[rstormview (OP)]

______________An Aternative Definition of Gravity?____________

_Preface_

Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, dark matter, string-theory, multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that?
Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and therefore, by association, what black holes probably are.

Wikipedia has only a strange speculation for what gravity actually is.

Quote: - ‘Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly at a lower (stronger) gravitational potential‘.

Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains a debatable definition.

An Alternative Definition of Gravity

The hypothesis below proposes an inversion of an accepted and unchallenged assumption, but overall it is elegantly and provocatively logical. If this proposed inversion ‘carries’, our understanding adjusts.

The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences many theories and assumptions and everything seemed to fall into logical place.
Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic element in the Universe.
The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.

The above proposal further suggests, by association, that ‘black-holes’ may be concentrations of protons repelling all matter, only, over the distance of billions of light years, appearing to consume matter.

Unfortunately the author of this proposal no longer has access to the means of experimentally confirming this inversion of an assumption and would welcome any opinion and assistance.


Rstormview@gmail.com

[Colin2B]

Thank you for your new theory of gravity.

You say “Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains a debatable definition.”

Einstien did not propose that we do not feel a force of gravity, instead he proposed a cause/mechanism for that force. His theory has been tested and accepted by mainstream physics, but the force is still with us.

In new theories you will find a number of people who consider that the electron/proton attraction is gravity.

Enjoy

[chiralSPO]

However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

This particular aspect is understood quite well. There is no repulsion between the electron and proton at any distance (and electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus). The important factor here is the wavelike properties of particles as light (small mass) as protons and electrons. The de Broglie wavelength is inversely related to the mass of a particle (all else being equal). In a hydrgen atom, the proton and electron both share the same center of mass, but because the proton is nearly 2000 times more massive, it occupies about 1/8000000000 (2000^–3the space than the electron does.

I think it is certainly worthwhile looking for alternative explanations of gravity--especially ones that make sense on the quantum scale as well as the cosmic scale. However, due to the speculative nature of this thread, I have moved it from the astronomy/physics section, which is meant for discussing already established theories, to the New Theories section, which is precisely for this purpose.

PS: Welcome to the forum!

[alancalverd]

A perfectly sound and scientific hypothesis, which fails the test of experiment.

We know that the gravitational force on an object depends on its mass. This fact has been determined by experiment from the days of Galileo to the high precision measurements of the Watt balances now used as mass standards.

We can make two objects containing the same number of atoms (and therefore electrons) but with significantly different masses, by using different isotopes of the same element. We find that the difference in gravitational force between them depends on the number of neutrons in the nuclei.

[Bored chemist]

However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed?

The uncertainty principle.

Sorry did you think it was a rhetorical question?

[evan_au]

if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed?

Reason #1: Wave nature of the Electron: see response from ChiralSPO, above.

Reason #2: Weak Nuclear Force
Another reason is that the equation is: e^- + p⁺ = n^o + ν^o
where the superscript is the charge on the particle:
- e^-: negative electron
- p⁺: positive proton
- n^o: neutral neutron
- ν^o: neutral neutrino, which carries away energy

The proton and electron interact over long distances via the electromagnetic force.
But any reaction involving neutrinos involves the "weak" nuclear force - and this is incredibly rare .

A case, close to what you describe is "electron capture" which occurs in unstable nuclei which have far too many protons for the number of neutrons holding them together.
eg Aluminium-26 → Magnesium-26 + neutrino (after 71,000 years, on average)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture#Reaction_details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_aluminium#List_of_isotopes

However, the reaction can go the opposite direction, too:
- Take the familiar Carbon-12 (the basis of organic life). It has an atomic mass of 12 (by definition).
- Take the very unfamiliar Boron-12, which can be considered to be a Carbon-12 atom where an electron has merged with a proton to form a neutron. It has an atomic mass of 12.0143, which is slightly greater than that of carbon.
- This means that energy is released if the neutron splits into an electron, proton and a neutrino.
- Boron-12 → Carbon-12 + neutrino (after 20 milliseconds, on average)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_boron#List_of_isotopes

Reason #3: Neutrinos Carry Away Energy
This is a another reason why these reactions are fairly rare: It takes energy to emit a neutrino.

So there must be considerable energy driving an electron capture or electron emission to deliver the energy necessary to produce the neutrino (electron emission is one form of beta radiation, β^-).

[jeffreyH]

@rstormview You should read and commit to memory all the replies you have had. They are real gems. And you didn't have to pay tuition fees to get them. Where else would you get that opportunity?