Theory of Everything

[Mike C]

A Theory of Everything

 

Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

 

So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled 'Introduction to Atomoc and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed.

On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209.

 

Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing.

There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon! The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

 

So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.

Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not function as it should.

So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF.

 

The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus.

 

However, these fusion binds do not create any energies!

 

The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because of the high velocity variations that the electrons have, to create the photons in these CRs and then work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see.

 

The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus, explains why a 5th particle is not involved. A 5th particle here would not fit along this combination as it has no where to be attached to.

Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.

So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

 

So a new Grand Unified Theory is the result because of serendipity.

This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

 

See URL below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11640-grand-unified-theory.html?highlight=Grand+Unified+Theorypar

 

Mike C

[modest]

I don't think you mean to say atomic number 5 and 8 are missing. They are Boron and Oxygen and they of course have stable isotopes.

 

You are saying there is no arrangement of 5 nucleons or 8 nucleons that makes a stable isotope. That's true. They are the only isotope numbers or nuclide numbers under 209 where that's true.

 

None of these are stable:

 

H-5 (1 proton + 4 neutrons) [imath]_1^5H[/imath]

He-5 (2 protons + 3 neutrons) [imath]_2^5He[/imath]

Li-5 (3 protons + 2 neutron) [imath]_3^5Li[/imath]

Be-5 (4 protons + 1 neutron) [imath]_4^5Be[/imath]

 

He-8 (2 proton + 6 neutrons) [imath]_2^8He[/imath]

Li-8 (3 protons + 5 neutrons) [imath]_3^8Li[/imath]

Be-8 (4 protons + 4 neutrons) [imath]_4^8Be[/imath]

B-8 (5 protons + 3 neutrons) [imath]_5^8B[/imath]

C-8 (6 protons + 2 neutrons) [imath]_6^8C[/imath]

 

Here's a chart of isotopes with these nuclide-number isotopes marked:

 

 

I marked the isotope-5 and isotope-8 one's in pink ??(hot pink)?? :eek2:

 

The black are stable, so you can see how it opens up an apparent gap. How does this support the idea that fusion is not energetic?

 

-modest

[Mike C]

I don't think you mean to say atomic number 5 and 8 are missing. They are Boron and Oxygen and they of course have stable isotopes.

 

You are saying there is no arrangement of 5 nucleons or 8 nucleons that makes a stable isotope. That's true. They are the only isotope numbers or nuclide numbers under 209 where that's true.

 

None of these are stable:

 

H-5 (1 proton + 4 neutrons) [imath]_1^5H[/imath]

He-5 (2 protons + 3 neutrons) [imath]_2^5He[/imath]

Li-5 (3 protons + 2 neutron) [imath]_3^5Li[/imath]

Be-5 (4 protons + 1 neutron) [imath]_4^5Be[/imath]

 

He-8 (2 proton + 6 neutrons) [imath]_2^8He[/imath]

Li-8 (3 protons + 5 neutrons) [imath]_3^8Li[/imath]

Be-8 (4 protons + 4 neutrons) [imath]_4^8Be[/imath]

B-8 (5 protons + 3 neutrons) [imath]_5^8B[/imath]

C-8 (6 protons + 2 neutrons) [imath]_6^8C[/imath]

 

Here's a chart of isotopes with these nuclide-number isotopes marked:

 

 

I marked the isotope-5 and isotope-8 one's in pink ??(hot pink)?? :eek2:

 

The black are stable, so you can see how it opens up an apparent gap. How does this support the idea that fusion is not energetic?

 

-modest

 

The black regions of stable AMN is correct. Those are the ones I am writing about.

 

Yes, atomic number is not AMN.

AN is a paired proton and an electron.

Any excess of that are added neutrons.

 

The only fused nucleons in the Sun are the deuterons that are bound by the strong force(?) that I have replaced by the coulomb/magnetic combination that act as the SF.

 

The helium nucleus is bound by the deuterons 'magnetic' fields only IMO.

 

Mike C

 

 

.

[Jay-qu]

The strong force also bonds what are called quarks together to form protons and neutrons, how does this fit in with your idea?

[Mike C]

The strong force also bonds what are called quarks together to form protons and neutrons, how does this fit in with your idea?

 

It doesn't.

 

Quarks are not real particles. So, to me, they do not exist.

 

You can include the neutrons as well, because they are not stable.

These neutrons are fused electrons and protons in the centers of stars. So when they are separated, their existence is very short at about 10-15 minutes where they decay back to their original electron and proton beginning.

 

To me, there are only two particles that are stable and constitute the formation of all elements and that is the E/P pair.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Quarks are not real particles. So, to me, they do not exist.

 

Are electrons and photons real?

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Are electrons and photons real?

 

-modest

 

Yes.

Although the photons are not particles, they are components of the electric fields that surround the electrons.

On another thread, I defined them as a 'condensed congregate' of the electric field particles that compose the EM fields.

These field particles (exremely microscopic) are real, not virtual, because these fields are real as proven by their 'action at a distance'.

 

My post on the 'Creation of Photons' is buried somewhere in the past and would have to be searched for.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

How can you say they are any less real than the proton or electron? atom smashers collide protons and observe these particles directly - how can they not exsist?

[Erasmus00]

How can you say they are any less real than the proton or electron? atom smashers collide protons and observe these particles directly - how can they not exsist?

 

A note for clarity- quarks have never been directly observed due to what is called "confinement"- it is energetically favorable to pull a quark/anti-quark pair from the vacuum to bind with a rogue quark, hence quarks are never seen free. The exception might be the top quark which is so heavy it decays before it can go through this process. However, it is so short lived it hasn't been DIRECTLY observed.

 

There are, however, piles of indirect evidence.

-Will

[Mike C]

How can you say they are any less real than the proton or electron? atom smashers collide protons and observe these particles directly - how can they not exsist?

 

The nuclear fragmentations are not 'natural' particles, IMO.

When these particles are fragmented, there was a 'shower' of fragments.

They do not fragment into just 3 quarks, as far as I know. I do not follow this research and do not consider it relavent to the universes origin since I consider the BBT as not realistic.

The BBT is nothing but a theory of questions rather than answers.

 

Mike C

[Little Bang]

I take it then the universe is static and you have irrefutable evidence that proves your contention. I tend to agree with you about the electron and proton but we still have a need to understand how they are constructed. Quantum mechanics says that they too have a particle wave duality and I think this equation, ( f=MC^2/h ) lends a great deal of credence to that statement. The electron exhibits a great deal more of the particle wave duality than the proton. The frequency of a particle may determine how likely it is to be observed as particle. The more massive the more likely it will be observed as a particle. Someone needs to figure out how the relationship with EMR and matter got turned into electrons and protons.

[Erasmus00]

Someone needs to figure out how the relationship with EMR and matter got turned into electrons and protons.

 

I'm not sure I understand what this means.

-Will

[Jay-qu]

quarks have never been directly observed due to what is called "confinement" ..

Apologies, one should always double check before posting - thanks for the clarification

 

The nuclear fragmentations are not 'natural' particles, IMO.

When these particles are fragmented, there was a 'shower' of fragments.

 

Not very 'fundamental' particles then are they!

[Little Bang]

Eras, I won't set myself up as qualified to judge the validity of the above mentioned equation but if it is valid then it shows a relationship between EMR and mass. So I ask the question, does mass produce EMR or does EMR produce mass? If the latter what process causes this transition.

[Mike C]

I take it then the universe is static and you have irrefutable evidence that proves your contention.

 

I prefer tp call my SSU as a steady state rather than a static universe.

In this scenereo, the space is flat (static) but the internal galactic clusters and other such objects are all in motion.

 

The evidence is that we know that stars age into old 'neutron stars and new stars are being created. This should tell you that stars are being recycled continuously.

 

I tend to agree with you about the electron and proton but we still have a need to understand how they are constructed. Quantum mechanics says that they too have a particle wave duality and I think this equation, ( f=MC^2/h ) lends a great deal of credence to that statement. The electron exhibits a great deal more of the particle wave duality than the proton. The frequency of a particle may determine how likely it is to be observed as particle. The more massive the more likely it will be observed as a particle. Someone needs to figure out how the relationship with EMR and matter got turned into electrons and protons.

 

The electron and the proton were the most researched particles in science.

They are real and have individual masses , sizes and 'intrinsic' forces that attract and repel that accounts for their characteristics.

Also included in these forces are the 'magnetic' component that is variable and relative to the particle velocities.

 

The dual nature of the electron is due to its movements as an interacting particle due to these intrinsic forces.

The double slit exoeriment does not prove that it is actually transformed into a wave, My opinion is that as the electron passes through the slits, it interacts with the electrons that compose the sides of the slits (matter electrons) to create the wave patterns.

So this is the result of interactions between the passing electron and the matter electrons along the sides of the slits.

So the forces create the waves that the particles exhibit.

 

There is no transformation of the particles into just waves.

In the Bohr Model of the hydrogen atom, the electron circles the proton as a continuous wave to create a one angstrom wave that iis radiated by the electric field that surrouinds the electron. However, these fields are the carriers of the photons that we observe and are not detected normally by our senses.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Apologies, one should always double check before posting - thanks for the clarification

 

Not very 'fundamental' particles then are they!

 

Yes, these fragmentations do not split into the 3 components that supposedly forms the protons and neutrons, as far as I know.

 

Can any nuclear experts comment on that?

 

Mike C

[Rade]

A Theory of Everything...

Mike, I have a few questions that come from this table of isotopes:

Isotope table (complete) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

1. How does your model (theory) account for the lack of any stable isotopes at mass no. 147 and 151 ? (same as for mass no. 5 and 8).

 

2. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of protons (Z) is 43 and 61 ?

 

3. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of neutrons (N) is 19, 21, 35, 39, 45, 61, 115, 123 ?

 

Seems to me that any complete model (theory) of nucleon structure for beta stable isotopes from Z = 1 (H) to 92 (Pb) must also show how strong force accounts for these above anomalies, not just the missing stable isotopes at mass no. 5 and 8--is that not correct ?