Gravity as the Fundamental Force

[elas]

Several years ago I proposed that for elementary particles:

 

mass x radius = linear force constant

 

A recent revision proposed that:

 

mass x radius = gravitational constant/2

 

More recently the proton radius was the subject of a new experiment that led to this revision it includes the proton, neutron, and fine structure constant.

Col. A lists the particles.

Col. B is the mass values given by Codata.

Col. C gives the value of the elementary particle radii using the R^QMC equation given by Malcolm H Mac Gregor.

Col. D shows the single and three particle linear force constants. (mass x R_QMG)

Col. E Gives the radii found when the linear force constant is replaced with G/2 (3.3465E-11).

In Col. F the QMC linear force constant is replaced with the Gravitational constant/2.

Cols. G and H show the difference between R_QMG and R_G in actual and percentage values.

Current teaching gives the strong force in two ways firstly as 100 x electromagnetic force and secondly the electromagnetic force is 1/137 of the strong force (with a value of 1).

 

Sections highlighted in the upper box show the construction of the equation:

 

 

The proton radius P(RG) is divided by the square of the number of elementary particles within the proton to yield a value for each elementary particle. The result is divided by e_RG to yield the P_RG:r_RG ration in strong force terms. As the strong force is 100 x electromagnetic force this value is divided by 100 to give the uncompressed or electromagnetic value. The em value is divided by 2 to give the value for a single particle: The result being close to the fine structure constant.

 

The fine structure constant applies to the electric radius, while R_G applies to the radius of the fundamental force.

 

 

This proposal divides the elementary particles into groups and waves as shown in the graph below. The waves in the red box are equal and opposite. Particles that are stable in nature are in the upper blue box.

 

Edited July 21, 2010 by elas

[vuquta]

Several years ago I proposed that for elementary particles:

 

mass x radius = linear force constant

 

A recent revision proposed that:

 

mass x radius = gravitational constant/2

 

More recently the proton radius was the subject of a new experiment that led to this revision it includes the proton, neutron, and fine structure constant.

Col. A lists the particles.

Col. B is the mass values given by Codata.

Col. C gives the value of the elementary particle radii using the R^QMC equation given by Malcolm H Mac Gregor.

Col. D shows the single and three particle linear force constants. (mass x R_QMG)

Col. E Gives the radii found when the linear force constant is replaced with G/2 (3.3465E-11).

In Col. F the QMC linear force constant is replaced with the Gravitational constant/2.

Cols. G and H show the difference between R_QMG and R_G in actual and percentage values.

Current teaching gives the strong force in two ways firstly as 100 x electromagnetic force and secondly the electromagnetic force is 1/137 of the strong force (with a value of 1).

 

Sections highlighted in the upper box show the construction of the equation:

 

 

The proton radius P(RG) is divided by the square of the number of elementary particles within the proton to yield a value for each elementary particle. The result is divided by e_RG to yield the P_RG:r_RG ration in strong force terms. As the strong force is 100 x electromagnetic force this value is divided by 100 to give the uncompressed or electromagnetic value. The em value is divided by 2 to give the value for a single particle: The result being close to the fine structure constant.

 

The fine structure constant applies to the electric radius, while R_G applies to the radius of the fundamental force.

 

 

This proposal divides the elementary particles into groups and waves as shown in the graph below. The waves in the red box are equal and opposite. Particles that are stable in nature are in the upper blue box.

 

 

OK, so where are your equations for dark matter and dark energy?

[elas]

OK, so where are your equations for dark matter and dark energy?

 

When observing the electromagnetic force of atoms the force is either ‘0’ or very close to ‘0’ because it is the difference between positive and negative particles within the atom that is being measured.

 

In a similar manner when measuring gravitational force it is the interaction of force and anti-force that is measured. That is to say that because 97.78% of the linear gravitational force obeys the inverse square law, there exist a difference between total linear force and total linear anti-force that is observable (due to the convex and concave graph curves). Therefore only a very small quantity of gravitational force (i.e the difference between the values of opposing forces) is measurable and the large unmeasured portion is referred to as ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy'. Einstein considered mass and energy as different ways of measuring the same entity.

 

The quantity of dark matter depends on the number of elementary particles within the force field and this can vary even between two bodies with the same nuclear mass depending as it does on the difference in mass and distance between bodies.

 

Therefore any value for quantities of dark matter or dark energy within a large composite field can only be an estimate. To produce an accurate value for single elementary particles of the different particle states used in this paper would require about 120 000 lines per particle, on an excel sheet which is twice the maximum and on my machine where anything over about 20 000 lines slows things down to a ridiculous degree (the short radius of the nuclei prevents any reduction in scale). An attempt to produce a value for an electron indicates that the observed G force would be about 1/137 of the actual G force, but that cannot be said to be the same for all compactions of the elementary particle. Of course such values cannot be checked by experiment so the whole exercise has little purpose.

 

But it might be possible to do something with atoms of each element, I will have a go and report back on this forum in about a week.

Edited July 22, 2010 by elas

[vuquta]

When observing the electromagnetic force of atoms the force is either ‘0’ or very close to ‘0’ because it is the difference between positive and negative particles within the atom that is being measured.

 

In a similar manner when measuring gravitational force it is the interaction of force and anti-force that is measured. That is to say that because 97.78% of the linear gravitational force obeys the inverse square law, there exist a difference between total linear force and total linear anti-force that is observable (due to the convex and concave graph curves). Therefore only a very small quantity of gravitational force (i.e the difference between the values of opposing forces) is measurable and the large unmeasured portion is referred to as ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy'. Einstein considered mass and energy as different ways of measuring the same entity.

 

The quantity of dark matter depends on the number of elementary particles within the force field and this can vary even between two bodies with the same nuclear mass depending as it does on the difference in mass and distance between bodies.

 

Therefore any value for quantities of dark matter or dark energy within a large composite field can only be an estimate. To produce an accurate value for single elementary particles of the different particle states used in this paper would require about 120 000 lines per particle, on an excel sheet which is twice the maximum and on my machine where anything over about 20 000 lines slows things down to a ridiculous degree (the short radius of the nuclei prevents any reduction in scale). An attempt to produce a value for an electron indicates that the observed G force would be about 1/137 of the actual G force, but that cannot be said to be the same for all compactions of the elementary particle. Of course such values cannot be checked by experiment so the whole exercise has little purpose.

 

But it might be possible to do something with atoms of each element, I will have a go and report back on this forum in about a week.

 

OK, but the universe is accelerating outward, or so the evidence seems to show.

 

If there is nothing beyond the material universe, what is forcing it outward in your model?

 

What are your candidates for dark matter?

[elas]

OK, but the universe is accelerating outward, or so the evidence seems to show.

 

If there is nothing beyond the material universe, what is forcing it outward in your model?

 

What are your candidates for dark matter?

 

Two short questions, the first requires an essay; the second requires some new work; I will reply in a few days.

[vuquta]

Two short questions, the first requires an essay; the second requires some new work; I will reply in a few days.

 

OK, I like your thinking about these things.

 

I will wait for your response.

[elas]

Started a reply to VUQUTA, but became aware that a solution to a long standing debate might be possible. My first submission (several years ago) remained in ‘Modern and Theoretical Physics’ for a short while before being transferred to ‘speculations’ because “there are too many gaps in the sequence” as shown in the first col. of the following table:

 

 

The work was later dismissed as “pure numerology”. I shall return to the fractional sequence shown in col. 'a' later. In FQHE all the fractions found in the early years had odd number denominators and that might still be the case today, as recently as 2007 it was also true of composite fermions theory and as far as I am aware, it is still true today. It will be shown that that is also true of certain cases of atomic structure of the elements. Finally it should be remembered that FQHE and composite fermions fractions are approximate fractions.

 

The internal force field of elementary particles is found with the equation:

mr = g/2 (internal force field)

for composite particles and atoms:

mr = linear force (internal force field).

Newton’s law of gravitation equation is used to find the external gravitational force.

The result is shown below:

 

 

Newton’s equation for G uses two bodies, using a pair of atoms of each atomic number and dividing the result by 2 yields the G force for a single atom; combining the external field force g/2 and the internal field force to make a fraction {(G/2)/LF)} as shown in the following graph illustrating how the limits of compaction are determined by the ratio of inner (LF) to outer (G) force fields:

 

 

Period 1 is the nuclear shell. Period 3 is short because there is no space in period 3 for Transitional Metals2. Radii are not given for atomic numbers 80 and higher. This graph shows that the starting point for all periods of the table of elements for which radii are known, occur on a straight line; that is interpreted as meaning that gravity plays a major role in determining the nature of the elements

Next the atomic mass is divided by G/2 and compared with the approximate fractional sequence 1/3, 1/5, 1/7 etc. The start of each period of the elements is circled and numbered.

 

 

This shows that compression caused by an increasing linear force, (caused by an increase in the number of elementary particles) alters the ratio of internal linear force to the external gravitational force creating fractions of lower value. It also shows how compression forces atoms into the fractional sequence.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from the forgoing is that at the junction between inner linear force and outer gravitational force, the forces should be equal, but in reality 96.1% of the gravitational force is unobserved (dark energy). At this stage I have not found a way of presenting the reason why this is so in a presentable manner, but I will continue to work on this problem.

Fractions with even number denominators are found below the odd denominator fraction line bringing the whole into agreement with the original table of elementary particle fractions.

This ‘physics’ article should be read together with the ‘chemistry’ article on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912

[elas]

Supplement 2

 

Theories of atomic nucleus radii fall into two categories, those that are calculated using mass; and those that are fraction of atomic radii. Continuing to use the relationship between forces offers a different method of predicting the radii of atomic nuclei.

Having shown the role played by gravity (G) and linear force (LF) in determining the structure of the elements, the following proposal shows how G and LF determine the atomic nucleus radius using the equation:

 

 

G is the gravitational constant.

FL is the sum of the linear force measured at regular intervals along the radius.

R_QMC is the Quantum Mechanical Compton radius.

R_E is the electric radius.

 

This takes the ratio of R_QMC to R_E and applies the ratio to the force and anti-force (internal and external forces) that determine atomic radii. The result is shown in graph form below:

 

 

Nuclear and non-nuclear atomic forces act in opposite directions, as a result acts that cause a reduction in the atomic radius, cause an expansion of the nucleus radius.