[Doug Thompson (OP)]

Could we simplify the grand unified theory.
(Just a gut feeling.)

What if, there are only two forces in the universe, one, an attractive force would be gravity, the other, a repulsive force would be the energy which every sub atomic particle possesses.
It would be possible to construct a complete grand unified theory based only on the interaction of these two forces.
Let me explain,
If every single sub atomic particle in the universe ( lets just call them particles) is connected to every other particle in the universe, by a kind of invisible thread, however far apart they are, this thread (which is of course gravity) would become exponentially weaker with greater distance, but critically, would never become nothing.
So every particle would be simultaneously feeling the pull of every other particle to a greater or lesser degree, depending on distance.
Because this principle works both ways, as particles become closer then their gravitational atraction becomes infinately stronger until they cannot get any closer due to the repulsive force of the energy in each particle.
This state of afairs, I would suggest, tells us that, what we call the strong nuclear force is in fact just gravity towards the extreme end of it's range.
So, this unites two of the fundamental forces, gravity/strong nuclear force, same thing, what about the electromagnetic force, well, in many ways magnetism is similar to gravity, in that it is an atractive force, however, unlike gravity, magnetism also repels and is polar, a magnet is dipolar, wheras gravity is monopolar.
So, if I am saying that gravity and magnetism are the same thing then how come one is dipolar, while the other is monopolar.
Well, we could think of it like this, every single particle in the universe is connected to every other particle in the universe by this gravitational thread, so there is a myriad of field lines eminating from each particle connecting it lightly, to the furthest reaches of the universe as well as strongly, to all nearby particles, but in addition every particle is also connected by gravity to itself, each particle is a tiny magnet with a gravitational field line connecting it's north pole to its south pole, this is the dipolar identity of gravity, gravity and magnetism are the same thing, and when many particles happen to be aligned, we have a magnet, whether it is a few atoms of iron or something as big as the earth.
We are left with the weak nuclear force, well, is it even a force, or is it just particles flying around in isotopes, knocking each other out of place, why are they flying around, well why not the interaction between the other two forces in an unstable isotope.
What I am interested in here is understandable answers as to why I am wrong.
Doug.

[Kryptid]

This state of afairs, I would suggest, tells us that, what we call the strong nuclear force is in fact just gravity towards the extreme end of it's range.

That can't be the case because (1) the strong nuclear force doesn't obey the inverse-square law that gravity does, and (2) not all particles feel the strong nuclear force.

So, if I am saying that gravity and magnetism are the same thing then how come one is dipolar, while the other is monopolar.

They're not the same thing. Gravity couples to mass whereas electromagnetism couples to electric charge.

Well, we could think of it like this, every single particle in the universe is connected to every other particle in the universe by this gravitational thread, so there is a myriad of field lines eminating from each particle connecting it lightly, to the furthest reaches of the universe as well as strongly, to all nearby particles, but in addition every particle is also connected by gravity to itself, each particle is a tiny magnet with a gravitational field line connecting it's north pole to its south pole, this is the dipolar identity of gravity, gravity and magnetism are the same thing, and when many particles happen to be aligned, we have a magnet, whether it is a few atoms of iron or something as big as the earth.

That doesn't explain why two electrons repel each other whereas two neutrinos do not. It also doesn't explain why the strength of the electromagnetic repulsion between two protons is the same as it is between two electrons, despite their masses (and thus their gravitational field strength) being different by a factor of over 1,800 times.

[charles1948]

Why should there be any such thing as a "Grand Unified Theory" of the Universe.

Perhaps the Universe is too big and complicated, in its behaviour, for any single, simplistic "Theory" to explain it.

Could we explain human behaviour by developing a single "Grand Unified Theory" of the brain?

[CrazyScientist]

I'm all about the creation of some "Unified Theory Of Universe" (or something like this), but I don't think that this is the right way of doing it.

What if, there are only two forces in the universe, one, an attractive force would be gravity, the other, a repulsive force would be the energy which every sub atomic particle possesses.

First of all, you need to specify, what do you understand by "energy". In physics practically everything (maybe except the time and space itself) is somekind of energy - even mass. Besides there are multiple kinds of energy - kinetic, potential, thermal, electric, magnetic, chemical, biological, e.t.c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

...each particle is a tiny magnet with a gravitational field line connecting it's north pole to its south pole...

If this would be true, people with equal rest mass would have a different weight at the polar caps and at the equator - but this is not true at all (or at least it wasn't observed up until now). Not only that, but also gravitational and magnetic fields have completely different geometry - gravity is directed towards the center of mass (at least in the case of uniform spheres), while magnetic fields are oriented from one magnetic pole towards the opposite magnetic pole. If anything gravitational fields are more like eleectric fields (only without the expulsion of matter with the same electric charge)

Gravity


Electricity


magnetism

Also keep in mind, that all those forces/fields can exist indepenently from each other. Objects with rest masses will be attraccted towards each other, despite their lack of electric charge or magnetic moment. Also a compass needle won't  react at all to a static electric field, while a needle made of aluminium will react to electric field but not to a magnetic one.

Look at our Sun - there you have a perfect example of all 3 macroscale forces interacting with each other - Sun has a very strong gravity, a very strong magnetic field and is made mostly of plasma (ions - particles with strong electric charge). Solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection, which ejects high energy particles into space, despite their gravitational attraction towards the Sun. Sometimes those forces are "struggling" with each other causing the "dance" of plasma filaments above the solar surface. This wouldn't be possible, if all the 3 macroscale forces would be one and the same.

Also learn about the different properties of subatomic particles, which make the source of the 3 fundamental forces of macroscale - each force/field is associated with a different property of a particle (gravity with atomic mass, electricity with the electric charge and magnetism with the quantum spin)

They're not the same thing. Gravity couples to mass whereas electromagnetism couples to electric charge.

Generally I agree that they are not the same, but I would say, that electromagnetism couples with electric charge AND magnetic moment.

Despite the common explanation, I don't think, that magnetism and electricity are two sides of one coin, just as I don't think that one of them has any priority over the other. Why?

1 EM waves have 3 separate and perpendicular directions (components): propagation and electric and magnetic moments. Subatomic particles also have those 3 perpendicular components/directions (remember right hand rule?)
2. All force fields in their static forms exist independently from each other and do NOT interact with each other
3. EM induction requires interaction between 2+ fields, what leads to motion: motion of charged particles induces a secondary magnetic field, while motion of a pernament magnet in (near) a conducting medium induces secondary electric field - there's no priority of electricity over magnetism or the other way around.

For example a neuetron has a magnetic moment despite having a 0 net electric charge (yes I know, that science tries to explain it with it's internal structure, but what matters in the end, is only the resulting 0 net charge)

Could we explain human behaviour by developing a single "Grand Unified Theory" of the brain?

Psychology? Neurobiology?

But generally your question is fundamentally flawed. You can calculate the exact orbit of a celestial body, but can you describe someone's personality and/or emotions using a mathematical formula?  Can you calculate someone's taste or personal opinion? Is there even a numerical value, which could describe such things, like love, hate, joy or fear?

Besides in the difference to human behavior, laws of physics won't change because of their mood at a particular moment of time or because their ability to ask "what if" - the fundamental question of science...

[Bored chemist]

(Just a gut feeling.)

That's the best bit of this thread.

[puppypower]

One observation that is being overlooked is that the electron, which is composed of mass and negative charge is one particle. Even under the most extreme particle collider conditions the electron remains a single particle. The electron is considered an elementary particle.

Negative charge and mass are a single unified entity, as the electron, where the differences become blurred into one state. This implies there is a unification of gravity with negative charge inherent within the electron. That is what a single particle state, with two properties, implies. At some level gravity and negative charge are interchangeable.

Protons have mass and positive charge, but particle collider data has shown the mass and the positive charge of the proton are not unified, as well as the negative charge and mass of the electron. The proton will break down into smaller particles under the same conditions. Interestingly, even with the larger mass of the proton, which is many orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the electron, gravity does not remain unified with the positive charge. Each charge has a different connection to gravity with the negative charge first cousins.

This could explain why neutrons can have a magnetic moment, but without a charge. The positive charge, by not being unified, even with the substantial mass of the proton, can be shared with the neutron, via the magnetic fields, that positive charge will create via the proton.

If you look at oxide, which is oxygen; O-2, there are two more electrons than protons. There is an imbalance between positive and negative charge. This stable imbalance is very common in chemistry and is called oxidation state. This imbalance can vary from -3 to +8 depending on the atom and context.

The change imbalance of oxide-2 implies that the EM force, although unified, has become slanted toward the magnetic side. This allows a stronger magnetic attraction to overcome the electrostatic repulsion. This is loosely similar to the magnetic moment of the neutron which has no charge but is impacted by a magnetic slant to the EM force.

A magnet field can be create by a charge in motion. The faster the motion of the charge, the stronger the magnetic field. Since the electron has unified mass, a stronger magnetic field and faster motion, implies more inertia within the mass. More inertia in the mass can also imply a weaker gravitational hold over the mass; escape velocity. The mass can also take up more space via the increasingly unique orbital shapes and layering of ions, molecules and atoms.

[Bored chemist]

This implies there is a unification of gravity with negative charge inherent within the electron.

No.
Because positrons.

[Bored chemist]

The change imbalance of oxide-2 implies that the EM force, although unified, has become slanted toward the magnetic side.

Tosh.

This allows a stronger magnetic attraction to overcome the electrostatic repulsion.

Neither oxygen atoms, not oxide ions are magnetic.

Why do you keep posting this trash?
Why keep trolling?

[Origin]

Negative charge and mass are a single unified entity, as the electron, where the differences become blurred into one state.

The properties are not blurred as far as I can see.  The particle has mass and the particle has a charge.  Why do you think they are blurred?

This implies there is a unification of gravity with negative charge inherent within the electron.

What do you mean they are unified?

That is what a single particle state, with two properties, implies.

What do you mean by 'state'?  Do you just mean the electron is a single particle?  An electron does not have just 2 properties.  An electron also has spin, does that mean mass, charge and spin are 'unified' in an electron?  What exactly do you mean by unified?

[CrazyScientist]

Negative charge and mass are a single unified entity, as the electron, where the differences become blurred into one state. This implies there is a unification of gravity with negative charge inherent within the electron. That is what a single particle state, with two properties, implies. At some level gravity and negative charge are interchangeable

All subatomic particles have also a quantum spin, which is associated with their magnetic moment. Also protons and electrons have the same amount of electric charge - only opposite, so together their net electric charge is 0 - despite having different atomic masses

The positive charge, by not being unified, even with the substantial mass of the proton, can be shared with the neutron, via the magnetic fields, that positive charge will create via the proton.

Check out neutron beams, which interact with external magnetic field despite the lack of protons near them.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/10/twist-and-spin-harnessing-two-quantum-properties-transforms-neutron-beam

On the other hand, I couldn't find any info, if a neutron beam can induce a secondary field (magnetic or electric) - can anyone here tell me if it's possible?

The faster the motion of the charge, the stronger the magnetic field

I need to check, if the magnitude of induced magnetic field depends on the voltage (differential) or on the current density - I couldn't find the answer for now...

Neither oxygen atoms, not oxide ions are magnetic.

Ehm...

[Bored chemist]

Ehm...

So, you don't know the difference between a molecule and an atom.

[CrazyScientist]

Ehm...

So, you don't know the difference between a molecule and an atom.

https://www.toppr.com/ask/en-ar/question/the-pairs-of-species-of-oxygen-and-theirmagnetic-behaviours-are-noted-below-which-ofthe-following/

"The oxygen atom has 2 unpaired electrons in the 2p orbital and based on the above discussion, we can say that it is paramagnetic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

"Ozone is weakly paramagnetic."

[Origin]

Also protons and electrons have the same amount of electric charge - only opposite, so together their net electric charge is 0 - despite having different atomic masses

It is very important when discussing scientific principles to use the proper definitions to avoid confusion.  Both protons and electrons have mass, but neither have an atomic mass.  Atomic mass is the mass of atoms and isotopes of the different elements.  Atomic mass involves only the protons and neutrons in the atom and does not include the mass of the electrons.

[CrazyScientist]

Also protons and electrons have the same amount of electric charge - only opposite, so together their net electric charge is 0 - despite having different atomic masses

It is very important when discussing scientific principles to use the proper definitions to avoid confusion.  Both protons and electrons have mass, but neither have an atomic mass.  Atomic mass is the mass of atoms and isotopes of the different elements.  Atomic mass involves only the protons and neutrons in the atom and does not include the mass of the electrons.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron&ved=2ahUKEwiZnvD8n8zwAhXj_7sIHYvODfoQFjACegQIBBAF&usg=AOvVaw0JFW54yg4kfRUmirCYc6dm
The atomic mass (ma or m) is the mass of an atom. Although the SI unit of mass is kilogram (symbol: kg), the atomic mass is often expressed in the non-SI unit dalton (symbol: Da, or u) where 1 dalton is defined as 1⁄12 of the mass of a single carbon-12 atom, at rest.[1] The protons and neutrons of the nucleus account for nearly all of the total mass of atoms, with the electrons and nuclear binding energy making minor contributions.

[Origin]

The protons and neutrons of the nucleus account for nearly all of the total mass of atoms, with the electrons and nuclear binding energy making minor contributions.

It looks like I recalled that wrong.  The units for atomic mass are the amu.  The amu is defined as exactly 1/12 the mass of a carbon atom so that includes electrons.
As you know from the definition you looked up it is also not correct to refer to an electron or a proton as having an atomic mass. 

[CrazyScientist]

The protons and neutrons of the nucleus account for nearly all of the total mass of atoms, with the electrons and nuclear binding energy making minor contributions.

It looks like I recalled that wrong.  The units for atomic mass are the amu.  The amu is defined as exactly 1/12 the mass of a carbon atom so that includes electrons.
As you know from the definition you looked up it is also not correct to refer to an electron or a proton as having an atomic mass.

Yes I know. Let treat this as a lesson for both of us - no one here is perfect

[Bored chemist]

"The oxygen atom has 2 unpaired electrons in the 2p orbital and based on the above discussion, we can say that it is paramagnetic."

Doh!
Yep. OK

Mind you, did you think the video was someone pouring atomic oxygen?

[Bored chemist]

no one here is perfect

There's a lot of that about.
:-)

[CrazyScientist]

Mind you, did you think the video was someone pouring atomic oxygen?

I didn't. My idea was to prove, that oxygen is generally magnetic in many of it's forms, despite you claiming otherwise. I like to observe a lot of interesting data and I've noticed, that many components of atmosphere/ionosphere are greatly influenced by geomagnetic field - and oxygen is among those components

[CrazyScientist]

no one here is perfect

There's a lot of that about.
:-)

Absolutely! I just can't understand why so many people expect me to be perfect in every aspect