Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: samcottle on 28/03/2023 05:15:58
-
Hi, I thought I'd post a bit of a draft paper I'm working on trying to summarise a few years' independent work on the problem of quantum gravity. I've come at the problem very much from a philosophy/humanities background with about the same level of mathematical sophistication as Michael Faraday, i.e. not much. I reasoned that, while a huge amount of mathematical excellence has been thrown at this problem of quantum gravity, not a huge amount of progress has been made. I thought maybe it'd take someone who could, so to speak, see the wood for the trees might have a better chance (no offence to anyone's mathematical abilities). Here's the paper:
A Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?
By Mr. SP Cottle.
Abstract:
If a unification exists between electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, it follows that there may exist some extension to that framework incorporating gravity. The resulting ‘gravitoelectroweak’ interaction would manifest as the summed exchanges, between bodies consisting of atomic material, of W+ and W- particles with tunneling electrons in the background. These background electrons would form something akin to the spin foams (or spin networks) of loop quantum gravity and would lead to a Dirac Sea permeating space. Therefore, the loop quantum gravity model would be supported as would Felix Finster’s suggestion of a causal fermion system. The specifics, however, of how gravity would be transmitted between particles at distance comes from the tunneling of electromagnetic particles (electrons) exchanging W particles with protons and other positively-charged particles. The impact of these electrons on subatomic particles could be tested by, for instance, testing the g-factor of the muon in space. According to this hypothesis, in microgravity, the g-factor of the muon ought to roughly accord with the predictions of the standard model.
Introduction: Electron Densities and Gauge Fields.
The interaction that would lead to the macroscopic force of gravity is the exchange of a W- for a W+ between a foreign electron and a local proton. The electron would tunnel from one atom, at a distance separate from the atom containing the proton, and exchange the W- for a W+ leading the two atoms (to which the foreign electron and local proton belong) moving closer together. Therefore, as an atom (containing a proton) falls into a foreign electron density (gravitational field) it experiences the exchange of several W- particles for several W+ between its own proton and the electrons in the gravitational field into which it’s falling. The greater the density of electrons, the greater the macroscopic force of gravitation. Hence, in regions of high gravitational potential such as near the event horizon of a black hole, we find a greater number of these background, or gravitational, electrons. These electrons diminish in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the surface of the object to which they belong.
The electrons comprising the gravitational field also, of course, reflect light and give rise to the reflective capacity of bodies as established in the theory of general relativity. For instance, in a system that causes the gravitational lensing of light around an object, the photons would be hitting electrons and become trapped between electrons in the gravitational field; probability would dictate that most photons would be deflected either towards, or away from, the object in question, though a certain number would be channeled around the object for us to observe as this effect of gravitational lensing. A number of other macroscopic effects could also be anticipated in this theoretical framework, such as the accelerating expansion of the universe; the universe would be reflecting photons between galaxy clusters and photons would be building up between galaxy clusters as a result, and the radiation pressure from these buildups would then be leading to the expansion of the observed universe.
Another intriguing facet of this model is that the simultaneous exchange of a W+ and W- between a proton and a gravitational electron would create a massless, spin-2 gauge field in the interstitial space between the electron and proton. However, this gauge field would exist only for the briefest of moments at an incredibly small length scale (never greater than the electroweak range). Though the W particles, when observed in particle accelerators, have mass, in this scenario their like-signed charges cause their masses to cancel. There is an admittedly obscure relationship in this regard between mass and charge, however, to clarify things I’ll suffice it to say that the attraction and repulsion between charges gives rise to the resistive quality associated with mass and gravitation; the clouds of electrons I describe surrounding massive bodies give rise to a force of attraction over other atomic material traveling through them, though they also create resistance due to the mutual repulsion between the gravitational electrons and the electrons comprising the foreign atomic materials. The mutual attraction of the W+ and W- can be seen as two naked charges of exact equivalence canceling one another; it’s important to note however that the electron is still attracted to the W+ and the proton is still attracted to the W-; as such, in this four-body system, there is still the net tendency for the electron and the proton to move towards one another.
The Primary and Secondary electron density.
This has thus far been one of the more unpopular ideas of this hypothesis. However, as a pedagogical mechanism, and a general aid to clarifying these ideas and separating which electrons form the gravitational field and which electrons’ influence are directly canceled by the presence of a nuclear proton, I’ve come to refer to primary and secondary electron densities. For instance, those electrons that appear up to and including the Van der Waals radius of an atom would be part of the primary electron density whereas any that exist (for a given time) beyond that point would be part of the secondary electron density. The secondary electron density contains gravitational electrons and the electrons comprising the primary electron density do not, as such, have any input into the force of gravity. That said, from a certain philosophical perspective; and from the perspective of unifying forces; we might say that the primary density electrons exert a force of gravitation over the proton in the nucleus of the atoms to which they belong. This is only if we’re conflating the force of electromagnetism with the force of gravity. I grant that, in doing so, we’d be extending our understanding of the force of gravity (and probably also of electromagnetism), but the idea that they’re one and the same force in a total sense is somewhat beyond the scope of this paper.
To calculate the number of electrons comprising the secondary electron density, and thereby contributing to the force of gravity as it’s classically understood, one must first take the number of atoms (since this applied to objects formed of atomic materials), multiply that by the average atomic number of the materials in question, and then divide by the ratio between the force of gravity and the force of electrostatic repulsion. The resulting equation is:
(eq.1)
This equation can also be made time-dependent and, in some circumstances, this is necessary since for certain bodies a non-sensible number of electrons in the secondary density will be derived using this method. For example, if you were to impute the number of atoms and average atomic number for a hydrogen atom, you’d end up with a number far smaller than one; this is ok for certain calculations, but others require the time-dependent equation. The amount of time an electron remains in a given position is equal to the amount of time it can remain at a given location in space without interacting with another particle. Given that we clearly live in a soup of quantum particles, I’ve estimated this number to be the Plack time; i.e. the smallest amount of time with any physical meaning. The time-dependent equation is:
(eq.2)
One can use this first equation then, with Coulomb’s law, to produce a figure for the force of gravity between two hydrogen atoms that differs only slightly from the results obtained using Newton’s law for universal gravitation. The reason for the slight variance in the results is the influence of radiation pressure between two bodies. Newton’s constant and Newton’s law are derived from the observation of massive bodies and hence account implicitly for the influence of radiation pressure whereas Coulomb’s law does not. Through exploring this relationship, and symmetry, between Coulomb’s Law and Newton’s, we might come to a clearer understanding of how gravity unifies with electromagnetism. It takes the problems here in a seemingly somewhat back-to-front manner, however, following from establishing the relationship between the two laws and how they interrelate, we can then integrate the weak force into the picture relatively easily through considering the beta decay of the neutron.
-
This is nothing but word salad.
I did get a kick out of equations 1 & 2. Mathematical equations generally are mathematical equations not a paragraph of text.
-
This is nothing but word salad.
I did get a kick out of equations 1 & 2. Mathematical equations generally are mathematical equations not a paragraph of text.
I suspect that the cut and paste operation decided to save us the trouble of reading the equations.
It may have been wise.
-
The test of a hypothesis is the accuracy of its predictions. I don't see any.
-
The test of a hypothesis is the accuracy of its predictions. I don't see any.
To be a hypothesis, it needs to be meaningful.
I think it fell at the zeroth hurdle.
-
The electron would tunnel from one atom, at a distance separate from the atom containing the proton, and exchange the W- for a W+ leading the two atoms (to which the foreign electron and local proton belong) moving closer together.
The probability of an electron tunneling over astronomical distances is absurdly unlikely, so that doesn't make for a good explanation for how planets can stay in orbit around a star.
-
The electron would tunnel from one atom, at a distance separate from the atom containing the proton, and exchange the W- for a W+ leading the two atoms (to which the foreign electron and local proton belong) moving closer together.
The probability of an electron tunneling over astronomical distances is absurdly unlikely, so that doesn't make for a good explanation for how planets can stay in orbit around a star.
Can you tell me how unlikely it is? It's unlikely in any case that the electron would tunnel beyond the Van der Waals radius, though (contrary to what you might think) the unlikelihood of something happening doesn't mean that it never happens; it means that it happens with regularity only not very often. If you then take into consideration the unfathomable numbers of electrons in say this galaxy then you'd get a clearer picture of how the probabilities and unlikelihood of events happening are somewhat absorbed under those very large numbers. Also read Finster's papers on causal fermion systems, they are very enlightening (as is a good book on LQG), and not all that far away from what I've proposed here. Try to post something more helpful next time (I have, of course, thought about this). I'm sorry you people failed to understand something, but there's no reason I ought to have to tolerate gaslighting and abuse, like some of the comments here.
-
The test of a hypothesis is the accuracy of its predictions. I don't see any.
I stated in the abstract that this hypothesis predicts that the g-factor of the muon would accord with the predictions of the standard model in microgravity. I predicted a while ago that the deviations from the standard model predictions are accounted for due to the experiments being carried out in Earth's gravity well and that the observed differences in the g-factor between locations can be accounted for considering the differing heights above sea level at the locations where the experiments were carried out (i.e. at Fermilab versus the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).
-
Can you tell me how unlikely it is?
Practically impossible.
Could it happen once... yes.
Twice... maybe.
Often enough to be a significant factor in how the universe works,,, no.
-
This is nothing but word salad.
I did get a kick out of equations 1 & 2. Mathematical equations generally are mathematical equations not a paragraph of text.
Word salad. Or you're too stupid to understand the words and so revert to discrimination and gaslighting.
-
Let's not hurl insults.
Can you tell me how unlikely it is?
The distance factor in the tunneling probability equation is actual an exponent, so increases in length scale massively decrease tunneling odds: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Quantum_Mechanics/7.07%3A_Quantum_Tunneling_of_Particles_through_Potential_Barriers#:~:text=L%3De24%CF%80,it%20is%20to%20tunnel%20through.
That website does some example calculations. For barrier of 1 nanometer, the calculated probability for the low energy electron is 1.7% x 10-4. When that barrier distance is increased to 5 nanometers, the probability drops drastically to 2.1% x 10-36. If I plug a micrometer distance into the equation (1,000 nanometers), then the probability I get drops profoundly to 1.792% x 10-7,709. There very probably has never been such an unlikely event to occur in the history of the visible Universe. That's just a micrometer. Millions of kilometers is just not feasible.
-
Or you're too stupid to understand the words and so revert to discrimination and gaslighting.
Pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about is not discrimination.
-
Let's not hurl insults.
Can you tell me how unlikely it is?
The distance factor in the tunneling probability equation is actual an exponent, so increases in length scale massively decrease tunneling odds: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Quantum_Mechanics/7.07%3A_Quantum_Tunneling_of_Particles_through_Potential_Barriers#:~:text=L%3De24%CF%80,it%20is%20to%20tunnel%20through.
That website does some example calculations. For barrier of 1 nanometer, the calculated probability for the low energy electron is 1.7% x 10-4. When that barrier distance is increased to 5 nanometers, the probability drops drastically to 2.1% x 10-36. If I plug a micrometer distance into the equation (1,000 nanometers), then the probability I get drops profoundly to 1.792% x 10-7,709. There very probably has never been such an unlikely event to occur in the history of the visible Universe. That's just a micrometer. Millions of kilometers is just not feasible.
I've come across this before. You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you? There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances, or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect. The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately. I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).
-
Also, the tunneling electrons (from their bound state around atomic nuclei) would encounter potential barriers at some points, but would otherwise largely be tunneling through empty space. I think part of the problem here is that we don't consider electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei to be tunneling at all, I don't know why either. They certainly don't orbit the nucleus like the Moon orbits the Earth. Hence they must constantly be tunneling to different locations around the nucleus and forming a cloud of probability (that we're familiar with) surrounding atomic nuclei. For reasons, largely due to the composition of the background, I suspect free electrons would, you're right, not be able to tunnel to very great distances.
-
You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?
One of the more memorable mutterings of a Uni lecturer that I recall was one of them saying " you can't paint an electron purple".
He was making the point that you can't label an electron (The proof is to do with exchange proprieties).
So, while it's true that wee are considering free electrons, it's also not relevant.
All electrons behave the same because none of them "knows" that it's free or not.
More importantly, we always do tunnelling experiments with bound electrons, for example the ones in a tunnelling electron microscope tunnel from being bound to the sample to being bound by the probe tip.
This sort of thing (i.e. there are two well known reasons that you are wrong) is why we point out that you are wrong.
That's not "discrimination and gaslighting".
And even if this
Or you're too stupid to understand the words
was true, it would still be your fault for being unclear, wouldn't it?
-
I was referencing the 'word salad' remark, but never mind. Electron microscopes do not use bound state electrons, they fire a beam of electrons through a sample and then detect the electrons. What are you talking about?
-
n.b. just to head you off at the pass, they do not use bound electrons from the probe tip, they pass a current through the sample (i.e. free electrons).
-
BC was referencing the scanning tunnelling electron microscope, not the "regular" electron microscope.
-
Also, the tunneling electrons (from their bound state around atomic nuclei) would encounter potential barriers at some points, but would otherwise largely be tunneling through empty space.
Electrons don't tunnel through empty space, your statement makes no sense.
They certainly don't orbit the nucleus like the Moon orbits the Earth. Hence they must constantly be tunneling to different locations around the nucleus
Since electrons don't orbit the nucleus like the moon they must be tunneling? Nope, your wrong. Electrons are quantum objects and an electrons orbital acts like a standing wave, not a particle tunneling here and there.
I was referencing the 'word salad' remark, but never mind.
The only reason I used the term 'word salad' is because your OP is word salad. The OP uses a lot of science terms but there is little or no actual science in there.
The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.
I don't see any model (there is zero math, hence no model) just arm waving.
However I could be wrong, maybe this is some great new idea, so all you have to do is use this 'model' to explain anything. I look forward to seeing your example.
-
n.b. just to head you off at the pass, they do not use bound electrons from the probe tip, they pass a current through the sample (i.e. free electrons).
Tunnelling microscopes do use tunnelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
I personally assisted with the (re)installation of the first (or maybe second) commercial STEM in the UK.
What's your background?
-
The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside
Then please demonstrate some.
-
Considering that all massive objects could be thought of as having huge clouds of electrons (which would be their gravitational fields) surrounding them, these clouds of particles would have been reflecting light since the beginning of the universe and hence the expansion of the universe may be explained as a buildup of radiation between galaxy clusters. The radiation pressure would produce the effects we attribute to dark energy. I don't see how your experience with STEM microscopes are relevant if you don't know that they operate using a current passed through the sample.
-
How could "huge clouds of electrons" be a gravitational field?
-
They'd exchange W particles with the protons in other objects.
-
Considering that all massive objects could be thought of as having huge clouds of electrons (which would be their gravitational fields) surrounding them,
That's ridiculous.
these clouds of particles would have been reflecting light since the beginning of the universe and hence the expansion of the universe may be explained as a buildup of radiation between galaxy clusters.
That's ridiculous too. How could radiation build up. This means there are more photons now than there use to be? How could a photon expand space time? A photon can give it's momentum to a mass but how could a photon expand space?
-
Considering that all massive objects could be thought of as having huge clouds of electrons (which would be their gravitational fields) surrounding them
A huge crowd of electrons would explode due to the electrostatic repulsion. I don't see how your experience with STEM microscopes are relevant if you don't know that they operate using a current passed through the sample.
You only hallucinated that I don't know how they operate. I was citing the evidence that your delusion was impossible.
-
You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?
How does that make any significant difference?
There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances
Sounds like something you made up in order to avoid having your model falsified by the available data.
or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect.
What's your evidence for that?
The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.
I don't see how. Your model doesn't seem to make quantifiable predictions. Can you do the math showing what the strength of gravity should be in your model? Can you do the same thing in terms of prediction the value of gravitational lensing of light?
Do you have a reference for the exchange of W bosons creating an attractive force?
I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).
Do you have a citation for this?
-
I don't think I hallucinated anything, you seemed to be implying that the bound state electrons in the tip of the probe of the stem microscope are excited to take the image. That is not the truth. A current of free electrons is passed through the sample and then detected by the probe. That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them. I can imagine this ending (if it ever does) in utter tedium, so I'm tempted to leave.
-
you seemed to be implying that the bound state electrons in the tip of the probe of the stem microscope are excited to take the image
And that's your hallucination.
I didn't imply that.That is not the truth. A current of free electrons is passed through the sample and then detected by the probe. That is how it works.
As I pointed out, I have known for a long time how they work.
And, as I said, that's why I'm unlikely to have said what you imagined that I did.
-
That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them.
That's not really what you've done. When confronted with something that completely prevents your model from working (by many, many, many, many orders of magnitude), you come up with something for which (1) there is no evidence and (2) doesn't even have a decent description. Your only statement about it is that it's a "special rule/principle". With that kind of reasoning, you can come up with an idea that goes against any observed phenomenon. For example, I could have a model where cells are powered by nuclear fusion. The immediate response to that is that cells are nowhere near hot enough for fusion to occur. Then I handwave that by saying there is a "special rule/principle" that allows it to occur in cells at low temperatures and pressure, despite there being zero evidence for this rule and no mechanism describing how it works.
You also haven't provided a reference where W bosons are observed to create an attractive force. Every time I've gone looking, I've found no references to the weak nuclear force being either attractive or repulsive.
There's also another problem: quantum tunneling only allows particles to travel to locations that are equal to or less than the energy level that they were originally at (otherwise, the first law of thermodynamics is violated). In order for an electron to tunnel up and out of the Earth, it would have to travel up against a gravitational potential. The only way that can happen would be if there was some location beyond Earth where the potential energy of the electron could be less than it is on Earth (in the Sun, for example). It could not tunnel, for instance, into me. My own gravitational field is far too weak and thus the tunneling electron would have to gain potential energy in order to do that (which is forbidden).
Then comes the question of how things that are neither electrons or protons experience gravitational attraction. Neutron drop experiments have been performed and they are observed to free fall. How does that happen in your model?
-
"More importantly, we always do tunneling experiments with bound electrons, for example the ones in a tunneling electron microscope tunnel from being bound to the sample to being bound by the probe tip." If we can have a discussion without a nosedive into offensively asserting mental illness, I'm open to that. This is the quote of yours I was referencing. These are not 'bound' electrons, but free electrons that feel a force of attraction to the probe tip. The interesting question here is what makes them feel a force of attraction to begin with. They're electrons, so they're clearly not attracted to the electrons in the probe tip, and so could only be attracted to the protons in the probe tip. This is over very small length scales, so the possibility for this being the case is not omitted by what we know about the probability amplitudes for electrons tunneling. That said, we know nothing about the probability amplitudes for electrons tunneling from true bound states around atomic nuclei; I do appreciate what your professor said about not being able to paint electrons purple, fine; there still exists some chance I suspect that the environment of the electron is somewhat different in a bound state around a nucleus as opposed to being a freely flowing particle, for one thing it wouldn't be encountering background electrons with the same frequency, or in the same way. There is also, granted, a potential for some kind of 'flow' of electrons between different atoms; this doesn't undermine, but somewhat supports (imo) my argument. Someone else brought up the issue of standing waves and I would propose that the particle nature of the electron manifests as the appearance of a standing wave by appearing and disappearing some huge number of times per second while remaining in a given region; the bound particle would sometimes appear, very occasionally, at astronomical stances and exert a force of attraction over foreign protons, that's the basic idea. A sort of extended Van der Waals force if you like. Given flows of electrons, and being unable to 'paint them purple', we might in reality be dealing with some form of plenum of negative charge underlying our entire cosmos and creating a huge amount of force (some of which manifests as gravitation; or, gravitation is a secondary effect of that plenum of particles) and both 'free' and 'bound' particles are manifestations of that plenum; a sort of illusion created by it, so to speak. Then there's additional subtleties in dealing with faster than light particles, such as the possibility (already explored, by Feynman, who had some clever rebuttal to it that I can't remember atm) that perhaps there is only one electron in the universe; but this in itself connects to the idea that the electrical field exhibits a kind of unity, an idea that seems to inherently undermine quantum theory at a gestalt level. In fairness to you, I did faintly misapprehend what you said about electrons in the microscope, though not by much; by that logic, we use bound electrons to take photographs and in everything else; clearly, it's not a bound state electron producing the image, it's a flow of free particles; you were being misleading. Someone else wanted a citation for what I said about string theory; it was David Tong's lecture notes.
-
Kryptid: I think there's probably quite a lot of evidence for it. If we're looking for a quantum to explain the reflective capacity of stars, galaxies, etc, the electron would make a good candidate since it absorbs and emits photons (loads of evidence for that, obviously). There's evidence from supernovae also that neutrinos are not affected to the same extent as light particles by the collapse of stars; these are uncharged and hence I think probably the best explanation for why light particles are affected by stellar collapses and neutrinos aren't is because some number of particles exists in the gravitational field that absorbs light and leaves neutrinos unaffected. We know that electrons rarely interact with neutrinos and we know they interact all the time with particles of light. Then there are the muon g-2 results that I suspect also indicate that a charged particle causes the value of the muon g-factor to be so great; the muon is a heavy electron and so, when passed at high speeds through a gravitational field, formed of electrons, would be getting buffeted by electrons in the gravity field constantly and this would amplify the g-factor. Then there's more circumstantial stuff like dark energy, the red/blue shift of galaxies that I could talk about, but I think that's enough for us to be going on with.
-
More importantly, we always do tunneling experiments with bound electrons, for example the ones in a tunneling electron microscope tunnel from being bound to the sample to being bound by the probe tip."
So, they tunnel from one place to the other and, in the mean-time they are not in either of those places.
But they are not really "in between".
That's the point about tunnelling.
The only observations we do are of electrons in the apparatus (the probe, the sample the electronics etc) and so it's those electrons with which we actually do the experiment.
So, yes we do experiments with bound electrons.
The interesting question here is what makes them feel a force of attraction to begin with.
The voltage applied by the equipment.
"When the tip is brought very near to the surface to be examined, a bias voltage applied between the two allows electrons to tunnel"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
Do you remember that you didn't know about this sort of microscopy until I pointed it out to you?
Maybe you should, at least, read the wiki article before trying to pretend that you know more about it than I do.
I would propose that the particle nature of the electron manifests as the appearance of a standing wave by appearing and disappearing
Proposed without evidence, and therefore not very scientific.
think there's probably quite a lot of evidence for it.
Then why don't you post some, instead of word salad and advertisements of your lack of comprehension?
-
Kryptid: I think there's probably quite a lot of evidence for it. If we're looking for a quantum to explain the reflective capacity of stars, galaxies, etc, the electron would make a good candidate since it absorbs and emits photons (loads of evidence for that, obviously).
If you're talking about the standard definition of reflection, then yes, electrons are involved. That doesn't have anything to do with gravity, though.
There's evidence from supernovae also that neutrinos are not affected to the same extent as light particles by the collapse of stars; these are uncharged and hence I think probably the best explanation for why light particles are affected by stellar collapses and neutrinos aren't is because some number of particles exists in the gravitational field that absorbs light and leaves neutrinos unaffected.
We already knew that neutrinos aren't affected because they don't interact with electromagnetism. When was it ever discovered that gravitational fields absorb light?
Then there are the muon g-2 results that I suspect also indicate that a charged particle causes the value of the muon g-factor to be so great; the muon is a heavy electron and so, when passed at high speeds through a gravitational field, formed of electrons, would be getting buffeted by electrons in the gravity field constantly and this would amplify the g-factor.
Can you do the math showing that your model predicts the correct value?
Are you going to answer my questions about the weak interaction being attractive or explain what causes neutrons to fall?
Also, electrons can't tunnel out of an event horizon, so your model fails to explain how black holes have gravity.
-
If we're looking for a quantum to explain the reflective capacity of stars, galaxies, etc, the electron would make a good candidate since it absorbs and emits photons (loads of evidence for that, obviously).
It's true of bound electrons, but not unbound ones.
They scatter photons
There is proof of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
-
Right, so when Hawking, et al, proposed the Big Bang model (without evidence) he was a pseudoscientist until Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMB? Of course not. You're knowledge of the scientific method seems about as shaky as your knowledge of electron microscopes (which, thank you, I did know about before you posted about it). There is also no evidence at all from string theory other than in the form of abstract mathematical conjecture (i.e. it's supported by rational as opposed to empirical arguments). And a host of scientists in the past have made predictions (which is the real key here) that have later been vindicated or falsified, what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability; i.e. something must be possible to disprove, otherwise it isn't science. This model I've proposed can be disproven; if you were to find a non-composite, string theory-esque graviton, then you will have falsified it. Therefore, like it or not, this IS science. Kryptid: no I cannot do the maths for this model (or, I can do some but not all of it), as I alluded to in the original post; Michael Faraday was no mathematician and knew only basic algebra and trigonometry, he's still credited with discovering the laws of electromagnetism and many physicists; including him; have written papers without any maths in them. Physics is not mathematics, nor is it all about mathematics; mathematics is merely a very useful tool in the arsenal of physics. As for falling neutrons and beta decay more generally; I suppose the neutron gets the W particle from the background electrons, I suppose also that the up-quark in the neutron exchanges particles creating a force of attraction with the background; neutrons decay rapidly into protons as free particles (after about 15 minutes or so) and so, by that time, would have experienced many particle exchanges with the background; we might surmise that a certain number of W+'s need to be exchanged before the neutron decays into a proton.
-
The neutron still falls due to the force of attraction between the background and the up-quark and this remains uncancelled by the corresponding force of repulsion between the down-quarks since there are a greater number of electrons exerting a force of attraction over the up-quark than the down-quarks are able to resist. In this model, there are (naturally) a greater number of electrons closer to the surface of, say, a planet than there are at distances high above it since their distribution would follow Newton's inverse square law.
-
Right, so when Hawking, et al, proposed the Big Bang model
He didn't.
(without evidence)
There was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
You really need to stop aggressively posting errors. It doesn't help anything.
I did know about before you posted about it
Then why did you post this bollocks?
they fire a beam of electrons through a sample and then detect the electrons
in reply to my comment about tunneling microscopes?
Were you trolling?
And a host of scientists in the past have made predictions
And you have repeatedly failed to do so.
Maths isn't a pre-requisite in science.
There's little, if any, maths in Darwin's "on The Origin Of Species".
But in a lot of fields, your predictions need to be numerical ("The mass of the electron will be... kg" or whatever).
In particular, if you can't do maths you can't do physics.
-
That's why I said 'et al', I can't (and won't) argue with someone who can't read and write.
-
That's why I said 'et al', I can't (and won't) argue with someone who can't read and write.
I know what "et al" means.
but it's like saying that the BBT was proposed by Mother Theresa et al.
It's just wrong because he didn't propose it.
Hubble had produced experimental data to show that the universe was expanding about a decade before Hawking was born.
The idea predates Hawking by centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
Why did you mention the guy?
-
I knew it was going to devolve into this inane quibbling. Of course it's not like saying Mother Theresa proposed the Big Bang theory! Hawking was at least a cosmologist and a major proponent of the Big Bang theory. It's more like saying Darwin proposed Evolutionary Theory (which goes back to Aristotle), we say it in common parlance while still recognising that other evolutionary models preceded it by centuries. It also does not need to be corrected, especially not in common parlance which is what's going on here (as opposed to an eruidite technical discussion); this thread should be something you're ashamed of, this is the level of scientific discussion you might have with a demi-educated person in a pub; and don't say it isn't after you kicked off all this talk of 'word salad', 'delusion', etc, that's about the most hackneyed mode of slandering someone in a debate; highly unoriginal, boring, aggravating, unnecessary, and highlights nothing more than your vain bigotry and the fact that you're not smart enough to think of something cleverer to say. Well done. You've thoroughly pissed me off.
-
Hawking was at least a cosmologist and a major proponent of the Big Bang theory.
Almost anyone who understood the science was a proponent of BBT.
So, once again...
Why did you mention the guy?
-
don't say it isn't after you kicked off all this talk of 'word salad', 'delusion', etc, that's about the most hackneyed mode of slandering someone in a debate; highly unoriginal, boring, aggravating, unnecessary, and highlights nothing more than your vain bigotry and the fact that you're not smart enough to think of something cleverer to say
But... it was word salad.
Did you expect us to lie about that?
-
I knew it was going to devolve into this inane quibbling.
The idea proposed in the OP is an inane WAG, so I wouldn't say it devolved much at all...
-
Hi.
I hope you are well and I can see that you have spent a lot of time working on this article. One of the things I noticed is that, according to your model, a particle seems to need electrons before it can be a source of gravity. Similarly, a particle must have protons to experience gravity. I'm not aware of any such requirements: Mass seems to be the only parameter responsible for causing gravity and the only parameter important for experiencing gravity. According to experimental tests the exact composition of a particle doesn't seem to matter. You should be able to strip electrons and/or protons out of some particle and it wouldn't affect the gravity it creates or experiences (nothing beyond a change in mass that may have resulted from removing those electrons or protons anyway).
Example: an electron can experience gravity, just like any other particle of the same mass, even though an electron shouldn't have any protons in it at all.
I hope you won't find this comment offensive, it's meant to be useful. There are some experimental observations that don't seem to support the hypothesis you present, that's all. It's not a personal attack, just something you may like to consider.
I've also spent the time to feed your article to a sophisticated computer system that uses Machine Learning and A.I. techniques to generate a response. It has been trained on the entire contents of the internet and in the limited tests that I have run on it, it is extremely competent and well informed of current developments in physics. I asked it to critically review your article, the report appears below.
Best Wishes.
- - - - - - - - -
Review by ChatGPT
This article presents a hypothesis about the unification of the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. However, the hypothesis lacks any experimental evidence and relies solely on theoretical assumptions. Additionally, some of the claims made in the article are not supported by current scientific knowledge.
The article proposes that the gravitoelectroweak interaction would manifest as the exchange of W+ and W- particles between bodies consisting of atomic material with tunneling electrons in the background. These background electrons would form something akin to the spin foams (or spin networks) of loop quantum gravity and would lead to a Dirac Sea permeating space. However, the existence of such a Dirac Sea has not been proven, and it is unclear how it would relate to the proposed gravitoelectroweak interaction.
Furthermore, the article suggests that the exchange of W+ and W- particles between a proton and a gravitational electron would create a massless, spin-2 gauge field in the interstitial space between the electron and proton. However, this gauge field would exist only for the briefest of moments at an incredibly small length scale (never greater than the electroweak range). While this claim is intriguing, it lacks empirical support.
The article also introduces the concept of primary and secondary electron densities to separate the electrons forming the gravitational field from those whose influence is canceled by the presence of a nuclear proton. However, it is not clear how this concept contributes to the understanding of the proposed gravitoelectroweak interaction.
In summary, while the idea of a unification of fundamental forces is an active area of research, the hypothesis presented in this article lacks experimental support and is not based on current scientific knowledge.
- - - - - - - -
-
Thank you, ES, for this response. I would not have the competence nor the energy to deliver such a response. I realise that you did not write this but you went to the effort to set it up.
-
Kryptid: no I cannot do the maths for this model
So then you don't know that it predicts the correct values for various phenomena (like the gravitational constant or gravitational lensing).
suppose also that the up-quark in the neutron exchanges particles creating a force of attraction with the background
Once again, I'm going to have to ask for you to give a reference that the exchange of W bosons creates an attractive force. Is there any reason you keep ignoring this inquiry? This is an essential aspect of your model. If W bosons can't create an attractive force, your model fails.
Your model still runs painfully afoul of the limitations of quantum tunneling, and your handwave of a "special force/principle" isn't a convincing way to get around that unless you can describe a plausible mechanism by which it occurs.
I haven't said anything about your dark energy idea yet, but I'll say this now: radiation pressure can't make things move faster than light. Since there are galaxies receding away from us at speeds greater than c, we know radiation pressure isn't the cause.