Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[DHamilton]

COULOMB’S LAW ONLY VALID FOR
RELATIVE MOTION RELATIONSHIPS

Our experimental data confirms that elementary charged particles behave according to the expectations of Coulomb’s law when the interacting particles have relative motion with respect to each other, but what about when they don’t have relative motion? For symmetry’s sake if we temporarily accept the notion that same charged particles will behave as if they are attractively interactive when they are overlapping in the same momentum space we might examine the idea that oppositely charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space might behave as if they are repulsively interactive.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to just accept this but rather I am suggesting that such a result can be derived from the re-examination of experimental data and can be arrived at by deductive reasoning using such data and Maxwell’s equations. Quite a few people have wondered why an electron just doesn’t fall right down into the nucleus and tightly bind with a proton. Of course, the typical answer that we get is that the electron must obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and that as its position becomes more and more localized then its momentum becomes ‘spread’ out.

The more spread out the momentum the higher the kinetic energy. So, the electron can lower its potential energy by moving in closer to the nucleus, but if it was too close then its kinetic energy would go up more than its potential energy goes down. So, it distributes itself at a position of balance, at a happy medium, and that gives the cloud and thus the atom its size. Honest, that’s the answer we get when we ask this sort of question. (If you don’t believe me then do an internet search on Google and use the input argument of ‘Why don’t atoms collapse? or Why don’t electrons spiral into the nucleus? or words to that effect and see what you get.) Raise your hand if you think that this explanation sounds like a load of sophistry.

If the proton can be some place (and it, too, must obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) then why doesn’t it become distributed in a cloud also? When there is a pair creation event where a high energy photon becomes converted into an electron-positron pair we don’t see any problem with a positron re-acquiring an electron; and it must be that they come to a state that is equivalent to being co-located and being annihilated (together with the electron) and re-converted into photons.

But there’s more to my argument than just to ask you to examine the questions I’ve put before you. Let me introduce a simple intuitive fact or axiom:

• 1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system.

This is the simplest articulation of the universal axiom that all motion is relative. How can you have motion with respect to a fiction? Or how can there be motion relative to a fiction? People can believe in all of the impossible things that they desire but when they are doing that then they are not practicing ‘science’.

Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” from Alice in Wonderland by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

There may be some who will respond to anger and perhaps a tirade and will perhaps describe me as a crank or kook or quack but doing so is not in keeping with open and honest rational debate but rather is a fear reaction to a challenge to the status quo of their belief system. If not called names then the next reaction is condescension with a friendly but gritted teeth reference to ‘accepted’ texts on the matter as if somehow I must not have been inculcated properly the correct number of times with the reigning dogma. Perhaps they hold to the idea expressed in another Dodgson work:

“What I tell you three times is true.” cf. The Hunting of the Snark.

Now let’s take that axiom above (Quantum motion axiom) and apply it together with Maxwell’s equations and see what pops up. What I’m proposing is that we can logically deduce, using Maxwell’s equations together with principle of the relativity of motion, that elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect to one another will, in fact, behave precisely opposite to the expectations provided by Coulomb’s Law. Bear with me please, while I lay out my reasoning.

When we write Maxwell’s equations in terms of E and H only then we have:

• 1) ∇ X H = εο ∂H/∂t
• 2) ∇ X E = -μο ∂H/∂t
• 3) ∇ ⋅ E = 0
• 4) ∇ ⋅ H = 0

Equation 1) as applied to a charged particle suggests that if that charged particle should have motion so that there would be a variation in E that then a magnetic field characterized mathematically as a vector field with rotation (∇ X H) should arise around the translational axis of that motion.


Considering the principle that all motion is relative one must reflect that a charged particle cannot move with respect to itself and hence in the rest frame of such particle this predicted vector field could not exist. Instead, such a field could only exist in the rest frame of the particle or observer which had relative motion with respect to the particle.


So, if we had two protons, A and B, which had relative motion, then emanating from B’s location but not local to B (not existing in B’s rest frame) would be a vector field as predicted by equation 1) above. Such a vector field would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the translational axis of relative motion between A and B. Likewise, because of the relative motion of the two particles, then emanating from A’s location, but not local to A, would also arise a vector field which also would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the translational axis of relative motion between A and B.


The vector field emanating from A’s location would exist in B’s rest frame (momentum space) and the vector field emanating from B’s location would exist in A’s rest frame (momentum space). Now, for two same charged particles that do not have relative motion with respect to each other one might presume that there would be an electrostatic repulsion between them.

But as I pointed out above, there’s actually no experimental data that has shown this to be the case. Bear in mind that I’m not suggesting that two same charged particles that have relative motion will not repel one another but only that elementary charged particles that don’t have relative motion will not and, in fact, will appear to be attractively interactive. After all, this thesis is the whole point or is produced to establish that point. So, let’s consider two protons, A and B, that are overlapping in momentum space and that are separated by distance d.

In the rest frame of third particle C which has motion with respect to A and B will arise a pair of vector fields: (∇ X H)AC and (∇ X H)BC where AC and BC are subscripts to indicate the vector fields generated by the relative motion of A with respect to C and B with respect to C, respectively.

This pair of vector fields will emanate from A and B respectively but will be nonlocal to both A and B because neither A nor B can move with respect to themselves (as noted above). What I’m proposing here is that for the perpendicular component of the relative velocity of C with respect to a plane coincident with a straight line joining A and B that the two vector fields (∇ X H)AC and (∇ X H)BC will produce magnetic H loops (vector fields) that will interact in such a manner as to produce what appears to be an attractive interaction between A and B.

Those two vector fields will have the same direction of rotation on that plane and hence at the point of intersection the direction of the H flux of (∇ X H)AC will be anti-parallel to the direction of the H flux of (∇ X H)BC. Now, I’m suggesting that at from the point of intersection outward toward each particle is created a null motion gradient. Another axiom-like reference that we can point to are the laws of thermodynamics of which one part we can translate to a vernacular which is: <b>

“All matter and energy moves so as to obtain to the lowest energy state possible.”

</b> Seeing this universal axiom applied together with the axiom of the relative motion of quanta and with one of Maxwell’s equations the end result is that the two particles will begin to ‘fall’ and accelerate toward the intersection point of the two vector fields. Consider that there are very many other particles in the universe which will have relative motion with respect to A and B and that for any component of velocity that each and every other particle may have that is perpendicular to a plane coincident with the line A-B that emerging from the locations of A and B will be generated such vector fields that will also produce what would appear to be an interaction between A and B.


The particles appear to be accelerating toward each other but, in fact, are accelerating in the null gradient field towards the point of intersection of the vector fields. Every one of those vector fields will be nonlocal to the particles A and B and nonlocal to each other so that the total force calculated will be related to the sum of the individual forces produced in each frame and each individual force will be related to the magnitude of the component of the relative motion (velocity) of each and every other particle in the universe that is normal to a plane containing A and B because it is by that velocity that is determined the magnitude of ∂E/∂t in each and every case.


Now for the case of two oppositely charged particles, A and B, that are overlapping in the same momentum space then those two vector fields will have the opposite direction of rotation on that plane and hence at the point of intersection the direction of the H flux of (∇ X H)AC will be parallel to the direction of the H flux of (∇ X H)BC. In this case you have just the opposite of a null point but instead you have a point where the flux density is high and as such is representative of a hill, energy-wise, so that the particles appear to repel one another but, in fact, they are both simultaneously moving to a lower energy state by moving away from the ‘hill’. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.


But, in case you have trouble visualizing the model you can also consider that any two same charged particles that are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum space) will appear to have parallel velocities with respect to any third particle in the universe that has motion with respect to them.

A charged particle that is in motion is a ‘quantum current element’. Two same charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space are equivalent to a pair of parallel current elements. Laboratory experiments with parallel current carrying wires find an attractive interaction between the wires. Now we know that the force between parallel current carrying conductors is given by:

• F=2K*(I1*I2*L)/R

where I1,I2= Current in amps = q/t and L = length of parallel conductors in meters (or v*t for particles), K= 10e-7 nt/amp2 R= distance between the conductors in meters F= newtons If the currents are antiparallel (moving in exact opposite directions) to one another then the force is repulsive. And we know that there is no force between them (other than gravity) when they are not carrying a current so that the implication is that the relative motion of the charges is related to the force between them.


This follows from the idea is that a charge in motion is the simplest definition of a current and that a charged particle in motion is really a microcurrent element. Laboratory experiments with anti-parallel currents (pointing in exact opposite directions) in parallel wires demonstrate a repulsion between the two wires.


Two oppositely charged particles overlapping in the same momentum space will have parallel trajectories but will be anti-parallel current elements. Their flux density vector will point in the same direction at the point of intersection and they will appear to repulsively interact. But the interesting thing here is that as soon as they depart from the same momentum space and have relative motion then they have anti-parallel velocities but are parallel current elements.


So, the result is that they appear to be attractively interactive and will fall towards the same null point. Since that acceleration toward the same null point is mediated by the nonlocal vector fields then they soon come to a point where they are overlapping in the same momentum space and that results in what once again appears to be a repulsive interaction.


Thus a proton and an electron do not bind together because they are in a continuous doh-se-doh dance where they are alternately falling towards the same null point and then falling away from the same high energy hill.

Contrary to popular stellar dynamics theories that posit PP (proton-proton) interactions as the main core energy source for our sun and many other stars, two protons will not ‘stick together’ unless there is a third component to their relationship, something that will continue to keep them overlapping in the same momentum space. That third component is the neutron.


The neutron is a source of a monolithic gravitational ‘field’ that is a time gradient field. A time gradient field is a null motion gradient field and particles in the near region, from the viewpoint of all non-near region particles, will appear to begin to overlap in the same momentum space.

Thus, a neutron, because it produces this null motion gradient field produces the necessary conditions to keep the protons bound closely to it. If two nearby particles of the same charge are in the same rest frame (overlapping in momentum space) and if they both entered that momentum space at the same time then the maximum time that will pass before they can interact is Tmax=Dp/2c but if they did not come into the same momentum space at the same instant then Tmax=(Dp-c(t2-t1))/2c where Dp is the inter-particle distance, t1 is the time that the first particle enters a given momentum space and t2 is time that the second particle enters that same momentum space and c is the speed of light.


If the two particles obtain to a common momentum space at the same instant so that t2=t1 then Tmax=Dp/2c. If c(t2-t1)=Dp then Tmax=0 and the particles will immediately begin to appear to interact. For example, two particles that obtain to a common momentum space at the same instant in time that are on the order of 10 nuclear diameters apart (5e-14 meters) will begin to interact in a maximum time of 8.337e-23 seconds.


This force, which if between nuclei, will appear to be evidence of a strongly attractively interactive force, is a short time scale force, which means that particles that could interact will have to be on the order of a mean free path distance apart from one another and that Tmax has to be on the order of the mean free path flight time. Particles for which Dp> the mean free path will likely be perturbed before the reaction can begin.


So, this force, that is normally interpreted as the nuclear strong force, is not so much a short range force but rather a short time scale availability force and one can see that it is entirely electromagnetic in character. Also, this force is the sum of the forces generated by the number of particles that have motion with respect to A and B so it is a very strong force as well as being a short time scale availability force. In fact, we can see that it really isn’t a ‘force’ at all in the traditional sense because of the nonlocality with respect to the vector fields that emerge as a function of the relative motion of a great number of distant particles with respect to A and B. I used the terms ‘local’ and ‘nonlocal’ in a manner that may be a little nonstandard so please let me explain how I mean them. Definition: nonlocal; adjective, A good definition here is a quote from Nick Herbert’s, Quantum Reality, p. 214, Anchor paperback:

“A nonlocal interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate.” Nonlocal interactions do not diminish with distance, “They are as potent at a million miles as at a millimeter.” Nonlocal interactions are not delayed in time. “Nonlocal influences act instantaneously.” Nonlocal interactions are unmediated. “...no amount of interposed matter can shield this interaction.”

He tells us nonlocal interactions are not limited to light speed. Consider two particles A and B that suddenly have relative motion between them. As stated earlier a vector field will emanate from B’s location due to A’s relative motion. Now it doesn’t matter how far away B is from A when they first achieve relative motion. They can be light years apart but as soon as they begin to have relative motion A causes a field to emanate from B’s location and B causes a field to emanate from A’s location. The field emanating from A’s location is non-locally generated per Herbert’s description but it also happens to be an unobservable with respect to A’s vantage point or rest frame simply because A cannot move with respect to itself and hence vary its electric field with respect to itself. So, in this sense it is also not present in A’s frame and hence in this context is also not local to A. In the same context it is local to B because it is in B’s rest frame even though it will take an amount of time that is equal to the distance between A and B divided by the speed of light for it to physically be present at B’s location. <b>

Definition: Overlapping in momentum space or occupying common momentum space -> Two particles that have a common de Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or greater than the inter-particle distance can be said to be overlapping in momentum space or occupying a common momentum space. This is just a direct manner that one may use to quantify what it means for two particles to be nearly ‘at rest’ with respect to one another, or at least, in the same 'rest frame' without requiring that there be no motion at all. Don't mistake this for saying that they are 'at rest' but not 'at rest' ...because that isn't the intention but only to show that they can be overlapping in the same momentum space and still have some limited motion and with that limited motion will exhibit behavior that is contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's Law.

</b> My goal was to show that using just Maxwell’s equations and the principle that all motion is relative that one can show that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will, in fact, act opposite to the expectations of Coulomb’s Law. This means that if two like charged particles are overlapping in momentum space then they’ll appear to be strongly attractively interactive and if two unlike charged particles are overlapping in momentum space then they will be appear to be repulsively interactive.

DHamilton

[Zep]

Is this all your own work? Or have you copied it from another source.

[Ysidro]

Tl;dr

[krelnik]

Your post seems very similar to this mailing list post from 3 years ago by someone named Charles Cagle (ccryder1946@yahoo.com):

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/...5-03/0423.html

Is this your work, or are you plagiarizing?

[Zep]

I did ask him the same question in post #2! He assured me it was indeed his own.

[SirPhilip]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

[font=Times New Roman]

COULOMB’S LAW ONLY VALID FOR
RELATIVE MOTION RELATIONSHIPS

Our experimental data confirms that elementary charged particles behave according to the expectations of Coulomb’s law when the interacting particles have relative motion with respect to each other, but what about when they don’t have relative motion? For symmetry’s sake if we temporarily accept the notion that same charged particles will behave as if they are attractively interactive when they are overlapping in the same momentum space we might examine the idea that oppositely charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space might behave as if they are repulsively interactive.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to just accept this but rather I am suggesting that such a result can be derived from the re-examination of experimental data and can be arrived at by deductive reasoning using such data and Maxwell’s equations. Quite a few people have wondered why an electron just doesn’t fall right down into the nucleus and tightly bind with a proton. Of course, the typical answer that we get is that the electron must obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and that as its position becomes more and more localized then its momentum becomes ‘spread’ out.



DHamilton

(Brother Philip's sleepy eyes fixate on the screen, the sun is rising. He yawns. His eyes widen..) No, it cannot be...

[edd]

1. Coulomb's law does not completely describe the behaviour of charges. Maxwell's equations do.
2. Changes in frame do not affect Maxwell's laws. A change in frame from an electrostatic situation that is described by Coulomb's law results in you getting the magnetic field and everything else in Maxwell's laws anyway (thanks to SR, Ziggurat's posted something on this before I believe). All this talk of motion being relative gains you nothing over what we already know.
3. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.
4. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.

(I thought that point 3 was important enough to mention twice)

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zep

Is this all your own work? Or have you copied it from another source.

"Work"?!?

[Complexity]

Not even wrong.

Not even funny.

Not even his.

[Dancing David]

Hiya,
Silly layman's question:

Quote:

Let me introduce a simple intuitive fact or axiom:


1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system.

This makes some sense to me but I have what I am sure are naive question about it.

1. This makes sense if particles do not behave accoring to the naive understanding of general relativity There is a discussion of 'space/time' and being warped, as in 'massive objects warp space time'. So at least to this silly layman this begs a number of questions.

A. Can particles behave as though they are not in space time? So they do not have reference to it?

B. Can particles behave as they are not interacting with fields and the like? Magnetic fields, gravitational fields?

c. Would the bizarre critter labeled 'vacum energy' provide a frame of interaction?

I realise that these are very naive and foolish questions but they are relevant to the axiom you state from my uninformed POV.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by edd

2. Changes in frame do not affect Maxwell's laws. A change in frame from an electrostatic situation that is described by Coulomb's law results in you getting the magnetic field and everything else in Maxwell's laws anyway (thanks to SR, Ziggurat's posted something on this before I believe). All this talk of motion being relative gains you nothing over what we already know.

Indeed I have. Coulomb's law is derivable from Gauss's law (the integral form of one of Maxwell's equations) very easily in the static case. In the case of moving charges, the field becomes compressed along the direction of motion. This doesn't change or violate Gauss's law in any way, shape, or form. My more detailed calculations of the problem are found here.

[Reality Check]

Another "oh so wrong" posting from DHamilton obviously plagarized from the link mentioned in posting #4. DH really does not like the strong force for some reason. He starts with the obvious misconception that the protons in the nucleus are at rest. They are not - protons have plenty of room in the nucleus to move about. Then he comes up with a "simple intuitive fact or axiom" about particles at rest which is neither a fact or axiom. He forgets that the only way to measure the position or velocity of a particle is to use a coordinate system even if you are measuring relative position or velocity.
The strong nuclear force is well established and confirmed by experiment. It is mediated by mesons and these have been found.

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by edd

1. Coulomb's law does not completely describe the behaviour of charges. Maxwell's equations do.
2. Changes in frame do not affect Maxwell's laws. A change in frame from an electrostatic situation that is described by Coulomb's law results in you getting the magnetic field and everything else in Maxwell's laws anyway (thanks to SR, Ziggurat's posted something on this before I believe). All this talk of motion being relative gains you nothing over what we already know.
3. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.
4. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.

(I thought that point 3 was important enough to mention twice)

Actually, understanding the nature of a gravitational field coupled with Maxwell's Equations do perfectly explain the nucleus. The unification of gravity with EM is not so difficult as one might suppose if one first has a correct model for the unit charge of a charge particle. In short, a gravitational field is produced by any arrangement of a charge and its charge conjugate in physical superposition. Any closed flux loop that can be described by Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only as in:

# 1) ∇ X H = εο ∂H/∂t
# 2) ∇ X E = -μο ∂H/∂t

will be a gravitational field source.

Which means that a neutron, because it can decay into a charge and its conjugate, must be a quantum scale flux loop that oscillates between these two modes, and must, in fact, have the unit gravitational charge.

Looking at an E loop or ∇ X E vector field one must realize that the secondary vectors are all H so that the structure, as a quantum scale toroid, must display, temporarily and cyclically, the properties of a magnetic dipole.


Normal to the surface of any flux toroid is the Poynting vector. By the pi/2 rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poynting vector at every point (all in the same direction) an E flux loop turns into an H flux loop and vice versa. Interestingly enough we see that the Poynting vector changes direction with every mode change so that the neutron is a conservative structure over time. (Recall that integrating the Poynting vector over the entire surface gives the total energy leaving the surface per unit of time so as it cyclically swaps directions all that energy stays localized).

But we must analyze this as motion out and motion in (omnidirectionally...or truly towards and away from all other quanta in the universe). We can think about the notion of a sink and a source when thinking about individual charged particles (or charges with the unit charge, positive or negative). But we must realize that the 'field' is not a continuous structure at all but we should reflect that all quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system.


Therefore, the 'field' is composed of a finite number of discrete changing one dimensional relationships each of which is a motion relationship between one bundle of motion relationships and another. We can refer to these discrete changing one dimensional relationships as velocity potentials since they do not truly occur in velocity space (which is the illusional intellectual fiction in which we all live) but are the primal construct from which the notion of velocity arises (at the level we live our illusion).

So, we can see the neutron, then, as composed of two sets of velocity potentials, one which taken collectively we consider a 'sink' and the other taken collectively, we consider a 'source'. Each velocity potential has its conjugate and when they are mapped onto each other then they produce a one dimensional null motion line. When we have a complete set of such null motion lines that are normals to a toroidal geometry then we have a structure that has a null motion gradient.


All the motion of the universe is summed at that confluence point (which is really a quantum scale loop) and the summation is absolute stillness or no motion at all. For a reference point one might think of the Wheeler-DeWitt wave equation of the universe which gives a universe with no motion at all. So, such a confluence of sink velocity potentials and source velocity potentials produces the gravitational unit charge and we can now evaluate the gravitational 'field' (which isn't a continuous structure in the classical sense of a 'field') as a null motion gradient structure or a time-rate gradient structure.


This means that as particles approach the confluence loop (gravitational terminus loop) that from the viewpoint of any remote observer their relative velocity, with respect to one another, must approach zero. When the relative velocity of elementary charged particles approach zero then they must behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law...as shown in a previous post. So, neutrons, as gravitational charge packets force protons to overlap in the same momentum space and they are tightly held to that same deep low energy well.


Neutrons, therefore, are gravitational source particles while neither electrons nor protons can be (individually). Protons will fall towards the low energy state location provided by a neutron and the time rate gradient structure of a neutron then produces a charge separation effect that keeps electrons out of area of the nucleus.

When you learn to read the implicit geometry provided by Maxwell's equations then you see that the so-called 'strong force' is, in fact, entirely electromagnetic in origin and therefore Maxwell's equations do explain the nuclei of atoms perfectly, and quite succinctly. The 'strong force' is a fiction that needs to be dispensed with now for a true understanding of the physics of the universe to be opened up to a man's mind.

DHamilton

[edd]

So you want to replace the strong force with the weakest force we know of?

I give up.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

Which means that a neutron, because it can decay into a charge and its conjugate,

Uh, no. A neutron can decay into a proton, an electron, AND an anti-neutrino. You need all three. And Maxwell's equations cannot tell you why neutrons never decay into an anti-proton, a positrons, and a neutrino. The Standard Model can.

Quote:

Neutrons, therefore, are gravitational source particles while neither electrons nor protons can be (individually).

If that were true, hydrogen would be weightless. But it isn't. Ergo, you're completely wrong. And marginally insane.

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Hiya,
Silly layman's question:



This makes some sense to me but I have what I am sure are naive question about it.

1. This makes sense if particles do not behave accoring to the naive understanding of general relativity There is a discussion of 'space/time' and being warped, as in 'massive objects warp space time'. So at least to this silly layman this begs a number of questions.

A. Can particles behave as though they are not in space time? So they do not have reference to it?

B. Can particles behave as they are not interacting with fields and the like? Magnetic fields, gravitational fields?

c. Would the bizarre critter labeled 'vacum energy' provide a frame of interaction?

I realise that these are very naive and foolish questions but they are relevant to the axiom you state from my uninformed POV.

Space-Time is a mathematical fiction. You must bear in mind that Einstein, himself, was nearly at the point of disavowing the notion that physics could be based upon the idea of 'fields' or continuous structures.


This new physics has a number of characteristics which distinguish it from mainstream physics.

A) This physics is not based upon the idea of continuous structures or continuum based 'field theory'.

Einstein, in the year before his death expressed grave misgivings about the validity of continuum based physics in a letter to his lifelong friend Michele Besso by writing:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."- Albert Einstein in a 1954 letter to Besso, quoted from: Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais, page 467.

By the time that Einstein began to realize the tremendous intellectual blunder which was at the root and heart of continuum based physics, fully a generation of physicists had spent a great part of their lives articulating and re-articulating the fundamentals of 'field theory' in countless books and journals and academic courses so that the foundations of modern physics were not even considered to be suspect but rather were so axiomatic in nature that it was considered to be evidence that one was 'daft' to seriously raise any question against it. New advances were reckoned not to be legitimately found by questioning the root and foundation of modern physics but only supposedly by extending the theory.

And the notion of 'Space-Time' is nothing but that - a continuous structure.

So, that leaves me unable to answer your question that is not itself formatted within the realm of reality.


One should consider that a proton, for example, within your conceptual rest frame would have no Del X H vector fields associated with its movement because it might not be moving...with respect to you.... but in a huge multiplicity of other frames it has or could have very intense vector fields. You can intellectually know that they exist but you cannot measure any of them without changing frames yourself.


Most physicists just skim the surface of the universe and base all physics upon what they can measure in their particular frame and they ignore everything else as irrelevant and non-existent. But in the grander scope of things one realizes that they miss more than 99.999999 percent of the physics of the universe by ignoring what they can intellectually know must exist.


We should never forget that they make the intellectual choice to be blind and ignorant. We must look warily to such persons realizing that their innate nature is to remain in the dark, indeed, they are nourished by the darkness. So, when you come into contact with such persons, it is the greater part of wisdom to leave them be, for they can do nothing to speed you on your journey towards the light, but rather it is their pleasure to keep you as they are, blind and on their journey towards dissolution as they focus not on the connectivity of the universe but rather upon the singular preemptive state of their ego which localizes them into the hell in which they forever bind themselves.

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by edd

So you want to replace the strong force with the weakest force we know of?

I give up.

I suppose that if you only took the time to figure out why the 'strong force' was invented... you might change your mind. It was not found but made of the same cloth as the Emperor's New Clothes... and you and hundreds of thousands of others have not the moral integrity to stand up and declare that the emperor is naked. These things always seem to degenerate into personal attacks ...when it is really all about finding the Truth. What is it to you? You don't care about the Truth...so why become engaged in a thread that is disclosing some Truth?

So, no... I don't want to replace the 'Strong Force'.. I want to show you the Truth about what you and a million other people have been taught about the 'Strong Force'. That the force that binds particles together in the nucleus is not gravity as you suppose but only that gravity provides the conditions (time dilation) that allows protons to overlap in the same momentum space so that the intersection of the vector fields from n-1 frames can produce a very deep negentropic point or low energy state location towards which the protons must move... as they obey the prime axiom that all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available.

DHamilton

[Gate2501]

As a previous poster has said... How do you reconcile all of this woo with the fact that the Meson has been found, and proven to exist?

[nzric]

HI DHamilton

I won't even pretend to understand 90% of what you have written. I'm one of those people who like the quantum physics books with no equations in them

My question: Why are you writing this in an internet forum instead of going for the Nobel?

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. A neutron can decay into a proton, an electron, AND an anti-neutrino. You need all three. And Maxwell's equations cannot tell you why neutrons never decay into an anti-proton, a positrons, and a neutrino. The Standard Model can.



If that were true, hydrogen would be weightless. But it isn't. Ergo, you're completely wrong. And marginally insane.

The 'uh, no.' comment is how an egotistical condescending person ... wishes to give the air that he, somehow is an authority... when nothing could be further from the truth.

Maxwell's Equations cannot tell you more than you have the requisite ability to extract from them. And you're very limited. A neutron is a gravitational source while neither a proton nor an electron by their own self can be... A proton will certainly react to a gravitational field but is not a source; and you err from a presumption which has no grounding or knowledge concerning the nature of a gravitational field itself while I operate from the knowledge of what a gravitational field really is. If a proton is attached to a gravitational source, like a neutron,then electrons will be strongly excluded from the regions of the gravitational source due to the strong charge separation effect of the gravitational field.

DHamilton

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

only that gravity provides the conditions (time dilation) that allows protons to overlap in the same momentum space

Once again, no. What would prevent them from overlapping? Fermi exclusion? Doesn't apply if they're not in the same spin state. Coulomb repulsion? Time dilation doesn't actually help - either the net force of repulsion is larger than the net force of attraction, or it isn't, but time dilation won't change that. And the gravitational potential is so ridiculously weak that you don't GET any significant time dilation anyways.

But I am glad to see you're not playing games with the font size anymore.

[Gate2501]

Originally Posted by nzric

HI DHamilton

I won't even pretend to understand 90% of what you have written. I'm one of those people who like the quantum physics books with no equations in them

My question: Why are you writing this in an internet forum instead of going for the Nobel?

They should take away Yukawa's Nobel and give it to DHamilton I think.

Seriously DHamilton.

Look at the symptoms that you are displaying.

You think that the scientific world has some sort of "establishment" that is secretly concealing a "truth" from the general population.

If what you say is correct, then why does science not accept it to be the case? What is the "agenda" that everyone has against you?

I want to hear the full conspiracy!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

Maxwell's Equations cannot tell you more than you have the requisite ability to extract from them. And you're very limited.

That's not an answer. If you're correct, then what about Maxwell's equations allow neutrons to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, but forbid decay into anti-protons, positrons, and neutrinos? The charges all work out the same. Yet only one of those two actually ever happens.

Quote:

A neutron is a gravitational source while neither a proton nor an electron by their own self can be... A proton will certainly react to a gravitational field but is not a source;

Nope, doesn't work that way. Can't react to gravity without being a source, just like you can't react to an electric field without having a charge.

Quote:

and you err from a presumption which has no grounding or knowledge concerning the nature of a gravitational field itself while I operate from the knowledge of what a gravitational field really is.

So you're trying to tell me general relativity is all wrong? That's a bold claim. And if you're not trying to tell me that, well, what the hell do you know about what I know about gravity?

Quote:

If a proton is attached to a gravitational source, like a neutron,then electrons will be strongly excluded from the regions of the gravitational source due to the strong charge separation effect of the gravitational field.

Strongly excluded? No, I don't think so. Do you have any clue about how much stronger the electromagnetic interaction between protons and electrons is than gravitational interaction between them is?

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Once again, no. What would prevent them from overlapping? Fermi exclusion? Doesn't apply if they're not in the same spin state. Coulomb repulsion? Time dilation doesn't actually help - either the net force of repulsion is larger than the net force of attraction, or it isn't, but time dilation won't change that. And the gravitational potential is so ridiculously weak that you don't GET any significant time dilation anyways.

But I am glad to see you're not playing games with the font size anymore.

I'm trying to give you a clue here.. Coulombic repulsion (or attraction) is entirely electromagnetic and is related to the motion of the charges and the interaction of the vector fields associated with such motions. People are trying to reverse extrapolate the interactive behavior of macroscale charged objects like pith balls down to the level of quantum particles. The worst part is that you have tactile experience with what people have told you is an 'electrostatic' field...when, in fact, there's nothing static about electrons at 20C since they are zipping about at 115,000 meters per second. Break your habit of believing your senses. Seeing and feeling is believing ...but your senses and the interpretation that you've been given of your senses makes you think you have a firm concept of an electrostatic 'field' and you imagine the same type of field being scaled down to that of an electron or a proton. You were given a mind so that you can escape such illusions and apply logic and rational thought. We picture in our minds particles with 'fields' and the mathematics we use suggests that such 'fields' are continuous structures when they are not at all. I've spent years learning to overcome the prejudices and misconceptions that have emerged from the senses and from people's interpretations (including mine) of those tactile experiences. This takes mental discipline and most of the posters on usenet have no such training as I have given myself over the years and so what I have to say seems contrary to their tactile experiences and how they've been conditions t interpret those tactile experiences intellectually.

DHamilton

[BenBurch]

Wow, this reminds me SO much of a usenet poster from another era; "Archimedes Plutonium"

Google.

[Reality Check]

DHamilton: Can you show us your proof that protons are at rest in the nucleus?

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Gate2501

They should take away Yukawa's Nobel and give it to DHamilton I think.

Seriously DHamilton.

Look at the symptoms that you are displaying.

You think that the scientific world has some sort of "establishment" that is secretly concealing a "truth" from the general population.

If what you say is correct, then why does science not accept it to be the case? What is the "agenda" that everyone has against you?

I want to hear the full conspiracy!

Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I've never claimed there is a conspiracy or that anyone is concealing the Truth. I will claim that most people in academia are there because they've learned to regurgitate what they've been taught and sometimes they even can add a little of their own vomit to it. That isn't conspiratorial, that is being conditioned by a particular approach to gaining knowledge so that little true knowledge is gained but lots of pseudo-knowledge is acquired. In general there are many people who do not love the truth. It isn't a conspiracy...but rather a inner hatred of the light that these people seem to have. It is no different from the time of Galileo... people haven't undergone a basic change in character from 400 or more years ago to this day. The date is different on the calendar and we have a lot of advance technology but people are pretty much the same. In Bruno's day it was the standard response to marginalize people who didn't agree with academia. They marginalized them completely by killing them. Do you suppose anything has changed? Look at the hatred my posts engender. I'm sure people would like to see me marginalized to nothing also, and if their hatred could be manifest in action I'd be dead. But we no longer are allowed to burn people at the stake so society finds other means to marginalize people. It isn't a conspiracy, for crying out loud... it is just hatred for the light... same as always.

DHamiltion

[Ziggurat]

Knock it off with the large fonts. It doesn't make you any more believable. It's just annoying.

Originally Posted by DHamilton

I'm trying to give you a clue here.. Coulombic repulsion (or attraction) is entirely electromagnetic

Wow, there's a surprise.

Quote:

and is related to the motion of the charges and the interaction of the vector fields associated with such motions. People are trying to reverse extrapolate the interactive behavior of macroscale charged objects like pith balls down to the level of quantum particles.

Works pretty damned well to calculate the energy spectra of hydrogen electron orbitals. So I'd say they succeeded.

Quote:

The worst part is that you have tactile experience with what people have told you is an 'electrostatic' field there's nothing static about electrons at 20C since they are zipping about at 115,000 meters per second

Which is why you get things like fine structure splitting for atomic orbitals. Calculating electrodynamic fields is straight forward. We understand how to do it. Yes, it's more complex than electrostatics, but there's no mystery involved. And none of the distinctions between electrostatics and electrodynamics lead to any of the results you're talking about.

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's not an answer. If you're correct, then what about Maxwell's equations allow neutrons to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, but forbid decay into anti-protons, positrons, and neutrinos? The charges all work out the same. Yet only one of those two actually ever happens.



Nope, doesn't work that way. Can't react to gravity without being a source, just like you can't react to an electric field without having a charge.

Nonsense. You presume you understand the nature of gravity and even when it is handed to you on a platter you still condescendingly roll your eyes and make no effort to grasp what you've been shown. How can you see what is correct when you have enthroned so much that is wrong? The Truth only appears to be a pretender to the throne to you...so you reject it...

Let's go over it again.. a gravity source is a time rate gradient structure. Particles that near the gravitational terminus will begin to overlap in momentum space and elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law and I even showed you why but you can't seem to connect all the dots even when it is layed out connected for you.

Are you going to argue that a gravity field is not a time rate gradient structure? As if you had a clue!



So you're trying to tell me general relativity is all wrong? That's a bold claim. And if you're not trying to tell me that, well, what the hell do you know about what I know about gravity?

Of course it is wrong. The foundational pillar, the equivalence principle is wrong because a gravitational field treats electrons and protons differently.

Strongly excluded? No, I don't think so. Do you have any clue about how much stronger the electromagnetic interaction between protons and electrons is than gravitational interaction between them is?

You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature and a gravitational source type particle like a neutron can cause protons to overlap in the same momentum space...and therefore demonstrate behavior that you mistake for the strong force.... you're not keeping up...probably because you are not capable of keeping up.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

[b]You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature

Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.

Quote:

and a gravitational source type particle like a neutron can cause protons to overlap in the same momentum space

Them overlapping in momentum space has no effect on their electromagnetic interaction. The only effect if can have is via Fermi exclusion, but that's easy to get around by changing the spin.

Quote:

you're not keeping up...probably because you are not capable of keeping up.

Funny how you haven't managed a single equation to illustrate your stunning insights. It's always a sure sign of a crackpot when their breakthrough physics theories contain no actual math. You aren't an exception to the rule. You're just another nutter.

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and learn you use the quote function correctly.

Quote:

Of course it is wrong. The foundational pillar, the equivalence principle is wrong because a gravitational field treats electrons and protons differently.

And your motivation to claim it's wrong comes from what measurement of differential gravitational acceleration for electrons and protons? Oh, that's right - there is no such measurement.

I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere to disprove general relativity.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

A neutron is a gravitational source while neither a proton nor an electron by their own self can be... A proton will certainly react to a gravitational field but is not a source

Hey, great! DHamilton, you've just made an experimental prediction. Here it is, your prediction:

A mass of gold or lead should exert a greater gravitational force than an equivalent mass of steel or glass or fluorine, because gold or lead have 600 g neutrons per kg total, whereas steel and glass have 530 and 500 g neutrons per kg respectively, and only the neutrons exert gravitational forces. Similarly, bromine should exert larger gravitational forces than fluorine

Is that right? Would you like to stand up and support that prediction? Please make a clear yes-or-no response:

• YES, I predict that different elements exert gravitational forces in proportion to the mass of neutrons, not to the total mass. If a Cavendish balance experiment showed that the gravitational acceleration is the same (within, say, better than 1%) towards bromine, fluorine, glass, steel, lead, or gold mass, this would prove my theory false.
• NO, I actually have no idea whether different elements will exert different attractions in a Cavendish balance. My statement about a proton being "not a gravitational source" doesn't actually mean anything testable.

(eta)

I will also offer an alternative prediction:

• YES-BUT: I have no idea how complex nuclei gravitate, so I make no prediction for Fe/Pb/etc., but I can say for sure that hydrogen atoms do not gravitate, so a compound consisting of 1% hydrogen should be a 1% weaker gravity source than a hydrogen-free compound---a measurement showing that such compounds were equal at 0.1% or better would falsify my theory.

Which is it? Yes, no, or yes-but?

[edd]

Oh it's easier than that Ben. All we need to do is find some sort of giant ball of mostly hydrogen with a measurable gravitational pull, and work out if that does what it's supposed to.

Where could we find one though?

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.



Them overlapping in momentum space has no effect on their electromagnetic interaction. The only effect if can have is via Fermi exclusion, but that's easy to get around by changing the spin.



Funny how you haven't managed a single equation to illustrate your stunning insights. It's always a sure sign of a crackpot when their breakthrough physics theories contain no actual math. You aren't an exception to the rule. You're just another nutter.

Do you simply like to lie... or did you not see the equations I presented and the interpretation of them? Maxwell's Equations, for example, have an implicit geometry and so that it is not possible to get from one to the other (from the Del X H vector field mode to the Del X E vector field mode) which means that they are completely empirical... yet there is the evidence of large scale vector fields actually undergoing mode changes from one to the other in nature...but you are way too simple to see what is so blatantly manifested before you and the rest of the world. It isn't a lack of data but a lack of intellect that keeps you in the dark.. and a lack of any motive force in you towards the light. Why is it that everyone is a crackpot if they don't agree with the mainstream dogma that itself is neither unified nor coherent and which has never answered the question 'What is the nature of the charge of a charged particle?, nor the question 'What is the nature of gravity?' You're like a dog in the manger...you can't eat the provender and you bark and try and frighten others away and won't let anyone else near it so they can partake of that which you are unable.

[DHamilton]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

DHamilton: Can you show us your proof that protons are at rest in the nucleus?

Where in any of my posts do I claim that protons are at rest in the nucleus? And what proof do you have that they are not at rest with respect to each other? The only thing I'll claim is that they are overlapping in the same momentum space which means that they can be nearly at rest without requiring that there is no motion at all between them. And now why don't you stand up and tell us all what the hell this has to do with anything, since you couldn't ask such a question operating from a fully functioning intellect?

[Reality Check]

DHamilton: Are you really claiming that the hydrogen in the sun is not a source of gravity and so all of the sun's gravity comes from the other elements?

[Gate2501]

MY TEXT IS FAR TOO SERIOUS

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by DHamilton

Where in any of my posts do I claim that protons are at rest in the nucleus? And what proof do you have that they are not at rest with respect to each other? The only thing I'll claim is that they are overlapping in the same momentum space which means that they can be nearly at rest without requiring that there is no motion at all between them. And now why don't you stand up and tell us all what the hell this has to do with anything, since you couldn't ask such a question operating from a fully functioning intellect?

I may have misunderstood your argument - if "they are overlapping in the same momentum space" (whatever that means) then I accept that they can be "nearly at rest". How "near" are they to rest?
Please stop using big bold fonts. They just annoy other posters and make you look like a crackpot rather than a serious person.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

DHamilton: Are you really claiming that the hydrogen in the sun is not a source of gravity and so all of the sun's gravity comes from the other elements?

Awww, spoil my fun

[ben m]

Originally Posted by edd

Oh it's easier than that Ben. All we need to do is find some sort of giant ball of mostly hydrogen with a measurable gravitational pull, and work out if that does what it's supposed to.

I'm afraid that argument would get a response like this:

Oh yeah? How do you know the Sun doesn't have a thin layer of hydrogen over a massive core made of unobtainium? Remember, the more knowledge you need to understand the evidence, the easier it is for me to reject it.