Gravity & Strong Force

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I visualise a quantum particle as a tiny ball of matter, the basic lowest level of size and no further divisible.
So the universe is empty structureless (Euclidean) space, within that space is a "field" of quantum particles, moving randomly in all directions at the speed of c.
Electrons are spinning discs made of quantums - field quantums are continually absorbed by the electrons and re-emitted as charge quantums, which merge back into the field to become field quantums moving at c. My personal visualisation of electrons is as a quantum Catherine Wheels. I visualise protons as spinning spheres, so that the reflection of quantums becomes aligned, to some lesser or greater extent, with that spin, and so is a deflection rather than a reflection.

When electrons and protons are in isolation, they are subject to quantum particle collisions in an amount dictated by field density.
When electrons and protons are in proximity they can be subject to additional quantum collisions due to charge from other electrons and protons. When an electron in subjected to a quantum flux beyond its capacity to shed by charge alone, it will shed mass, that is emit, quantums en masse as a photon. So photons are emitted as multiples of quantum particles - the kinetic energy of a single particle is Planck's constant.

Naturally questions remain; specifically in relation to creation. Where did the quantum field come from and when?, how did electrons and protons get created? There are selection of answers to choose from: aliens, gods, explosive creation events, we are not privileged to know. I favour the latter. Not particularly satisfying, but I can live with it - if you can't, you'll have to choose one of the others.

Also, why do electrons and protons have the size, mass and spin they do? Well, we might imagine it to be a function of field density and velocity.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

Thanks for reading. Nature said : "In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature." and IOP Classical and Quantum Gravity said "we
do not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are unable to consider your article further."

Some kind comments from a few people on this forum, but I am not sure how to proceed. I have written another paper regarding the consequences of the existence of the quantum field, which is in a state on continuous refinement.
I have recently been thinking about writing a paper critiquing Special Relativity - the errors and deficient logic are glaringly obvious and easily defined. However, logic is not necessarily a great weapon for dispelling a belief system.

I would appreciate any specific comments, questions, glaring logical errors.

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt, Thanks for reading.

I am surprised you got it published at all, anywhere. Not because I disagree with any of it but because science moves one millimeter at a time, and requires tons of evidence and pressure to do so. Especially sciences with a high content of faith based dogma and prestige. What you, and I, and others are proposing would move physics far from where it is today. One should be able to calculate the effort required to do this and my guess would be in the order of 10^5 man years.

[mjv1121]

Bengt wrote

And I have not yet explained why opposite charges attract.

Assuming that gravity operates at the subatomic level, then all particles are pushed (attracted) towards each other.
Assuming "charge" to be the emission of smaller particles, then an electron will more easily repel another high surface area, low mass electron than a low surface area, high mass proton.

The "spherical" surface area of an electron is 10.22 times greater than a proton.
A proton's mass is 1835.9 times the mass of an electron.
By a most simplistic calculation an electron will find it 18778.9 times easier to repel another electron compared to a proton (18778.9 = 1/alpha^2).

That said, the larger scale manifestation of same-same repulsion and opposite attraction is still not easily comprehended. Based on my theory, this is my analysis of the operation of a bar magnet:
The nature of the atomic structure of magnetic materials is such that there is a coherent emission of charge along the atomic matrix. Therefore, there is an emission of charge from one end of the magnet, which we can call the north pole. This obviously results in a net flow of field quantums through the south pole that matches the north pole emission. This is important to remember, the force at the south pole must match the emission at the north pole. So N-N repulsion is caused by quantums flowing out against the other magnet and S-S repulsion is caused by quantums flowing in. With a flow of charge inside the magnet from pole to pole, there is the effect of an electric current, albeit weak and diffuse. This allows for the emission of a radial magnetic field, although field strength at the poles will appear much stronger. It must be understood, there is no continuous circuitry flow of quantums. Once emitted, the charge quantums that constitute the magnetic field, will disperse away from the bar magnet at the speed of c. The continued operation of the magnetic effect is due to the quantum field and the orientation of the atomic structure of the magnet.

Imagine the south pole of a bar magnet brought into close proximity with a ball bearing placed on a table. Because of the orientation of the atomic matrix, the magnet electrons do not produce a repulsive charge from the south pole. The operation of the magnet produces the equivalent of a gravitational shadow at the south pole. So there is an imbalance of forces and the field will act to to push the ball bearing and the magnet together. The gravitational attractive effect on the ball bearing is due to the reduction of repulsive charge effect close to the magnet, which is caused by the operation of the charge emitters in the magnet.

The North pole is producing a repulsive charge that has the effect of realigning the charge emitters in the ball bearing. So the ball bearing is no longer producing a repulsive charge towards the magnet. Again, it is the equivalent of a gravitational shadow, so again, there is an imbalance of forces, and the ball bearing and magnet are pushed together. The operation of charge emitters causes an imbalance of forces, with the net effect that the field pushes the ball bearing in the direction of reduced repulsion.

Electromagnetic advocates often site magnetic attraction as a demonstration of how much weaker gravity is compared to electromagnetism. In yet another irony of misunderstanding, magnetic attraction is the force of gravity, although it is facilitated by charge.

You can see that all and any interaction between bulk matter (electrons, protons, atoms) constitutes an interaction between gravity and charge. The result depends on the relative balance or imbalance of those forces. Atoms are a balance of forces, so planetary bodies may be thought of as gravity, not so much dominating, but controlling charge. Plasmas, where free electrons can be accelerated, tends to show charge dominating gravity. However, in all situations both forces are very much involved, but the resultant effects are quite different.

As always, comments, opinions, questions, criticisms, will be gratefully received.


(note: my calculations are done on a spreadsheet, and so exponents are to 14 decimal places)

[mjv1121]

The bar magnet analysis was a cut and paste from something I wrote a while ago. I just realised that I have neglected to point out that the magnetic effects only become apparent when the secondary object (e.g. a ball bearing) are of a similar atomic structure, i.e. a substance that can be magnetised. It is the coherent reaction of charge emitters in the atomic structure that make the effect possible.

[Bengt Nyman]

N-N repulsion is caused by quantums flowing out against the other magnet and S-S repulsion is caused by quantums flowing in.

I will be thinking about the concept of these little quantum guys...

[mjv1121]

I am not entirely happy with my bar magnet analysis - the ball bearing is pushed toward the magnet, but if you hold the ball bearing the magnet is pushed. Even so, I think it is fairly evident that the field is doing the pushing, or at least I cannot see another charge source doing any pushing.

As regards the quantum field itself: charge MUST be an emission, gravity MUST be a particle field, there is no other physical answer. Also, I am very unhappy with the zoo of QED particles. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, but it is very ugly, super symmetry is twice as ugly. Why would the universe take a more complex route, when a simple quantum particle field is sufficient. Quarks, gluons, W, Z and all the rest are bad theoretical aberrations of bad theory.
Faced with a failure to come up with answers, the Copenhagen posse abandoned physics and attempted to plaster over the problem with invented particles tied together with vastly complex and devious maths. It will not do.

The biggest problem with the quantum field is that it is undetectable, and I wonder if it will ever be technologically possible to detect it.

ah, dinner time....

[GManIM]

Is the acceleration due to a magnetic or electrostatic field a proper or improper acceleration?

[Bengt Nyman]

the quantum field...

I think your Quantum is a clever choice of name. However using the word field rings the wrong bell with me. Physics have used the term field for years to cover things that we have yet to understand and explain. I actually have an aversion to using the word myself because of the undeserved convenience that it has offered us, specifically in regards to magnetism.
I interpret your field more as quantum partial pressure or density. Quantum Pressure maybe. Please correct me if I got you wrong.

Tell me again, how does your Quantum Pressure model differentiate Magnetism from Gravity ?

[mjv1121]

GManIM wrote

Is the acceleration due to a magnetic or electrostatic field a proper or improper acceleration?

Sorry, would you re-phrase, I don't understand what you mean by proper/improper.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

Can't say what the original visualisation of a field was, but perhaps you are right, it may have become too undefined in its "modern" use.

To my mind, I suspect the term was derived more from its agricultural meaning. A field is an area of land filled with a crop - separate blades of grass or wheat. Simply extend this idea into 3-dimensions. You can then replace the crop with particles of your choice or simply unexplained forces.

My field is full of randomly moving marbles or balls. I then visualise the process of collisions with electrons and protons as akin to a bombardment. However, I kind of assume that the electrons and protons would "feel" this bombardment more as a breeze or pressure and as far as they are concerned gravity and charge is the same thing. They are just being jostled about by tiny balls.

Gravity comes from the field - simple classical aether gravity theory. (Right at the beginning of my investigations I derived a theory of particle field - aether gravity. I was very pleased with myself for having solved gravity. Then it occurred to me that such a simple solution may have arisen before. A quick google later and I found that a few others had beaten me to the punch by 300 years.) All electromagnetic forces are caused by charge - charge is what might more conventionally be described a electrostatic charge. The "charge" on an electron or proton is generally and most unscientifically seen as an intrinsic, inherent property of matter. In order to make an attempt at physical sense, the concept of mediating particles has been developed. In QED, it seems that these are either physical or virtual, but always magical - one presumes because maths leads theory. To me the whole idea of made-for-the-job mediating particles is self-evident nonsense. There are two simple principles to be obeyed: 1) no action at a distance, 2) cause and effect; chuck in a bit of Occam's Razor and stir till it reaches logical consistency.

Tell me again, how does your Quantum Pressure model differentiate Magnetism from Gravity ?

Gravity is caused by the field and the presence of bulk matter (it may seem strange to talk of electrons and protons and atoms as "bulk", but an electron is 10^19 quantums and a proton is 10^23). Gravity is all pervasive, acting at all times inside and outside of atoms. You cannot construct a shield against gravity - anti-gravity, in the commonly accepted sense, is not possible. Gravity is a function of bulk matter density and field density.
Magnetism is caused by the emission of quantums from bulk matter. An electron may be emitting charge quantums in all directions, but from the point of view of another electron or proton, the charge is coming from the electron. As far as electrons and protons are concerned there is no difference in the collisions from field or charge - they just go where the quantum wind blows them.
Of course, the charge emission field of a single electron is not usually thought of as magnetism. However, when there are a significant number of electrons being subjected to a significant uni-directional quantum flux, the electrons are tipped face-on to the "current" flow. Now the electrons are emitting their charge coherently in the same plane at right-angles to the current flow. The electrons and any object placed in this magnetic field is still completely under the influence of whatever gravitational shadow/field was there before the current flowed and the magnetic field was initiated. The atomic matrix of most substances do not (apparently) react to the magnetic field. But a magnetisable atomic structure does. It's all about the orientational property of electrons - if there is no imbalance of forces, nothing "unusual" happens, but when there is an imbalance of forces it can be quite interesting.

(I did a quick and dirty calculation to guesstimate the size of quantums. If a proton is 60060 times more dense than an electron, then making the wild, unsubstantiated assumption that a quantum particle is at least 60060 times the density of a proton. This gives a radius around 10^-25 to 10^-26, which I tend to think of as an upper limit. If we then assume that alpha is the field density, then each quantum particle in the field would be half a million diameters away from the next nearest neighbour. As such, a quantum particle travelling through bulk matter free space might be expected to collide with another field quantum every 600-700 light-years.)

[mjv1121]

GManIM asked

Is the acceleration due to a magnetic or electrostatic field a proper or improper acceleration?

Are you referring to proper from in a relativity sense? If so, then the answer would be proper. In fact we live in a proper universe. SR is almost entirely bogus - Einstein's greatest mistake was that he fooled himself.

I am going to be starting on a paper on SR in the very near future.

[GManIM]

Proper acceleration is the acceleration you experience in an accelerating vehicle. For example if you steadily accelerate at 9.8 m/sec you experience a force of 1G in opposition to the direction of acceleration.

Improper acceleration is the acceleration you experience when in a gravitational field. You experience weightlessness and have no idea how much momentum you've picked up until the ground interrupts your Journey To The Centre Of The Earth.

I don't think the distinction automagically appeared in 1915

[mjv1121]

OK, terminology failure.

but, I said

As far as electrons and protons are concerned there is no difference in the collisions from field or charge - they just go where the quantum wind blows them.

This may well be the crux of the issue

...acceleration you experience when in a gravitational field. You experience weightlessness and have no idea how much momentum you've picked

My wine bottle is now less full - I will think on it and reply further once I have slept and sobered

[mjv1121]

GManIM

Proper acceleration is the acceleration you experience in an accelerating vehicle. For example if you steadily accelerate at 9.8 m/sec you experience a force of 1G in opposition to the direction of acceleration.

Improper acceleration is the acceleration you experience when in a gravitational field. You experience weightlessness and have no idea how much momentum you've picked up until the ground interrupts your Journey To The Centre Of The Earth.

I don't think the distinction automagically appeared in 1915

and

The issue of inequivalence of acceleration is an experimentally observed fact and therefore independent of any preferred hypothesis regarding the underlying means by which the gravitational effect operates.

I am currently extremely interested in inertial frames and equivalence and all things SR.
I find both of your posts very intriguing. Would be so kind as to expand and clarify - my brain is whirring with ideas, and I would be grateful for your help.

Michael