First, I respectfully oppose the idea that a theory is a hypothesis; that is the lead-title sub-forum here. My theory is not a hypothesis. It's rather a prediction of quantum mechanics.

It has been standard approach to give certain forces between particles the inverse square law - one which governs the strength of interactions over a given volume. It certainly holds true for both the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force.

Therefore, in certain models in theories which deal with forces between particles (given by a distance r

_{ij}) then we can graph unique ways to veiw spin as well along the axes which the force is entailed with. A way to achieve this is by introducing a new kind of equation in physics which I will present soon.

If one considers a specific force equation, which is given in full detail here:

http://www.ilovephysics.com/forum/t3631-Gravitational-Equation-Derived-Spin-Force-Relationship.html (Atleast in mathematical detail) - I give a narrow view of it's interpetation here, but I will give a fuller one here.

One may assume multiple modes of calculations from just the single force equation. Not once in quantum physics history have I ever heard of a ''force-along an axis'' but if quantum mechanics is really the correct approach, then such a force should exist - assume for a moment that a particle is never truely at rest as it is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Because of this, particles constantly have a force exerted on them along a specific trajectory - one which follows an axis of angular momentum. Afterall, angular momentum (spin) only ever makes sense in a calculation when we consider it along some dimensionsional axis - so such an equation would predict something new: not only a force present but one unified along a specific trajectory, one which has a trajectory coupled with a spin possibility.

In my original representation, I considered the force, angles of the spin and spin itself all in the one equation: later I attempt to justify this using the Larmor Energy. Using a few substitutions it shows that my equation was (whilst a force equation) was structurally-similar to the Larmour Energy. I actually did not realize such a similiarity until after I derived the force equation.

I further try and strengthen it using different ''statistical approaches'' but they are really irrelevant since I really desire the force equation in it's fullest to be discussed.

So, one final time, I will literate what the math is saying about the force equation: The equation can be decomposed for either particles (i) or (j). The measure the distance between the two particles: one can use trigonometry as well from my calculations since we can find the angle. So a few multiple uses already. It calculates the force of interaction between two particles, assumed to very high for unit lengths. As seperation diverges, the particles interactions (in a physical sense) become weaker, but an entanglement could still be connected to each system if they interacted accordingly at short distance.

So the equation describes the force exhange of virtual particles

*potentially*. It also describes a new quantum effect, ''a force along an axis of spin''. That spin itself is what can be coupled to a force: which is a vector field coupling to the spin mechanics. So for two particles shooting off in perpendicular directions, one can say the force-spin equation describes the force linearly (that is along it's given trajectory) and it describes the perpendicular force between the said objects. I do show however that the Ising Model is really the static case of my model. The force can be extracted from realizing relativistic equations when considering the Ising Spin Energy term. There may be more unique ways to investigate that further by proving my model is just a more advanced case, but I haven't found it yet.