AMN's are jumbled in the heavier elements so I did not check further.
Bismuth with atomic number 83, is the heaviest element that has a stable isotope.
Its AMN is 209.
Uranium is heavier as are other elements but none has a stable isotope although some have extremely stable ones that have a half life in the billion year range like uranium..
Where did you get the 137 figure?
This is a figure well known in physics that deals with the hydrogen atom. One of its aspects is the relationship between the electron velocity in the ground state orbit to the velocity of light.
Mike CT
it must have been atomic number.
there was something i read about ZPE becoming less virtual around an atom of atomic number 137, becoming real at 173.
however i also read that these atomic numbers can't be produced, something to do with the electrons having to travel faster than light.
are there any other missing numbers beside 5 and 8, what is the significance of these AMN's?
while were on the subject can you tell me why there are no atomic Mass numbers above 137. if you can.
reply
No, in the bottom half of elements and than the sequence of the AMN's are jumbled in the heavier elements so I did not check further.
Bismuth with atomic number 83, is the heaviest element that has a stable isotope.
Its AMN is 209.
Uranium is heavier as are other elements but none has a stable isotope although some have extremely stable ones that have a half life in the billion year range like uranium..
Where did you get the 137 figure?
This is a figure well known in physics that deals with the hydrogen atom. One of its aspects is the relationship between the electron velocity in the ground state orbit to the velocity of light.
Mike CT
it must have been atomic number.
there was something i read about ZPE becoming less virtual around an atom of atomic number 137, becoming real at 173.
however i also read that these atomic numbers can't be produced, something to do with the electrons having to travel faster than light.
Grand Unified Theory
Just on your point about the strong nuclear force, if it doesn't exist then why don't all the protons in the nucleus fly apart, why are there gluons then, what are they for? Both the nuclear nuclear force and the weak are the strongest, gravity is by many, many orders of magnitude smaller.
Mike I have to hand it too you, you refute both special and general relativity, spacetime, a curved universe, quantum mechanics, the big bang, black holes, two of the 4 fundamental physical forces, even though we have observed Gluons and weak guage bosons, which are the particle carriers of the 2 you discount? What else is there?, we might as well pack up and go home.
Mike I have to hand it too you, you refute both special and general relativity, spacetime, a curved universe, quantum mechanics, the big bang, black holes, two of the 4 fundamental physical forces, even though we have observed Gluons and weak guage bosons, which are the particle carriers of the 2 you discount? What else is there?, we might as well pack up and go home.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Grand Unified Theory
we can't have a grand unified theory without 3 of the 4 forces, i must say super unified theory peaks my intrest more.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
Grand Unified Theory
Alfred wrote: we can't have a grand unified theory without 3 of the 4 forces, i must say super unified theory peaks my intrest more.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
I wouldn't be too pessimistic Alfred, it has been confirmed that the 3 other than gravity were originally unified at the earlier moments of the BB, and superstring theory has been used (in a tenuous manner though) to unify gravity also at the unimaginably high temperatures and densities present before symmetry breaking between these forces occurred. I think that they will develop a quantum theory of gravity, though maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not in a form that is recognizable to us.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
I wouldn't be too pessimistic Alfred, it has been confirmed that the 3 other than gravity were originally unified at the earlier moments of the BB, and superstring theory has been used (in a tenuous manner though) to unify gravity also at the unimaginably high temperatures and densities present before symmetry breaking between these forces occurred. I think that they will develop a quantum theory of gravity, though maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not in a form that is recognizable to us.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Grand Unified Theory
Alfred quote
it must have been atomic number.
there was something i read about ZPE becoming less virtual around an atom of atomic number 137, becoming real at 173.
however i also read that these atomic numbers can't be produced, something to do with the electrons having to travel faster than light.
reply
Atomic Number is the number of proton electron pairs. More specifically, the protons.
Atomic Mass Number is the total nucleons in the element.
You may be including in your figures all the added heavier elements created by the nuclear colliders.
Galbally quote
Just on your point about the strong nuclear force, if it doesn't exist then why don't all the protons in the nucleus fly apart, why are there gluons then, what are they for? Both the nuclear nuclear force and the weak are the strongest, gravity is by many, many orders of magnitude smaller.
reply
The SF is considered to be 100 times stronger than the EMF. I cannot accept a force that strong with the infinatety short range of 10^-15 meters which is the size of one nucleon.
Also, it is only an attractive force like gravity. So why should it discriminate against a 5th particle?
As I have said above, high spin velocities for the protons and their extreme densities would give them high permeabilities for creating very strong magnetic fields to act as the binding forces within these nuclei. Also, the pairing of 2 dueterons (helium nucleus) would leave a 5th particle out. It just does not fit in to this combination.
Gal
Mike I have to hand it too you, you refute both special and general relativity, spacetime, a curved universe, quantum mechanics, the big bang, black holes, two of the 4 fundamental physical forces, even though we have observed Gluons and weak guage bosons, which are the particle carriers of the 2 you discount? What else is there?, we might as well pack up and go home.
reply
I do not refute QM's. The infinately small corrections of GR are confirmed.
But my main argument is a SSU verses a BBU which is easily refuted. So where does that leave GR? GR needs the BB to keep from collapsing as Einstein forsaw.
All the other ideas can be explained by 'electric seperated charges' that can create these strong enhancements of gravity such as black holes and dark matter.
Alfred quote
Re: Grand Unified Theory
we can't have a grand unified theory without 3 of the 4 forces, i must say super unified theory peaks my intrest more.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
reply
The BB created all this matter, energy and the forces out of space. Truly remarkable.
It is purely a 'subjective theory' based on one observation that had to be subjectively modified for acceptance.
Galbally quote
I wouldn't be too pessimistic Alfred, it has been confirmed that the 3 other than gravity were originally unified at the earlier moments of the BB, and superstring theory has been used (in a tenuous manner though) to unify gravity also at the unimaginably high temperatures and densities present before symmetry breaking between these forces occurred. I think that they will develop a quantum theory of gravity, though maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not in a form that is recognizable to us.
reply
I already unified gravity with EMF so that is no problem in my SSU.
Mike CT
it must have been atomic number.
there was something i read about ZPE becoming less virtual around an atom of atomic number 137, becoming real at 173.
however i also read that these atomic numbers can't be produced, something to do with the electrons having to travel faster than light.
reply
Atomic Number is the number of proton electron pairs. More specifically, the protons.
Atomic Mass Number is the total nucleons in the element.
You may be including in your figures all the added heavier elements created by the nuclear colliders.
Galbally quote
Just on your point about the strong nuclear force, if it doesn't exist then why don't all the protons in the nucleus fly apart, why are there gluons then, what are they for? Both the nuclear nuclear force and the weak are the strongest, gravity is by many, many orders of magnitude smaller.
reply
The SF is considered to be 100 times stronger than the EMF. I cannot accept a force that strong with the infinatety short range of 10^-15 meters which is the size of one nucleon.
Also, it is only an attractive force like gravity. So why should it discriminate against a 5th particle?
As I have said above, high spin velocities for the protons and their extreme densities would give them high permeabilities for creating very strong magnetic fields to act as the binding forces within these nuclei. Also, the pairing of 2 dueterons (helium nucleus) would leave a 5th particle out. It just does not fit in to this combination.
Gal
Mike I have to hand it too you, you refute both special and general relativity, spacetime, a curved universe, quantum mechanics, the big bang, black holes, two of the 4 fundamental physical forces, even though we have observed Gluons and weak guage bosons, which are the particle carriers of the 2 you discount? What else is there?, we might as well pack up and go home.
reply
I do not refute QM's. The infinately small corrections of GR are confirmed.
But my main argument is a SSU verses a BBU which is easily refuted. So where does that leave GR? GR needs the BB to keep from collapsing as Einstein forsaw.
All the other ideas can be explained by 'electric seperated charges' that can create these strong enhancements of gravity such as black holes and dark matter.
Alfred quote
Re: Grand Unified Theory
we can't have a grand unified theory without 3 of the 4 forces, i must say super unified theory peaks my intrest more.
who wouldn't want to see all 4 forces unite?
but i would say it is impossible to do so without creating a whole new universe, they seem to be the only conditions which this type of thing is possible.
reply
The BB created all this matter, energy and the forces out of space. Truly remarkable.
It is purely a 'subjective theory' based on one observation that had to be subjectively modified for acceptance.
Galbally quote
I wouldn't be too pessimistic Alfred, it has been confirmed that the 3 other than gravity were originally unified at the earlier moments of the BB, and superstring theory has been used (in a tenuous manner though) to unify gravity also at the unimaginably high temperatures and densities present before symmetry breaking between these forces occurred. I think that they will develop a quantum theory of gravity, though maybe not in our lifetimes, and maybe not in a form that is recognizable to us.
reply
I already unified gravity with EMF so that is no problem in my SSU.
Mike CT
Grand Unified Theory
Mike CT wrote:
reply
The SF is considered to be 100 times stronger than the EMF. I cannot accept a force that strong with the infinatety short range of 10^-15 meters which is the size of one nucleon.
Also, it is only an attractive force like gravity. So why should it discriminate against a 5th particle?
As I have said above, high spin velocities for the protons and their extreme densities would give them high permeabilities for creating very strong magnetic fields to act as the binding forces within these nuclei. Also, the pairing of 2 dueterons (helium nucleus) would leave a 5th particle out. It just does not fit in to this combination.
the strong force having more energy also has more mass, a virtual particle with mass does not go unoticed by nature hence after the gluon travels a certain distance, 10^-15 meters, it goes back into the vacuum.
Mike CT wrote: reply
The BB created all this matter, energy and the forces out of space. Truly remarkable.
It is purely a 'subjective theory' based on one observation that had to be subjectively modified for acceptance.Mike CT
i think you've moded your SSU plenty to gain plausibility.
reply
The SF is considered to be 100 times stronger than the EMF. I cannot accept a force that strong with the infinatety short range of 10^-15 meters which is the size of one nucleon.
Also, it is only an attractive force like gravity. So why should it discriminate against a 5th particle?
As I have said above, high spin velocities for the protons and their extreme densities would give them high permeabilities for creating very strong magnetic fields to act as the binding forces within these nuclei. Also, the pairing of 2 dueterons (helium nucleus) would leave a 5th particle out. It just does not fit in to this combination.
the strong force having more energy also has more mass, a virtual particle with mass does not go unoticed by nature hence after the gluon travels a certain distance, 10^-15 meters, it goes back into the vacuum.
Mike CT wrote: reply
The BB created all this matter, energy and the forces out of space. Truly remarkable.
It is purely a 'subjective theory' based on one observation that had to be subjectively modified for acceptance.Mike CT
i think you've moded your SSU plenty to gain plausibility.