Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Theory of Everything

  1. #1 Theory of Everything 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    A Theory of Everything

    Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

    So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled: 'Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed. On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209. See chart below:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope...%28complete%29

    Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing.
    There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon! The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

    So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.
    Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not function as it should.
    So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF.

    The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close OPEN orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. Then two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to form a helium nucleus.
    However, these fusion binds do not create any energies!

    The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because of the high velocity variations that the electrons have, to create the photons in these CRs and then work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see.

    The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus, explains why a 5th particle is not involved. A 5th particle here cannot attach to the high spinning protons. The magnetic field patterns and spin rotations are all compatible.
    Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.
    So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

    So, we can then create a new Grand Unified Theory by adding the Force of Gravity as a component of the EM forces
    There is sufficient evidence for this also. Gravity has 3 similarities to the EM forces to link these forces together.
    They all extend to infinte distances, they reduce in strength according to the 'Inverse Square Law relative to distance and a recent find has discovered that gravity propagates at the velocity of light.
    So how does this weak force couple with the powerful EM forces?
    Well, my opinion is that the protons acquire synchronous spins with the electron orbital movements through the coulomb attraction to create bypolar magnetic fields.
    So the protons will align themselves to attract with other protons nearby to create the gravitational attraction. But these attractions will be considerably weakend by the orbital electron mutual repulsions that are cycling. So this is an alternating repulsion while the protons are steadily attracting.

    So then there are ONLY the effects of the EM forces that exclude the strong force and the weak forces to result in a GUT of only the EMF's.

    This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

    Cosmo
    That was a great explanation.

    What do you think of Monopoles?


    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

    Cosmo
    That was a great explanation.

    What do you think of Monopoles?
    Well, they have been searching for them for many years. So, I think they do not exist.

    Seems like everything in Nature moves around in circles. So that includes the magnetic fields also.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    In a circle, to at least complete one there at least only need be one direction.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    In a circle, to at least complete one there at least only need be one direction.
    Magnetic fields are shown to be moving in circles that have 'directions'.

    So MFs that have motions in opposite directions will attract while on the other hand, fields that are moving in the same directions, 'repel'.

    So the fields that are formed by these Magnetic interactions around the bar or horseshoe magnets will bulge in the central regions when in 'open space' between the poles because all the fields (lines) are moving in the same directions..

    Around the electric currents, there are the left hand rules' that govern the movements of the directions of these fields.

    Fields between the electric charges have similsr characteristics.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ok. I'm kind of in over my head, but I'm curious if this theory has anything to say about why iron (and other magnetic metals) behave differently than other elements when confronted with magnetic fields.


    And another general question I've been having: in a permanent magnet, does the magnetic field have motion to it even when the magnet is sitting still?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Interesting theory, I don't think i can fully comprehend it, yet. I have a question:
    You say that the EM force and gravity are unified by your theory, while the Higgs-field also tackkles the unification of those 2 foreces and the other two - should your theory support the Higgs-field theory?
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    Iron properties, I had this in my computer.


    Magnetic Properties of Iron and Low-Carbon Steel for Soft Magnet Application.
    http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=ADA134120

    Abstract : An investigation was conducted to assess the relative merits of five soft magnet materials proposed as alternatives to ARMCO Electromagnet Iron (EMI), which is no longer available. Four irons and an SAE J403 (1005)(Unified Numbering System UNS G10050) steel were considered. When annealed in 94% nitrogen-6% hydrogen at 843 degrees C (1550 degrees F) for 4 hours and aged at 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) for 400 hours, two of the irons were found to be equivalent to EMI with regard to both coercive force and magnetic stability. A third iron exhibited similar magnetic properties after annealing, but required a higher annealing temperature to reduce the coercive force to an acceptable value. The fourth iron and the 1005 steel met the coercive force requirement after annealing at 843 degrees C (1550 degrees F) in 94% nitrogen-6% hydrogen, but suffered significant increases in coercive force during aging at 100 degrees C (212 degrees F).
    Magnetic properties of materials
    http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/mu/


    Iron
    Iron and Magnetism
    http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/iron.htm
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Ok. I'm kind of in over my head, but I'm curious if this theory has anything to say about why iron (and other magnetic metals) behave differently than other elements when confronted with magnetic fields.


    And another general question I've been having: in a permanent magnet, does the magnetic field have motion to it even when the magnet is sitting still?
    I have been thinking about this also and I am curious myself as to why iron has this property.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Interesting theory, I don't think i can fully comprehend it, yet. I have a question:
    You say that the EM force and gravity are unified by your theory, while the Higgs-field also tackkles the unification of those 2 foreces and the other two - should your theory support the Higgs-field theory?
    Since the Higgs field is still a theoretical concept that has not yet been confirmed to exist, I have not bothered to study it.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •