Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Unifying Gravitation And The Strong Force


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 06:57 AM

See this thread in this forum for the PDF file:http://www.sciencefo...s-of-the-earth/

 

I have found that gravitation may be a form of the strong force. There may exist a maximum logarithmic strain of ~40. I can use the proton force to calculate the gravitational constant:

 

rK = (2GKe^2/c^4)^1/2

 

And rS is the Schwarzschild radius:

 

rS = 2Gmp/c^2

 

ln(rK/rS) = dr

 

Gmp^2/(dr*rp) = 3/10 * mpc^2/(4π* dr^2 * exp(2 * dr))

 

Where rK is the charge factor for black holes of the elementary charge, rS is the Schwarzschild radius, G  is the gravitational constant, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light, mp is the proton mass, dr is the logarithmic strain, rp is the proton wavelength.

 

This equation also works closely using the electron.


Edited by devin553344, 26 December 2019 - 07:34 AM.


#2 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 09:44 AM

Eeeeeerrr

#3 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 09:37 AM

I updated the OP pdf file with a unification of strong force and gravitation. It's here: http://www.sciencefo...s-of-the-earth/

 

I didn't feel like typing it all out on the thread.

 

The pdf file spells out why the electron and proton are stable, and how they're stabilized via logarithmic strain.



#4 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 03:27 AM

Oops. slight typo in the pdf file. I had the electron and median particle and proton stated reciprocal to what they really are. I fixed the typo and updated the file.



#5 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1897 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 09:52 AM

This is incorrect your equations don't describe the SNF nor gravity, have you seen the equations that govern the SNF or gravity?

 

media-85e-85e5a4e4-4b79-413a-addd-6c34b0


Edited by VictorMedvil, 07 January 2020 - 09:57 AM.


#6 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 11:20 AM

This is incorrect your equations don't describe the SNF nor gravity, have you seen the equations that govern the SNF or gravity?

 

media-85e-85e5a4e4-4b79-413a-addd-6c34b0

Sorry for the confusion. I was unifying my strong force theory with gravitation.

 

In my theory I quoted the value for the simplest atom "Deuteron" and it calculates the binding exactly to 4-5 digits of accuracy. I doubt you'll get that kind of accuracy with Yukawa potential.

 

Yukawa uses a particle exchange concept from particle accelerator and smasher concepts which I consider as incorrect physics.

 

I'm using a concept similar to logarithmic strain of the wavelength. But rather inverse logarithmic strain. And it all originates from energy that's already accessible: mc^2


Edited by devin553344, 07 January 2020 - 12:09 PM.


#7 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 11:31 AM

 

 

 

I read that Einstein wrote that he believed the electromagnetic fields of the earth were created from a charge imbalance in the particles that make up the earth.

 

 

 

 

Have you ever come across Kaluza Klein theory or 5 dimensional space https://en.wikipedia...mensional_space you might find it interesting or not as the case may be.

 

"Much of the early work on five-dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental interactions in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetismGerman mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century.[1]"

 

Adding extra dimensions gives you more freedom. The Holographic Principle is effectively an extra dimension allowing different points in 4D space time to be directly connected.

 

 

 

I read that Einstein wrote that he believed the electromagnetic fields of the earth were created from a charge imbalance in the particles that make up the earth.

 

 

 



#8 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 11:39 AM

Have you ever come across Kaluza Klein theory or 5 dimensional space https://en.wikipedia...mensional_space you might find it interesting or not as the case may be.

 

"Much of the early work on five-dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental interactions in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetismGerman mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century.[1]"

 

Adding extra dimensions gives you more freedom. The Holographic Principle is effectively an extra dimension allowing different points in 4D space time to be directly connected.

 

Thanks. I'll take a look at it. I've often thought of a 4th axis as an axis that allows objects of 3 dimensions to pass thru each other. Change their positions on the 4th axis so that they cannot collide. But that sounds like ghosts and spirits and probably doesn't affect the 3 dimensional physics? Not sure.



#9 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 11 January 2020 - 02:55 PM

I'm switching the proton definition with the following which uses a logarithmic strain from 1/3 the neutron to an electron. This should allow electron characteristics for the neutron and proton as 3 electron-like particles which weigh 1/3 the proton. Strong force is employed along with a final charge assembly energy for the proton:

 

rC = rp^2/re * ln((mpc^2)/(3mec^2))

 

mpc^2 = 3Ke^2/rC + Ke^2/(rC * 4πexp(2)) - 1/2 * Ke^2/rp

 

Where rC is the charge orbit radius, rp is the proton wavelength, re is the electron wavelength, mp is the proton mass, c is the speed of light, me is the electron mass, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge.


Edited by devin553344, 12 January 2020 - 12:27 PM.


#10 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:42 AM

I also added to the pdf file in the OP the logarithmic strain that holds the electron and proton matter energy from radiating.



#11 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 03:13 PM

I solved the unification of the strong force and gravitation. I define the proton as a relativistic increase 3 dimensional. This makes the proton a total curvature of space-time and does as Einstein proclaimed: that gravitation is a curvature of space-time. Now I will describe the proton as a curvature of space-time. The logarithm strain of the proton wavelength to electron wavelength provides the relativistic length contraction:

 

y = (1 + 1/(4πexp(2)))

 

mpc^2 = mec^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3

 

Where y is the strong force contribution to the length contraction, mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light, and me is the mass of the electron, rp is the wavelength of the proton, re is the wavelength of the electron.


Edited by devin553344, 17 January 2020 - 01:10 PM.


#12 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 05:44 PM

The Planck constant might follow the same example and be a 3 dimensional tensor based off of logarithmic strain:

 

y = (1 - 1/(4πexp(2)))

 

hc = 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3

 

Where y is a reduction of the strong force, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, rp is the wavelength of the proton or neutron, re is the wavelength of the electron.


Edited by devin553344, 17 January 2020 - 01:10 PM.


#13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1897 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 07:05 PM

The Planck constant might follow the same example and be a 3 dimensional tensor based off of logarithmic strain:

 

y = 1 - 1/(4πexp(2))

 

hc = 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3

 

Where y is a reduction of the strong force, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, rp is the wavelength of the proton or neutron, re is the wavelength of the electron.

 

I wanted to point out again that these equation are incorrect as the values of the equations are not equal, meaning the equation is incorrect and flawed in some way, as the values of hc = 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3 don't match as hc ≠ 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3


Edited by VictorMedvil, 16 January 2020 - 07:07 PM.


#14 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 07:40 AM

I wanted to point out again that these equation are incorrect as the values of the equations are not equal, meaning the equation is incorrect and flawed in some way, as the values of hc = 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3 don't match as hc ≠ 1/2 * Ke^2 * 4/3 * π * (ln(rp/re) * y)^3

 

Not sure I'm following you. That calculation is about 4 digits accurate.

 

Many equations have been accepted that are less equal. For instance the magnetic moment of the proton is slightly equal: https://en.wikipedia...magnetic_moment. I think you might be splitting hairs here. Or do you mean something else, because my proton from electron is equal to 6 digits of accuracy. The fine structure is less equal. But you should be seeing that my strong force equation is correct as it matches to 6 digits.

 

If you're not finding accurate equality then might I suggest that you might not be calculating correctly? For instance, you should be getting the following value when calculating the proton from the electron energy strain in post #11: 1.503 268E-10 Joules, which is precise.

 

P.S. I'm using natural exponents and logarithms just in case you didn't catch that.


Edited by devin553344, 17 January 2020 - 12:46 PM.


#15 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 21 January 2020 - 12:59 PM

I've created a unification idea which stems from the 3 dimensional strong force. It allows a pressure drop against the wavelength which bends space via the pressure and allows gravitation to be a curvature of space-time. For the pressure drop I have used a parallel to the boiling point equation:

 

y = (1 - 1/(4πexp(2))^1/2

 

E = mc^2/(4πexp(2))

 

3/5 * Gm^2/r = E * 1/exp(mc^2/E * y +- ln(re/rp))

 

Where E is the energy of the 3 dimensional strong force at the wavelength, m is the mass of the electron or proton, c is the speed of light, G is the gravitational constant, r is the wavelength of the electron or proton, re is the wavelength of the electron and rp is the wavelength of the proton. The proton is plus the natural log of re/rp whereas the electron is minus.

 

This equation is about 5 digits accurate for either the electron or proton.


Edited by devin553344, 21 January 2020 - 05:52 PM.