Gravity & Strong Force

[Bengt Nyman]

Gravity & Strong Force by Bengt Nyman

Gravity is one phenomenon in physics which has been well observed but poorly understood. The Standard Model which well describes and explains most of what physics has learned so far has been unable to include gravity. To date the model includes a particle named graviton as a carrier of gravitational force. The particle graviton has never been seen or traced.

A quotation from the European organization for Nuclear Research in Cern summarizes the Standard Model well:

“There are four fundamental forces at work in the Universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force is, as the name says, the strongest among all the four fundamental interactions. We know that three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called ‘bosons’. Matter particles transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson particle – the strong force is carried by the ‘gluon’, the electromagnetic force is carried by the ‘photon’, and the ‘W and Z bosons’ are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the ‘graviton’ should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.
The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains extremely well how these forces act on all the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model. In fact, fitting gravity comfortably into the framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are like two children who refuse to play nicely together. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when we have matter in bulk, such as in ourselves or in planets, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces.”

End of Quote.

What I will be offering herein is a finer dissection of the forces described above. The result is an explanation of gravity and strong force as composite forces of many vectors of one single type of force which we could call the electrostatic force.
We are then left with only two types of forces: The electromagnetic force and the electrostatic force.
The bosons named gravitons and gluons need no longer be regarded as particles but rather as historic names for composites of multiple electrostatic force vectors.

Gravity

The following hypothesis (1996-2010) offers an explanation for the mechanism of gravity.

The hypothesis presented herein claims that gravity is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electrical charges in particles and bodies. To understand the mechanism I am suggesting that we introduce one neutron into a brand new and otherwise empty universe. In this scenario the neutron is free from external influences. The neutron is at rest and externally neutral because the 2/3 e positively charged U-quark is flanked by the two 1/3 e negatively charged D-quarks, and there are no external influences.
Let us now introduce a second neutron into this new universe. According to computer simulations executed in Interactive Physics software as well as in Newton software, the six quarks in the two neutrons quickly align themselves into two separate lines where one negatively charged D-quark in one neutron takes aim at the positively charged U-quark in the center of the other neutron.
The Interactive Charge Posturing seen in the simulations and described above is a direct result of attracting constituents minimizing their distance while repelling constituents maximize theirs. The consequence is that the distance between attracting constituents become marginally shorter than that of repelling constituents resulting in a dominance of the attracting forces over repelling forces. In computer simulations the two neutrons invariably posture themselves as described and start accelerating toward each other. In case of a large distance between the neutrons compared to the size of the quarks, the net attracting force is very small. However, simulations show that after the rapid Interactive Posturing of the quarks in each neutron, the two neutrons invariably begin a slow acceleration toward each other.

A static, longhand mathematical treatment of the situation described above yields the same result showing that the attraction forces always dominate over the repulsion forces.
I am suggesting that the electrical charge interactions and charge posturing described above cause what we refer to as gravity.

In an attempt to quantity this situation I am offering the results of two mathematical calculations. The first one looks at gravity between two hydrogen atoms. My hypothesis suggests that the proton in one hydrogen atom will attract the electron in the second hydrogen atom and vice verse causing a minor shift in the center of effort of the orbits of the two electrons around their protons thereby transforming both hydrogen atoms into conditional dipoles. The question is now, how large would this shift have to be to correspond to the observed gravity between two hydrogen atoms?

The answer is: At a distance of 1 x 10^-12 meters between the two hydrogen atoms, the dipole distance of each hydrogen atom would be 3.672300 * 10^-31 meter, which is 6.939 * 10^-21 of the radius of the hydrogen atom, or 4.424 * 10^-18 of the radius of the proton. In other words the charge shift or dipole distance required is extremely small, even compared to the radius of the proton.

A second attempt to quantify this hypothesis calculates the visible or virtual charge that a conditional dipole translates into, looking at it from the outside. Comparing gravity observed between two known masses with force observed between two known charges yields that two 1 kg masses experience each other as a net and opposite charge of 8.6175^-11 Coulombs. If we apply this to the two hydrogen atoms, a virtual dipole charge equivalent to 9.0088 * 10^-19 of the charge of one electron suffices to produce gravity. In other words, two bodies have to show each other very little dipolarity, to produce gravity.

Electrical charges of the constituents inside particles, nuclei and atoms are very large, and the forces between them are very strong.
The thought that these charges are totally insensitive to electrical charges in their surroundings is an assumption which no longer serves us. I believe that a closer look at the interaction between bodies containing electrical charges will confirm interactive charge influences, interactive charge posturing and electrostatic dipole attraction resulting in gravity.

Strong Force

To be continued.

Bengt E Nyman
San Diego, USA
Vaxholm, Sweden

[jjohnson]

Bengt,

This is very interesting. The thought experiment regarding 2 neutrons and an 'empty' universe is a good one - such simplification has to be necessary to get some idea of how the forces will operate. Someone else much better than I am at this has clearly thought through the vector operations to see that a net force operates to create the Interactive Charge Posturing (ICP). I assume that all six quarks are affected simultaneously.

If three quarks create the neutron, and the neutron is seen "externally" as charge neutral, why do not the two neutrons, each being external to the other, "see" one another as net neutral? That's probably dumb question #1.

Are the three quarks aligned along a straight line inside a single neutron, with a -1/3 quark on the "poles" of the +2/3 center quark? — which would equalize the repelling force the two -1/3 charged quarks would have on one another "around" the center quark. Or are they arranged in a "dogleg" configuration like, say, a water molecule? I know that no one has "seen" something so small as a quark, so they are still hypothetical explanations, but I am assuming for the sake of argument that your assumptions are correct, to see where this line of reasoning goes.

If the 3 quarks are aligned, then they are the neutron, and the neutron is a linear element, not a spherical element "enveloping" or containing the quarks. There is no spherical "skin", like a balloon, containing the three tightly-bound quarks, right?

Is a +2/3 charged quark thought to be larger in diameter than its 1/3 charge cousin?

Is a quark's "charge" thought to be the electrostatic charge? It generates a force field that attracts or repels other "charged" quarks depending on their sign? Are not quarks' fields supposed to be very short-range, and that they exert an increasing attraction force as two quarks are separated farther from one another? Or is that old school thinking? —and, of course, there isn't supposed to be able to be anything other than three quarks bound together (unless the LHC can supply enough energy to pry them apart). So 2-quark interactions need not be considered.

Is a 2/3 charged quark more powerful than a 1/3 charge quark? That is, does its field intensity start at some nominal distance at a value twice as high as that of a 1/3 charge at the same distance?

How close does a neutron have to be to another neutron for ICP to take place?

What keeps quarks in a neutron apart if the center quark attracts both of the other two, and those two are farther from each other so their repelling charge is minimized already? Something like the Lorentz force, where the initial attraction becomes a repelling force at some very close distance? Does the center quark "shadow" the other 2 quarks from each other's like charges?

Have two neutrons ever been observed to accelerate toward each other from a condition of zero relative motion, or is "the absence of other interactions — forces" unable to be obtained in an achievable lab vacuum? This is a difficulty similar to that of explaining what happens when stars collide - no stars have ever been observed to collide! They may be right, but without observation, it's still just another idea to kick around and contemplate.

You see, if I am at all representative in my lack of practice with quark theory, you have a real challenge on your hands, as do I! Please proceed; I want to see this developed!

Jim Johnson

[starbiter]

Hello Bengt: If your not familiar, here is the EU perspective on gravity. Sorry if you've seen this already.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html

michael

[Bengt Nyman]

You raise an interesting question; Are the quarks in a neutron lined up in line or as a triangle. Many earlier representations show them in a triangle, as if there was a "skin" around them. And maybe that is the case. In my simulations I have used both arrangements and I get similar results as far as interactive charge posturing and dipole gravity between the two neutrons. The reason I described them here as in line is that the triangular arrangement requires additional forces between the D-quarks, as if they were more complex than simply of a negative charge.
I know some physicists who support that idea. But as you can see, I have my hands full at this level; gravity and strong force within the Standard Model.

Bengt

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi,
I thought you might want to see some of the simulations of Particle Posturing and Electric Gravity between neutrons. I have placed some on YouTube. Due to the uncertainties about the exact arrangement and degrees of freedom of the quarks in a neutron I included three different cases. Interestingly enough all three cases produce similar Charge Posturing and the same Electric Gravity end result.

Here are the links:

Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with trapped quarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSGeHRyfcho

Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with coupled D-quarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylJHuzy85XI

Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with free quarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3YvqXMuWBM

Bengt Nyman

[Biggins]

Bengt,

Is this your theory - if so WOW!

I am waiting avidly (and rather impatiently) for the description of the Strong Force!

[dfitz]

It's simpler than all those previous explanations.

The hypothesis of strong force containment is wrong!

You could call gravity STRONG FORCE LEAKAGE.

http://www.inkpop.com/projects/5135/end ... t/#chapter

which is really the ending of this:

http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm

Whereas magnetism is caused via the spin frequency of the electron, both the strong force and gravity are caused by the quark spin frequency.

All the forces can be unified if you look at it as either relative motion or phase. See:

http://www.amperefitz.com/qamp.htm

You can also read this free e-book to fully understand it all:

http://www.rbduncan.com/unvrasleep.htm This is the book in html.

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf This is the book in pdf

You can buy it at Amazon but why do that when it's right here FREE.

Cheers,

Dan Fitzpatrick

[jjohnson]

Those are pretty interesting simulations, Bengt. What is the significance of the rotating pointers in the second video? Are they timers, like a clock's hands? Why do the pointers in the left triplet turn faster than those on the right?

Jim

[jjohnson]

Mr. Fitzpatrick, I have only read to page 45 in your PDF of your book, and I am stopping to advise Wal Thornhill and other founding voices to have a read, as well. I am clearly not far enough into your book to come to any conclusions yet, but you have touched on the beginnings of how things might work, and red shift, and why there can only be a steady state universe, s I am hooked enough to continue and want others to read and critically assess what you are saying here.

We are a highly interdisciplinary group, and the more eyes from different perspectives that can be brought to bear on this, the better, IMHO. Thank you for your insights and efforts at publishing this, and for bringing it to our attention here on this forum. Let's hope it goes well and our eyes are all opened a little wider. We'll see... so to speak.

Cheers,

Jim

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi Jim,

The fundamentals of Charge Posturing and Dipole Formation leading to Gravity are so basic that they can be simulated in very simple software. However, that same software has other features built in which can not be turned off but are not applicable in these cases. So the answer to your question about the spinning pointers is that they have no significance in this case and should be ignored. I will be posting 3D simulations with a bit more realism in the near future.

Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se

[junglelord]

Check out my thread, geometry of the nucleus, using Zome Tools to determine the quark structure.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1083

I agree the four force model is inaccurate.
There is only three forces in the APM model, only two forces in Miles Mathis model.
The three force model is simple enough, the strong force is EM charge, there is no gluon. When you quantify ES charge, into the force model, you realize that the weak force is not a force at all, but a relationship b/t EM and ES charge geometry. That creates three forces, EM, ES, Gravity. In this respect we can now normalize mass and EM.

EM is the 3 D distributed aspect of 2d linear mass, two sides of the same coin.

Miles is a tensegrity model, just a push and a pull, there is nothing else.

I like your work, kudos to the open mind.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi junglelord,

Excellent! And soon, when we agree that gravity is an ES force, we are down to two forces: EM and ES.
I like it already.

Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se

[Bengt Nyman]

Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms.

Here is a new link to a simulation of Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms.
The protons are simulated as the two smaller, inner circles. The location of the centers of the electron clouds are simulated as the larger circles enveloping the protons. Notice the initial interactive posturing, the eccentricity representing the Dipole formation and the final attraction by gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKa3-LS3rpc

[StevenO]

Hi junglelord,

Excellent! And soon, when we agree that gravity is an ES force, we are down to two forces: EM and ES.
I like it already.

Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se

Gravity is not an ES force. ES and EM are two fields mediated by the photon. ES is a photon pressure field, while EM is a photon spin field. Gravity is an acceleration field, probably more a kind of holistic appearance to integrate our experience of the world than a real field.

[dfitz]

Thank you Jim Johnson,

Any theory of gravity must ALSO answer why the gravitational force feels like an acceleration of 32 ft. per second squared.

I published my first book about unifyingthe gravitational force with the other forces in 1966.

I still have a letter of approval from Lincoln Barnet but i got blasted by Robert Dicke. It wasn't until 1997 that I saw where Dicke was wrong.

You can read that old book in e-book format FREE.

See: http://www.rbduncan.com/pge1.html

Way back then I saw gravity was being caused by Relative Motion.

But then Caroline Thompson of Cambridge U. told me to think of it in terms of phase. She wasn't the first person to think of it as phase but she was the first to alert me to the phase aspect of it all and I'm forever thankfut to Caroline for that.

Chatting with Tom Van Flandern gave me another big gravitational surprise: It seems that while all the quantum folks see gravity as happening at the speed of light -- all the astronmers don't -- they see it acting at a much higher range. All the astronomers will be in agreement with a speed that is from the square of the speed of light to instantly. (As Van Flandern said many times we can't really square the speed so we are squaring that distance of 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers.)

BUT is this the reason that c squared appears in our math?

You have a big problem when half of the scientific world sees gravity acting at the speed of light and the other half sees it happening instantly or almost instantly. Here's a link to Van Flandern giving you one of the proofs it has to be going much faster than light.

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

Both Caroline and Van Flandern are gone now. I miss chatting with both of them.

Dan Fitzpatrick