[jeffreyH]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

...Not what I said .
Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .
P.M. 

[Kryptid]

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.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

.......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.

[mad aetherist]

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). 

[AlanM]

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.)

[hamdani yusuf]

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

[Professor Mega-Mind]

........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.

[Bored chemist]

To be as clear as possible

If that's as clear as it gets: quit.

[Kryptid]

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?

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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?

[hamdani yusuf]

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
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
= ≈ 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.

[Kryptid]

How much is the strong force?

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

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 U_E = k_e(qQ/r), where:

U_E is the electrostatic potential energy in joules
k_e 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 U_E = k_e(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:

U_E = k_e(q²/r)
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((1.602177 x 10^-19)²)/1.7566 x 10^-15))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((2.5669699 x 10^-38)/1.7566 x 10^-15))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)(1.4613286 x 10^-23)
U_E = +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:

U_E = k_e(q²/r)
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((1.602177 x 10^-19)²)/1.17142 x 10^-14))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((2.5669699 x 10^-38)/1.17142 x 10^-14))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)(2.1913318 x 10^-24)
U_E = +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:

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

U_E = k_e(q²/r)
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((1.602177 x 10^-19)²)/5.072397 x 10^-15))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)((2.5669699 x 10^-38)/5.072397 x 10^-15))
U_E = (8.99 x 10⁹)(5.060664 x 10^-24)
U_E = -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.

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

[hamdani yusuf]

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

[Kryptid]

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.