New Theory

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

I got a new theory about the Down Quark, gravity, black holes and dark matter. I wrote a small paper about it.

Who should I send it to ?

[MigL]

You could try posting the general idea here, and see how it fares with the criticism of accepted science.

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

Basically, the Down Quark is involved in the creation of gravity, because the gravitational field around a neutron star is greater than the gravitational field around normal matter, as there is a higher proportion of Down Quarks in the matter of a neutron star than in ordinary matter. If the gravity is even stronger, as in a black hole, that matter might contain an even higher proportion of Down Quarks, or might be almost completely made of Down Quarks.

Not all black holes are "perfect" with an event horizon and a singularity. The event horizon might not form around an area of dark matter, which is a black hole without an event horizon. Singularities only form in the largest black holes and they have a radius equal to the Planck length and experience Planck time. When a singularity is compressed to less than the Planck length radius, it explodes to form a new universe.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Basically, the Down Quark is involved in the creation of gravity, because the gravitational field around a neutron star is greater than the gravitational field around normal matter, as there is a higher proportion of Down Quarks in the matter of a neutron star than in ordinary matter. If the gravity is even stronger, as in a black hole, that matter might contain an even higher proportion of Down Quarks, or might be almost completely made of Down Quarks.

What's your evidence that the gravity is greater?

 

 

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

Its gravity is about 2 x 10^11 times the gravity on Earth according to many articles .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

[Phi for All]

58 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Its gravity is about 2 x 10^11 times the gravity on Earth according to many articles .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

It's mass is at least 1.4 times that of our sun (much less our planet), so it's gravity is proportional. Saying it's greater implies that gravity treats matter differently. A neutron star's gravity is no greater than a similar mass of normal matter.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Its gravity is about 2 x 10^11 times the gravity on Earth according to many articles .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

[math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math]

What does it mean? The smaller the radius r of the object, the greater the force, on the surface...

The "surface" of a neutron star, with a mass equal to or similar to the Earth, is much closer to the center.

The same mass, packed with atoms or neutrons of much higher density, in a very small volume..

Edited July 26, 2022 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Not all black holes are "perfect" with an event horizon and a singularity.

Can you give us an example of a black hole without an EH? "Singularity" is a mathematical representation of infinite densities and heat, and almost by definition can't be all that accurate, but every black hole has a point close enough to it where no amount of energy can move you towards a destination other than the mass of degenerate matter. 

2 hours ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

If the gravity is even stronger, as in a black hole,

I think this concept is messing you up. Gravity still follows the same formulas and equations no matter what kind of mass is involved. The mass of an object and how close or far away determines how that object curves spacetime. As Sensei points out, a neutron star has a smaller radius than the star it was formed from, but almost the same mass, so the force increases the closer you get. 

[MigL]

If the 'down' quark contributed 'excess' mass to the neutronium in neutron stars, you would expect ordinary matter, with an excess of neutrons to be heavier.
He⁴ has two protons and two neutrons for a mass ( isotope ) of 4.0026 Da.
Li⁴, an unstable isotope of lithium, has three protons and one neutron, for a mass of 4.037 Da.

The Helium nucleus contains 6 'down' quarks,while the Lithium nucleus has 5 'down' quarks.
Yet, the Lithium is heavier.

The explanation is simple.
Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons.

Don't get me wrong, an imagination is invaluable, but temper it with some education of accepted knowledge.

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by MigL

[studiot]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If the 'down' quark contributed 'excess' mass to the neutronium in neutron stars, you would expect ordinary matter, with an excess of neutrons to be heavier.
He⁴ has two protons and two neutrons for a mass ( isotope ) of 4.0026 Da.
Li⁴, an unstable isotope of lithium, has three protons and one neutron, for a mass of 4.037 Da.

The Helium nucleus contains 6 'down' quarks,while the Lithium nucleus has 5 'down' quarks.
Yet, the Lithium is heavier.

The explanation is simple.
Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons.

Don't get me wrong, an imagination is invaluable, but temper it with some education of accepted knowledge.

 

 

+1

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons.

Is there a relationship between binding energy and gravity ?

What is the binding energy of matter in a neutron star ?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Is there a relationship between binding energy and gravity ?

What is the binding energy of matter in a neutron star ?

Yes, if you’re talking about a gravitationally bound system. You can calculate the work one needs to do to remove some mass from the system. That would be its gravitational binding energy.

The quark binding MigL discussed is of a different nature; you can’t remove quarks from a nucleon.

21 hours ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Its gravity is about 2 x 10^11 times the gravity on Earth according to many articles .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Because of the mass and smaller radius. What’s the evidence that the down quarks result in even more gravity than an identical mass and radius with fewer down quarks?

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because of the mass and smaller radius. What’s the evidence that the down quarks result in even more gravity than an identical mass and radius with fewer down quarks?

No evidence, just a coincidence which probably means nothing. Most of the matter in a neutron star are neutrons, 2/3 rds of which are down quarks.

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

Is there a difference between the gluons that hold together protons and the gluons that hold together neutrons ?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Is there a difference between the gluons that hold together protons and the gluons that hold together neutrons ?

No

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

What happens if the Schwarzschild radius of a spherical object is exactly equal to the radius of the object ? Can it stabilise at that size or will it inevitably become smaller than the Schwarzschild radius and become a Black Hole ?

What happens if the total mass of the object would be sufficient to create a radius less than the hypothetical Schwarzschild radius of that object if the mass was in the form of a perfect sphere, but instead the object is not symmetrical and is irregular in shape ?

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

What happens if the Schwarzschild radius of a spherical object is exactly equal to the radius of the object ?

That cannot be a stable configuration, I suppose there could be some sort of infinitesimal time period where this occurs during the formation of a black hole.

7 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Can it stabilise at that size or will it inevitably become smaller than the Schwarzschild radius and become a Black Hole ?

Black hole.

7 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

What happens if the total mass of the object would be sufficient to create a radius less than the hypothetical Schwarzschild radius of that object if the mass was in the form of a perfect sphere, but instead the object is not symmetrical and is irregular in shape ?

It would be come a black hole.

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

Does the matter inside a black hole lose all its binding energy, so that all the particles are reduced to quarks ? Does that binding energy then exist as an entity with E = Mc^2, and does that supply most of the mass in a black hole ? Is that binding energy what really causes gravity, since it is responsible for most of the mass ?

[MigL]

From J A Wheeler's No-Hair Conjecture 

"Every isolated unstable black hole decays rapidly to a stable black hole; and (excepting quantum fluctuations) stable black holes can be completely described (in a Cartesian coordinate system) at any moment in time by these eleven numbers:

• mass–energy {\displaystyle M},
• linear momentum {\displaystyle {\textbf {P}}} (three components),
• angular momentum {\displaystyle {\textbf {J}}} (three components),
• position {\displaystyle {\textbf {X}}} (three components),
• electric charge {\displaystyle Q}.

These numbers represent the conserved attributes of an object which can be determined from a distance by examining its gravitational and electromagnetic fields. All other variations in the black hole will either escape to infinity or be swallowed up by the black hole.

By changing the reference frame one can set the linear momentum and position to zero and orient the spin angular momentum along the positive z axis. This eliminates eight of the eleven numbers, leaving three which are independent of the reference frame: mass, angular momentum magnitude, and electric charge. Thus any black hole that has been isolated for a significant period of time can be described by the Kerr–Newman metric in an appropriately chosen reference frame."

From     No-hair theorem - Wikipedia

That is all we can determine fom an external ( distant ) frame of reference. 

Internally, we know the laws of Physics nust apply until we get close to the predicted singularity, at which point we know our model is no longer applicable ( otherwise it would not predict a singularity of infinite density ).
That being said, we know of no mechanism that can resist further collapse ( to infinite density ) once neutron degeneracy pressure ( as in a neutron star ) is overcome by gravity.

Edited August 3, 2022 by MigL

[joigus]

On 7/26/2022 at 7:32 PM, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Basically, the Down Quark is involved in the creation of gravity, because the gravitational field around a neutron star is greater than the gravitational field around normal matter, as there is a higher proportion of Down Quarks in the matter of a neutron star than in ordinary matter.

To add to other members' objections to your theory --with which I very much agree:

Photons, gluons, electrons and neutrinos gravitate, yet they have no quark content. Gravity is universal: all particles are coupled to it. All energy, AAMOF.

Also, down quarks play very much the same role in the standard model (SM) of elementary particles as the other quarks do. According to the SM, the different quarks are only different to each other because they are relatively low-energy states within the framework of an exact symmetry that's broken at low energies.

At unification energies (very high temperatures) we probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

I'm assuming you're implying that down quarks are the source of the gravitational field. Maybe I didn't understand your assumption.

I hope that helps.

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

Down quarks themselves cannot be the source of gravity, but there may be something in the proportion of down quarks to up quarks in a particular type of matter that somehow affects the binding energy present in that matter.

[MigL]

17 hours ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

but there may be something in the proportion of down quarks to up quarks in a particular type of matter that somehow affects the binding energy present in that matter.

Is this a wild guess, or do you have evidence ???

Science works with evidence, not guesses.

[PeterSeeksKnowledge]

This might be something to do with when an Up Quark decays into a Down Quark in a neutron star and extra energy is required.

If Quark Stars exist, as 2/3 rds of the matter in a Neutron star are down quarks, if more Up Quarks decay into Down Quarks, the proportion of down quarks to up quarks might be even higher.

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

This might be something to do with when an Up Quark decays into a Down Quark in a neutron star and extra energy is required.

If Quark Stars exist, as 2/3 rds of the matter in a Neutron star are down quarks, if more Up Quarks decay into Down Quarks, the proportion of down quarks to up quarks might be even higher.

 

But this energy comes from the material as it is gravitationally compressing, so it doesn't mean that there is extra gravitation beyond what you would get for the mass and size, as compared to matter that has more protons in it.

[Markus Hanke]

On 8/4/2022 at 3:10 AM, PeterSeeksKnowledge said:

Is that binding energy what really causes gravity, since it is responsible for most of the mass ?

The source of gravity isn’t just mass (whatever its form), but all sources of energy-momentum. Even an electromagnetic field (which isn’t composed of quarks), and things like pressure, stress and strain have a gravitational effect. Same goes for particles not composed of quarks, such as electrons and neutrinos. These all gravitate.