Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Aethelstan on 05/12/2013 19:51:09

Title: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Aethelstan on 05/12/2013 19:51:09
I know that the strong nuclear force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but could they be the same fundamental force? My thinking is that gravity on the scale of femtometers could obey the law of 1/r^19 (20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure) which obeys the rules of how the strong nuclear force falls of significantly over minute distances. Once r is more than a few femtometers we are out of the realms of the tiny, curled up dimensions and into the three normal dimensions of space and the power of attraction is 36 orders of magnitude smaller.

I am a layman, but I do wish to study physics. Please can you explain to me why this obvious (to me) solution is wrong? I am sure if it were this simple, it would have been proven a long time ago.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2013 20:44:49
IIRC electrons are affected by gravity, but not by the strong nuclear force.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Aethelstan on 05/12/2013 20:53:55
I did think about that and I searched for how gravity affected electrons. The gist of what I read (like I say, I am a layman) was the gravitational effect on something with such miniscule mass was not measurable.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: JP on 05/12/2013 21:45:57
But we can measure gravitational lensing or the gravitational redshift which is the effect of gravity on photons.  This means photons are affected by gravity, but not by the strong force.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Pmb on 05/12/2013 23:32:49
I did think about that and I searched for how gravity affected electrons. The gist of what I read (like I say, I am a layman) was the gravitational effect on something with such miniscule mass was not measurable.
I take issue with such an assertion. Where did you read such a thing?

Consider the gravitational force between a typical object and the earth. About 1/2000 of the masses is in their electrons. If the electrons in the object and the earth did not exert gravitational forces on each other, the weight of the object would be smaller by about 1/2000. We can certainly detect that!
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: evan_au on 06/12/2013 09:56:33
Quote
20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure
This is similar to the concepts of String Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Number_of_dimensions) and M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Last_step).   

However, these theories are neither simple nor obvious. They are very general, having many adjustable parameters. It is quite possible that these theories may describe some aspects of some universe, but it is not obvious which parameter values (if any) might describe our universe.

Regardless of how gravity and the strong nuclear force behave at the scale of these theoretical strings, or may have behaved in the distant past or far future, today they behave quite differently at the scales that humans can observe. The Strong Nuclear Force has a range which barely exceeds the width of the nucleus of an atom. In contrast, the force of Gravity easily spans the distance between galaxies. This points to some fundamental differences in the way these forces are expressed.

I suggest that if you wish to study these theories in Physics, that you start by studying Mathematics, as these topics are based on some very complex mathematics.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/12/2013 16:46:17
Quote
20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure
This is similar to the concepts of String Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Number_of_dimensions) and M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Last_step).   

However, these theories are neither simple nor obvious. They are very general, having many adjustable parameters. It is quite possible that these theories may describe some aspects of some universe, but it is not obvious which parameter values (if any) might describe our universe.

Regardless of how gravity and the strong nuclear force behave at the scale of these theoretical strings, or may have behaved in the distant past or far future, today they behave quite differently at the scales that humans can observe. The Strong Nuclear Force has a range which barely exceeds the width of the nucleus of an atom. In contrast, the force of Gravity easily spans the distance between galaxies. This points to some fundamental differences in the way these forces are expressed.

I suggest that if you wish to study these theories in Physics, that you start by studying Mathematics, as these topics are based on some very complex mathematics.

Of interest on string theory is this site.

http://www.branebrain.com/

The video near the bottom shows some interesting work in seeing quatum effects on a macroscopic scale. The site develops a new theory of gravity under string theory.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Phractality on 08/12/2013 18:14:04
Forces which attract between opposites cancel as the distance from equal numbers of opposites increases. However, I suspect (raw New Theory, not yet half baked) that the expansion of space might result in a very slight imbalance between those equal but opposite forces. Perhaps this could account for gravity.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/01/2019 13:38:51
.....Modified Gravitational Metrics
Nassim Haramein has a theory ; that a form of quantum spin divides gravity into different facets or expressions of force .  This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a  black hole .  Definitely seems like a paradigm worth investigating .
P.M.

Ref : "The Connected Universe"
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/01/2019 14:39:01
This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a  black hole .

When was the density of a proton ever measured to be equal to that of a black hole? Existing physics would suggest otherwise, since the Schwarzschild radius of an object with a proton's mass is 2.5 x 10-54 meters, whereas the proton's radius is only slightly less than 10-15 meters.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/01/2019 20:01:45
.................Ask Nassim .
That's going to be my new favorite saying !  However , I believe it was density he addressed .  At any rate , see above .
P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Halc on 15/01/2019 20:38:30
I found a lot of objections to the OP fairly thin.  I think I have one that puts it to rest:  The strong force is actually repulsive inside about 0.9 fm, and if it were gravity increasing with inverse r19 it would attract all the harder.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/01/2019 21:58:06
.................Ask Nassim

I don't need to. He's wrong. A proton is not as dense as a black hole.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 15/01/2019 22:00:46
...............Past the barrier
I do believe that if enough force is applied , the nuclear-attractive force will engage , and the protons will latch onto each other like Alabama ticks !  I like fusion too !
P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/01/2019 22:04:26
...............Past the barrier
I do believe that if enough force is applied , the nuclear-attractive force will engage , and the protons will latch onto each other like Alabama ticks !  I like fusion too !
P.M.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with gravity.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: PmbPhy on 15/01/2019 22:04:59
This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a  black hole .
The Schwarzschild radius is not the same as the same as its radius. The density of a BH and an electron are meaningless.
No other force than gravity is a inertial force like the grav-force.

When was the density of a proton ever measured to be equal to that of a black hole? Existing physics would suggest otherwise, since the Schwarzschild radius of an object with a proton's mass is 2.5 x 10-54 meters, whereas the proton's radius is only slightly less than 10-15 meters.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: evan_au on 16/01/2019 00:39:01
Quote from: Halc
gravity increasing with inverse r19
Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r2?
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Halc on 16/01/2019 01:22:22
Quote from: Halc
gravity increasing with inverse r19
Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r2?
per the OP
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/01/2019 01:33:15
 Multiple, competing aspects of the  uni-grav force (connectedness), combined with field-energy saturation at varying distances , equals different parameters for different sub-atomic systems .
 As to the Proton-Black Hole connection , either watch the documentary , OR ?...call Nassim !
P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2019 06:00:04
Multiple, competing aspects of the  uni-grav force (connectedness), combined with field-energy saturation at varying distances , equals different parameters for different sub-atomic systems .

Can you define these terms, please? Preferably using definitions that do not involve technobabble?

As to the Proton-Black Hole connection , either watch the documentary , OR ?...call Nassim !
P.M.

I did find a clip of him talking here:


He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of proton-mass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).

One could get around that problem if you posit that the inverse-square law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.

Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/01/2019 13:36:08
................Twisted Force
The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated uni-grav (root) force .   Think different electron-shells (or onion layers) .  Gravity being "root" doesn't mean it is strongest , just fundamental .
 The difficulty with particle physics is that it doesn't manipulate or explain the fabric of space itself , or it's limitations and behaviors .  There is much more to space , than  just particles and their interactions.   
P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2019 16:52:09
The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated uni-grav (root) force .

Then it's wrong to say that the strong force is gravity, because electrons do respond to gravity while not responding to the strong force.

Think different electron-shells (or onion layers) .

What do electron shells have to do with this?
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/01/2019 17:22:33
...................Uni-Grav
Paleo-gravity ; before it splits into the four basic forces .  Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself , but rather it's derivative .
By the way , y'ever notice : 4 forces, 4 dimensions ?
P.M. 
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/01/2019 20:14:16
If you wish to talk nonsense this is not the part of the forum to do that. If you don't know any mainstream physics that's OK. This is quite a good place to learn some.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2019 21:12:51
Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself

Glad you realize that. Now we can discard the whole "protons are black holes that bind together via gravity" argument.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/01/2019 22:20:53
...Not what I said .
Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .
P.M. 
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2019 22:26:20
Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .

So are you saying it's gravity or not? Because his black hole argument seems to say they are the same force.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/01/2019 23:48:00
.......Semantics .
I am saying that my personal view is that all four derive from "stem" gravity .  It is distributed by a dimensional process , or prism , that we don't yet understand .  We are quite far from understanding what the substance of space actually is , how it was formed , or how it functions .  Pride aside , we are just beginning to scratch the surface .
P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/01/2019 05:37:39
Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether into mass where the aether is annihilated.  Inertia is due to the acceleration of mass. Gravity & inertia are both due to the flow of aether. Every quantum thing has mass. Aether is subquantum & has no mass. Gravity at a micro level might have little to do with Newton's 1/RR.

Electrostatic & electrodynamic & magnetic forces are probly due to an excitation of aether, ie a vibration or spin or swirl etc.

If elementary particles are flattish then  they can be very close together.  This might affect gravitational attraction at the micro level (& em attraction-repulsion).   If an electron is large & hollow & if a proton is small enough to fit inside an electron then the spacing can in a sense be zero (this would give a neutron). 
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: AlanM on 18/01/2019 06:46:47
Just a suggestion:  Do what Stephen Hawking couldn't.  Play with a few spherical magnets, including non-magnetised ball bearings of different sizes, like I and my granddaughter Zahra have.  The first thing that might strike you (painfully) on one of your digits is a pair of magnets.  This is called the Engineering Approach.  It led me to my first conjecture, via the thought that magnetism isn't granular, but divisible into ever-decreasing quanta until we get to the ultimate form that Maxwell calculated all those years ago.  Massless magnetism is what we can discern as quarks.  We have given quarks six flavours - up/down, charmed/strange/ and top/bottom.  One pair of those just means north/south magnetism. Another just means back/wards/forwards relative to time. And the third pair is just clockwise spin/anticlockwise spin.
So
You might connect all that to the thought that nothing curves space more strongly than magnetism.  But wait.  Consider the mighty electron. Look at an atom of hydrogen. The proton consists of three quarks, two ups and a down (or maybe that should be two downs and an up. It doesn't really matter. One's an antiquark, closely entangled with its quark.  there is no more mysterious thing than the ability for the positive charge of the proton to be cancelled by a single electron buzzing around that proton like a bee in a cathedral. The electron can't really fly about fast enough to quite do the job. Its willing assistent, the almost massless something-ino, has to help out.  Whether the -ino is a gravitino, a neutrino, or a magnetrino is the question that needs to be decided.
I tend to think that that the -ino has to add a bit more negativity, rather than gravity or positronity to cancel the positivity of the three matter/antimatter quarks.  Adding quarkinos is not an answer either, though I'm often wrong about arithmetic, never mind mathematics.
Well, I hope this is helpful.
By the way, the Final Book published on behalf of Stephen rather startled me when I got to Nelson (page 111 in cricketing jargon).  The statement that black holes can't emit anything has to be a mistake.  Hawking radiation does exist. Quasars and neutron stars are detected by polar gamma rays doing gymnastics in space. Two colliding black holes have been detected because their polar radiation causes ripples in the fabric of space.  From our universe to our entangled anti-universe we have anti-radiation and anti-matter streaming through the black hole portal, so looked from inside the black hole (well, it has to be a sphere to be symmetrical with us, doesn't it?) the anti-matter life forms would never say our 'white' hole (no 'racism' intended, it's really just a word that implies 'anti-black' hole).
If you would like to see how all my conjecturing began, try the Naked Science Forum topics 713717 (symmetry there, eh ?) and the new theory the Naked Scientists made it, Topic 71376 (and Many Thanks to them) .
  Best Wishes, AlanM (and from Zahra too, of course.)
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2019 10:39:10
He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of proton-mass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).One could get around that problem if you posit that the inverse-square law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).
The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)
Proton also has non-zero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 22/01/2019 18:05:17
........Clarification .
To be as clear as possible ; my big idea here is that there was/is one primeval force : "Uni-Grav" .  When everything was one , U.G. was all there was .  Oneness was powerfully connected to itself , and it was NOT letting go .  At some "point" , obscene energy was injected .  Oneness shattered , or "fresneled" , into four dimensions , along with four accompanying physical forces .  As with a bulls-eye target , the surrounding bands had an outward-facing side , and an inward-facing side . The center , however , had only the outward-facing side .  These correlate to the Strong , Weak , E.M. , and Gravity forces , with gravity as the center .  Accordingly , it has only attraction , whereas the others have both attractive and repulsive sides . The gravity force is the closest to the original , base force .  It relates the most to the original state of the universe .  As many quantum effects have shown us , it's STILL all connected !

P.M.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2019 20:48:31
To be as clear as possible
If that's as clear as it gets: quit.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2019 21:20:21
The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)

Then I can use helium-3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium-3 nucleus.

Proton also has non-zero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

At the scale of protons and neutrons, the electromagnetic force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force (that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger). You think some polarizability is going to overcome such a colossal level of repulsion?
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/01/2019 06:45:21
Then I can use helium-3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium-3 nucleus.

How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium-3, but fails to do so in Helium-2?

If Helium-3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/01/2019 17:14:37
How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium-3, but fails to do so in Helium-2?

The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium-2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.

If Helium-3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

Care to show those calculations?

That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: AlanM on 26/01/2019 11:34:58
Here's a little question for you all:  What if Stephen Hawking's decision to pay the man who bet him he (Stephen) was wrong to say the Higgs boson(s) were superfluous ?
Today I tend to aver that Stephen won that bet when he floated that idea.  Often repeated is the idea that mathematics is too precise to mean anything to the masses (I mean folks like me who, like Michael Faraday, stand in awe of Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and a world of other chaps whose gedanken-experiments (mostly last century) were and are done with esoteric symbols, and fearsomely elegant theorems.  Einstein, Hoyle, and Feynman have said it all very simply, long ago. Neither they nor Stephen have managed to stitch the whole picture together in a way that simple engineers could assimilate. I will be going back to my very first conjecture to put a couple more conjectures down that may reinforce my contentions about where exactly all the dark stuff is very much entangled with the whole universe, gravity is not as different from the strong force, and quanta are not as particular as previously imagined.  I intend expanding the way I have been  disambiguating quarks, quarkinos, photons, photinos, neutrinos, gravitons and gravitinos.  More later (see said topics).
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/01/2019 13:02:13
Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/01/2019 20:09:10
Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.
If the mess that modern science is in is due to conservation laws then praps its time to look more closely at thems laws or at least how they are used. I daresay  that all conservation laws rely on action force = reaction force. How can a new theory violate that?  In any case there must be an infinite number of possible theories that dont violate conservation, & only one can be correct.
And mathland should be updated to deal with the real world. All of our lengths & shapes & angles & tickings, real & apparent, depend on the Lorentz gamma, yet mathland mostly ignores that. It gets worse, when gamma is recognised it is the Einsteinian gamma, not the Lorentz gamma, i doubt that Noether can fix that.
I am afraid that as is usual the situation is the reverse of the standard canon, the real situation is that Noether is never applicable to any theory (except praps in rare circumstances when the Einsteinian agrees with the Lorentzian).  Or putting it another way, Noether is ok, but Einsteinians dont know how to use Noether properly, ie it rarely works in Einsteinland.
Anyhow i am suspicious of that name noether.  Would sound better if say etherforever.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2019 09:00:34
The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium-2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.
How much is the strong force?
why not decay to hydrogen-1?
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2019 09:55:35
Care to show those calculations?That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.
Let's say an electron is placed in the origin of a coordinate. Three protons are arranged in equilateral triangle 1 length unit away from the electron in a flat plane. Thus, the distance between protons is 91a24814efa2661939c57367281c819c.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateral-triangle-heights.svg
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateral-triangle-heights.svg)
Electrostatic electric force by electron to each proton is attractive. The magnitude is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between electron and proton. In this case it's 1.
The repulsive force between protons is thus 1/3.
Combined repulsive force by other proton is f8d73b4c8e697305e672cf288cce584a.gif
= a26269976e1beab87f61caf15c333c04.gif ≈ 0.577
Hence for each proton, total attractive force is larger than total repulsive force.
The existence of particles other than electron and proton, such as neutron, muon, as well as any other particles doesn't prove nor disprove the argument above, hence it's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/01/2019 23:56:53
Quote
How much is the strong force?

What do you mean exactly? How strong is it or how much binding energy it has?

Quote
why not decay to hydrogen-1?

Because there isn’t enough mass available in the nucleus to allow for that. The individual components of a helium nucleus added together weigh very  slightly more than the nucleus itself. This is called a “mass defect”.

Let's say an electron is placed in the origin of a coordinate. Three protons are arranged in equilateral triangle 1 length unit away from the electron in a flat plane. Thus, the distance between protons is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateral-triangle-heights.svg

Electrostatic electric force by electron to each proton is attractive. The magnitude is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between electron and proton. In this case it's 1.
The repulsive force between protons is thus 1/3.
Combined repulsive force by other proton is

Okay, so why don’t we use your model to calculate the predicted binding energy of a He3 nucleus?

The electrostatic potential energy equation is given by UE = ke(qQ/r), where:

UE is the electrostatic potential energy in joules
ke is Coulomb’s constant (8.99 x 109 N*m2*C-2
q is the magnitude of charge 1 in coulombs
Q is the magnitude of charge 2 in coulombs
r is the distance between the charges

Since the charge on the proton and electron are equal, the equation simplifies to UE = ke(q2/r). I couldn’t find the experimental diameter of the He3 nucleus, but it must be between that of hydrogen (1.7566 x 10-15 m) and uranium (1.17142 x 10-14 m). I will therefore use both values for distance to put an upper and lower bound on what the actual binding energy would be. I’ll start by calculating the potential energy between two protons separated by the diameter of a hydrogen nucleus:

UE = ke(q2/r)
UE = (8.99 x 109)((1.602177 x 10-19)2)/1.7566 x 10-15))
UE = (8.99 x 109)((2.5669699 x 10-38)/1.7566 x 10-15))
UE = (8.99 x 109)(1.4613286 x 10-23)
UE = +1.313734 x 10-13 joules

The value is positive because there is a repulsive force between the protons, which means that energy is store and can be released from this arrangement.

Now for the energy involved when the distance is increased to that of a uranium nucleus:

UE = ke(q2/r)
UE = (8.99 x 109)((1.602177 x 10-19)2)/1.17142 x 10-14))
UE = (8.99 x 109)((2.5669699 x 10-38)/1.17142 x 10-14))
UE = (8.99 x 109)(2.1913318 x 10-24)
UE = +1.97 x 10-14 joules

Since there are three proton-proton repulsions in your model, we multiply these values by 3, resulting in a total repulsive potential energy ranging from 5.9 x 10-14 to 3.941202 x 10-13 joules.

But now we need to calculate the energy involved in the electron-proton attraction. In an equilateral triangle, the height is the square root of 3 divided by two multiplied by the length of one side. Divide this in half again to get the distance between a point on the triangle and its center. So for the hydrogen nucleus diameter, this results in a distance of 7.6063 x 10-16 meters and for uranium it’s 5.072397 x 10-15 meters. I can now use these distances to calculate the energy:

UE = ke(q2/r)
UE = (8.99 x 109)((1.602177 x 10-19)2)/7.6063 x 10-16))
UE = (8.99 x 109)((2.5669699 x 10-38)/7.6063 x 10-16))
UE = (8.99 x 109)(3.374794 x 10-23)
UE = -3.0339 x 10-13 joules

UE = ke(q2/r)
UE = (8.99 x 109)((1.602177 x 10-19)2)/5.072397 x 10-15))
UE = (8.99 x 109)((2.5669699 x 10-38)/5.072397 x 10-15))
UE = (8.99 x 109)(5.060664 x 10-24)
UE = -4.549537 x 10-14 joules

The values are negative because an input of energy is needed to separate the electron and the proton, since they are attracted to each other. Since there are three proton-electron attractions in your model, we multiply these values by 3, resulting in a total attractive potential energy ranging from -1.3648611 x 10-13 to -9.1017 x 10-13 joules.

Now we add together the repulsive and attractive potential energies to get the total binding energy. For the hydrogen distance:

(+1.313734 x 10-13 joules) + (-3.0339 x 10-13 joules) = -1.720166 x 10-13 joules per nucleus, which is 1.03588 x 1011 joules per mole.

For the uranium distance:

(+1.97 x 10-14 joules) + (-4.549537 x 10-14 joules) = -2.579537 x 10[/sup]-14[/sup] joules per nucleus, which is 1.55339 x 1010 joules per mole.

Compare these values with the actual, measured binding energy of He3, which is 6.46071 x 1011 joules per mole (calculated from its mass defect of 0.00718853426 atomic mass units).

So your model predicts a binding energy that is somewhere between 6.2369 and 41.591 times too small to be accurate to experiment. So we can throw it out as falsified.

By the way, your model also violates conservation of lepton number. When a tritium nucleus decays into a helium-3 nucleus, it releases an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. If the atomic nucleus contains neutrons, this is not a problem. If, however, there is a proton and electron in the nucleus instead of a neutron, then the net lepton number before and after the decay are different.

Quote
The existence of particles other than electron and proton, such as neutron, muon, as well as any other particles doesn't prove nor disprove the argument above, hence it's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

The nuclear shell model and liquid drop model do a pretty good job of describing the properties of the nucleus, and both assume that neutrons are present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shell_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-empirical_mass_formula
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2019 10:32:22
Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?
I don't know how you get those numbers, and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.
By the way, your model also violates conservation of lepton number. When a tritium nucleus decays into a helium-3 nucleus, it releases an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. If the atomic nucleus contains neutrons, this is not a problem. If, however, there is a proton and electron in the nucleus instead of a neutron, then the net lepton number before and after the decay are different.
What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/01/2019 17:09:29
Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?

Because I was able to find a value for its diameter. I was only using it as an upper bound on the possible size of the helium-3 nucleus because I was unable to find any literature stating the size of the helium-3 nucleus.

I don't know how you get those numbers

The value for the diameter of atomic nuclei came from the "Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092640X12000265?via%3Dihub

and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.

The binding energy is calculated from the difference between the mass of an atomic nucleus and each of its component particles. The mass of an atomic nucleus can be determined using mass spectrometry: https://www.livescience.com/20581-weigh-atom.html

What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws

Protons have a lepton number of zero, whereas electrons have a lepton number (more specifically, electron number), of one. The violation mentioned in the article is between specific forms of lepton number (i.e. changing from muon number to electron number). However, the total lepton number is still the same. In other cases where lepton number is violated, the total baryon number minus lepton number (B-L) is still conserved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_%E2%88%92_L

Your model violates B-L because the baryon number remains the same before and after decay whereas the lepton number changes.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: AlanM on 08/02/2019 06:41:24
How about this for a suggestion ? Appologies to Goscinny and Uderzo)

“Gravity is the strong force, and is moderated by magnetism.”

Max Planck in 1900 showed the arbitrariness of scales.  His Planck dimensions show us how to deal with those.
Albert Einstein by 1955 had wrapped up relativity of everything.  Most of can get that.
Fred Hoyle long ago had provided us with the pesky constant of gravitation which is the steady state of the universe.
Richard Feynman was next to put Dirac’s antimatter into context with a few words about antimatter travelling backwards in time.
About a year ago a newbie called Alan M started agitating about magnets, thanks to his grandchild Zahra.

Now consider magnetrix and electrix, today’s names for the basix of everything.  Not particlix or waveletix, but quantumix.
In my garage (a typical black hole, if ever there was one) I have magnets (ball-shaped are the best) making macromodels of the magnetrix doing amazing things.  I defy anyone to pull apart my button-shaped macromagnetix.  The only way to part these amazingly strong ferrite-concentrated stringsix  is by sliding them apart.  I have steel-coated ferrite-concentrated macromagnetix that have been slid apart often when I put on and take off my member name badge for meetings of the Probus Club of Simon’s Town.  The steel coatings are a little rough as a result.  Now it is getting difficult to even slide those little buttonmagentix concentrations sideways past each other, so intensely is the ‘force’ we call friction concentrated by magnetismix.

I should include a few photos of my magnets, but as time is short here in Seaforth today, perhaps you could build your own mental pictures of what I have my macromagnetix doing down below:

A single one is modelling a ‘dimensionless’ dot (ie: the beginning of a dimensionless string).  Two together are modelling a string, and will continue to latch onto as many others as I have macromagnetix to add.  But it gets much more pleasing when one realises that three together will very stably make a triangle (ie: my magnetic stringthingys readily go two-dimensional).  And, YES ! Four together WILL go three-dimensional and make a tetrahedron,  the first Platonic solid !  You have probably guessed by now that those same four very readily go back to a stable two-dimensional square.  They are adherents of Mark Shuttleworth.  Obviously.  (“It’s HIP to be square”)

Next step:  Add another macromagnetix.  Now you have five.  Yes, they will get together in two dimensions, and make a pentagon.  But five together won’t co-operate and go symmetrically into a hexahedron or if you like, a cube.  Add a sixth, and the string readily becomes a hexagon.  Now they like each other enough to do another three-dimensional Platonic solid.  It is a twisted cube.  I don’t know what I should call that, but any way you look at it, you see three balls on the far side, and three balls on the near side.  It must be an octohedron.

Now add a seventh.  What I have now in two dimensions, is a dot in the middle, tightly surrounded by six siblings.  A body-centred hexagon, I suppose describes it neatly.  The three-dimensional solid is not perfect.  It has a wobbly number 7 member.  So Plato has no claim on this one.  There is definitely a ‘mass’ ‘ambiguity’, but if one ignores it as too small to bother with, one could call the whole lump of balls a slightly flattened octohedron.  You now have to add multiple magnetic balls to get to the next Platonic solid.  I don’t have enough to do it properly.

So let’s just leave it there for the (magnetic) moment.  Sorry (like not really) about the ‘pun’.

Back to my question:  What say y’all ?  The Magnetrixs on the Left have it ?  (Or do the Anti-Magnetrixes on the Right have it, actually ?)

In my humble opinion, it is balanced perfectly, like the universe and its anti-universe.

Alan M
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: AlanM on 27/02/2019 07:48:25
2019 02 27 Naked Science Forum Topic: (Isn’t it time to change the title, and add Ruby to Alan M and Zahra ?)
An Energetic Interpretation (‘Demo’ ?) of an Awful Lot of Science -
And ALL (well, nearly all) of it done in a century NOT too long ago !
© Zahra, Ruby, and Alan M, Hoedspruit, West Sussex, and Seaforth, Simon’s Town.
Here’s today’s suggestion for a complete demo kit (I hope to complete my own, with only one or two models needed as additions to my existing garage (black hole) stock of magnets, copper pipes, coloured lasers, mirrors, lenses, and so-on and so-on).
1.   Photons, electrons, and black ‘holes’: Pith Balls, coloured silver, white, and black (shiny and matt).
2.   Quarks: Ball magnets, variously coloured but especially red, green, blue, silver and black.
3.   Branes: Fridge magnets, about 5cm by 5cm, preferably not too thick, and plain (free of paint or any other attachments or contamination).
4.   Strings: Five or more ball (spherical) magnets (too big to swallow), in polished sintered neodymium iron, bi coloured (one colour for “Up” and the other for “Down” (say, black and white.) Another 5 or more, encased in plastic, and in colours red (for ‘Top’), yellow (for ‘Bottom’), green (for ‘strange’), blue (for ‘charmed’), and, as already mentioned, black (for ‘Up’), and white (for ‘Down’).
5.   Photon momentum: One of those little “perpetuum mobile” machines, ie small vertical-axis horizontally rotating impulse turbine bladed rotors (protected in a transparent dome from air wind but exposed to solar radiation wind), each paddle silver (totally reflective) on its front (sunward) side and matt black (totally light absorbent) on its dark side.
6.   Electron fields: A couple of blown-up balloons coloured blue (for “negatively charged”) and preferably made of really tough plastic so their “fabric of the cosmos” isn’t easily ripped or popped.  And if the balloons aren’t perfectly spherical, they are just as they should be.  Only a really isolated electron’s field can be a perfect sphere.  And only a really isolated universe can be a perfect (well, almost perfect) sphere.
7.   Black ‘holes’ (they aren’t really black at all, and neither are they holes. Nor are they holograms, for that matter (excuse the pun):  For final recognition of the Flat Earth Society, please admit that the portals into “Black holes” ARE two dimensional.  (Well, again, ALMOST two dimensional.)  The edges of ANY point like, flat or spherical energy quantum, from gravitinos, magnetrinos, and electrinos to really large structures like solar systems, galaxies, and a(ny) universe(s) are inevitably uncertain, as explained by Max Planck in 1900 or so.
8.   Twinned “Matter verse” / “Anti matter verse” pairs:  Soap bubble kits or intersecting spherical glass or plastic bubbles.  They nicely show the two-dimensional (if flat) or three dimensional (if a lens) portals between “Black holes”.
9.   Photon generators: Cheap laser and led devices.  These are great for demonstrating photon and gamma ray phenomena like X-rays, visible  and invisible light skin penetration, infra red and ultra violet heat transfer rates, standing waves and other energy storage myths.
10.   And for the rest: A miscellany of batteries (single use chemical and re chargeable), safe (non short circuitable) conductors and insulators (dielectrics), switches, variable resistors, inductors and capacitors, quite often perfectly sourced from your weekly ‘recyclables’.
So there we will stop (for the moment).

A Big THANKYOU to all @ The Naked Scientists.  Zahra, Ruby and I hope this latest reply to ourselves will assist you all in your endeavours to spread a little SCIENCE where it's needed.  See our next BIG Question, in honour of SIR (seriously Ignored Reasoner) Stephen Hawking.  Your humble Z,A,R (South African and aged Seaforthian Reasoners at the cutting edge of African Space).  Have a Happy Happy Day.
Title: Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?
Post by: mad aetherist on 28/02/2019 01:47:26
I know that the strong nuclear force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but could they be the same fundamental force? My thinking is that gravity on the scale of femtometers could obey the law of 1/r^19 (20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure) which obeys the rules of how the strong nuclear force falls of significantly over minute distances. Once r is more than a few femtometers we are out of the realms of the tiny, curled up dimensions and into the three normal dimensions of space and the power of attraction is 36 orders of magnitude smaller.

I am a layman, but I do wish to study physics. Please can you explain to me why this obvious (to me) solution is wrong? I am sure if it were this simple, it would have been proven a long time ago.
Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated.
The inflow streamlines converge in 3D towards the center of mass & give a 1/RR relationship for gravitational force.  The inflow is praps equal to the escape velocity (at Earth 11.2 kmps).

Aether also accelerates into mass that is spinning, a centrifugal inertia effect, but here the aether is not annihilated, it is sucked in radially near the equator & then spat out axially near the two poles.  The inflow streamlines converge in 2D towards the axis of spin & probly give a 1/R relationship for this quasi-gravitational attraction force.  The outflow streamlines probly dont converge or diverge & hencely probly result in zero or little attraction or repulsion. At a macro level such spinning affects the aetherwind.  We have ...........

(1) The background wind blowing throo the solar system. This probly has some kind of galactic Milky Way orientation, or more probly some kind of cosmic origin & orientation (see Ranzan's DSSU).
(2) The background wind is affected by aether inflow to the Sun due to the Sun's mass, which at Earth's orbit might be an inflow of 42 kmps (that being the Sun's escape velocity at Earth's orbit).  So the resulting background aetherwind near Earth is 500 kmps south to north throo Earth at 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis RA 4:30.
(3) Aether inflow into Earth due to Earth's mass (this contributes say 11.2 kmps at Earth's surface).
(4) Aether inflow into Earth near Equator due to Earth's spin (a centrifugal inertial effect)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(5) Aether outflow from Earth near the Poles, due to (4).
(6) Aether inflow into Earth on the far side of Earth from the Sun, due to Earth's orbit (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(7) Aether outflow from Earth on the nearside to the Sun, due to (6).

They say that at a micro level spinning can approach the speed of light (c).  They say that electrons spin, & protons & neutrons spin.  And i suppose quarks spin, in which case a proton has a double dose of spin-wind.  We have .........

(8 ) The  spin-wind (inflow at equator & outflow near poles) from the internal self spin of each of the 3 quarks, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each quark (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(9) The spin-wind from the external spinning of the quarks around the proton's spin-axis, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each proton (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(10) The inflow into each of the three quarks due to their mass (a 1/RR attraction). 

Anyhow now that i have explained an aetheric perspective i reckon that we are in a better position to think about the possibility of gravity (10) having a roll to play in the strong force holding protons together.  I have shown that the best candidate for the strong force is (8 ) pseudo gravity, due to a quark's spin, & (9) pseudo gravity, due to a proton's spin.