[Aethelstan (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

IIRC electrons are affected by gravity, but not by the strong nuclear force.

[Aethelstan (OP)]

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.

[JP]

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.

[Pmb]

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!

[evan_au]

20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure

This is similar to the concepts of String Theory and M-Theory.   

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.

[jeffreyH]

20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure

This is similar to the concepts of String Theory and M-Theory.   

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.

[Phractality]

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.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

.....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"

[Kryptid]

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.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

.................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.

[Halc]

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.

[Kryptid]

.................Ask Nassim

I don't need to. He's wrong. A proton is not as dense as a black hole.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

...............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.

[Kryptid]

...............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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[evan_au]

gravity increasing with inverse r¹⁹

Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r²?

[Halc]

gravity increasing with inverse r¹⁹

Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r²?

per the OP

[Professor Mega-Mind]

 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.

[Kryptid]

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).