Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Unified forces

  1. #1  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    I think Hawking has theorized or proved that black holes emit light.

    I would go on to suggest that black holes are particles, like sub-atomic particles, if it is true that all forces can be unified. In which case the two black holes might act like the nucleus of a helium atom, with planets or stars behaving analagously to electrons in the atom.

    If the four forces are unified, there is only one type of particle, and what it is doing is expanding. Different particles would be at different stages of expansion. This is what Einstein meant when he told Nash that "it's a trivial problem in fixed point theorem." You might have thought from reading "A Beautiful Mind" that Einstein was talking about Nash's math axioms but he was making a joke about the unlikelihood of game theory turning up in the greater cosmic questions.

    I have come up with equations which give the gist of what the unified field theory is, if there is one. But that's another heading.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    I think Hawking has theorized or proved that black holes emit light.

    I would go on to suggest that black holes are particles, like sub-atomic particles, if it is true that all forces can be unified...

    ...I have come up with equations which give the gist of what the unified field theory is, if there is one. But that's another heading.
    It seems to me that the singularity contained within the event horizon of a black hole and the singularity thought to have spawned the big bang might well be "the same thing" qualitatively. In the ultra-dense and ultra-energetic regime of these singularities it's not unreasonable to imagine the unification of forces as is postulated in the standard model of big bang cosmology.

    Characterizing these singularities as particles is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, though. As I understand it, they're called singularities because we really don't have a clue about what sort of "thing" (or things) exists (or exist) in this compact region.

    If you have "equations which give the gist of what a unified field theory is", have you submitted your work to any peer-reviewed journals?

    Chris


    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    How would I go about submitting my work? I think I did once post the main equation somewhere online, but I wouldn't know who to send my work to.

    The theory makes predictions. Magnetism is a sticky problem but solutions are possible.

    I suspect the theory is not new. Douglas Adams in his fiction mentioned 42 as a significant number. My theory shows 42.850 to be the relative radius of protons to electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Sorry, that's protons to electrons, not neutrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    If unified forces, for magnetism and electromagnetism,

    you can/must assume/show that like sized particles attract like sized particles and large and small particles repel or vice versa.

    Then, there has to be a ganging activity in spiral electromagnets, where collectively large particles are pushed towards one end of the magnet, and small particles towards the other.

    Magnetic substances like iron, must show a non-ganging capacity when exposed to a magnetic field. Non-magnetic substances, must gang in a way which exactly balances and transmits the field, or vice versa.

    Then there are superconductors floating on magnets. Assuming no induced e-m field in the superconductor, where is the superconductor that floats on one end of a magnet and sticks to the other? I don't think I got by this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    If you are really serious, and have a legitamate theory, you can send it to various scientific journals. They have online info at:
    http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=49
    http://www.ifpan.edu.pl/journal.html
    http://journals.aip.org
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    How would I go about submitting my work? I think I did once post the main equation somewhere online, but I wouldn't know who to send my work to.

    The theory makes predictions. Magnetism is a sticky problem but solutions are possible.

    I suspect the theory is not new. Douglas Adams in his fiction mentioned 42 as a significant number. My theory shows 42.850 to be the relative radius of protons to electrons.
    Don't bother. Your "theory" has no empirical basis and is completely at odds with established theories (like general relativity) that have a huge base of empirical support.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    ...I suspect the theory is not new. Douglas Adams in his fiction mentioned 42 as a significant number. My theory shows 42.850 to be the relative radius of protons to electrons.
    I'm certainly no expert in the field of particle physics, but I suspect that those who are will look upon your relative radius calculation as being meaningless - much like the notion that:
    "...a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought 7 million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42..."
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_...#The_number_42 )

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    42 isn't meaningless. It's the age of human menopause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    If Einstein bothered, why do I care you say don't? When he tells me not to bother, I might listen then.

    Furthermore, I come from a computer and math background, where my "physics" needs no facility.

    I have rediscovered general relativity likelier than you think. My equations are perhaps different. My theory is inclusive of GR....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    If you only go over the same version of mathematics as everyone else, your imagination won't vary either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    If Einstein bothered, why do I care you say don't? When he tells me not to bother, I might listen then.

    Furthermore, I come from a computer and math background, where my "physics" needs no facility.

    I have rediscovered general relativity likelier than you think. My equations are perhaps different. My theory is inclusive of GR....
    I suspect that DrRocket told you not to bother because of the following sentences in your post (among other things):
    If unified forces, for magnetism and electromagnetism, you can/must assume/show that like sized particles attract like sized particles and large and small particles repel or vice versa.

    Then, there has to be a ganging activity in spiral electromagnets, where collectively large particles are pushed towards one end of the magnet, and small particles towards the other.
    In the first case, protons are all "like sized particles" and yet they repel each other. Likewise, a proton is about 1800 times as massive as an electron, yet the "larger" proton attracts the "smaller" electron.

    In the second case, large particles are not pushed towards one end of the magnet and small particles are not pushed towards the other end. The molecules of the magnet remain in place. Magnetic domains within the material of the magnet are aligned by the current flowing through the surrounding coil of wire to create the overall magnetic effect I'm guessing that by spiral electromagnets you're referring to spiral multiferroics, as in the following quote:
    The microscopic mechanism of magnetoelectric coupling in spiral multiferroics involves spin-orbit coupling.
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiferroics )

    Having an idea is one thing. But before you publish half-baked ideas it would be wise to study the known science and theories you're planning to replace. At the very least, doing so will prepare you for the objections that will surely be raised against your ideas. An additional benefit is that you might save yourself some embarrasment should you find in your research that your ideas don't match known observations and experimental results.

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Look, without effort I can visualize the unity of 3 out of 4 forces in my mind with my particulate-expansion compressable-space theory. Can you yet? The resolvable difficulty is magnetism.

    Protons attract and repel each other depending if they are in the atomic nucleus or not.
    Electrons do likewise. Should they form a nucleus they attract protonic nuclei to form regular nuclei. <-- see! a prediction! I spell it out this time.
    Outside the nuclei protons attract electrons to some extent and repel them to some extent.


    Strong force:
    If protons "touch" in a sense in the nucleus without coming closer.
    Prediction of the theory: The event horizons of black holes also do not cross each other.

    Weak force:
    A nucleic sphere packing of expanding black holes or atomic particles creates suction on the inner spaces of the sphere packing, pulling the whole nucleus together, and forming pockets of suction outside the nucleus responsible for electron orbitals.

    Gravity:
    Compression of space caused by expanding particles pushing space.

    EM:
    ? What's going on with EM? That is the problem I am setting for the forum.

    Go learn science? I attempted it. But I'm a hybrid among inbreds and I didn't come up with the concept of Inbred Overpopulator Syndrome until later. So hiccup in my education beyond my control. Self taught. You won't find what I say in a book much, nor sometimes on Google. I answer the planet a question, so I ask it one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Other things:

    Accelerating moving objects also compress space as expansion does. eg. Causing clocks to tick slower as their components are moving through compressed space which is more space.

    Particles may be infinitely compressed at their centre, unless it works out another way, eg. where space comes into existence at the location of particles.

    Molecules can be made out of black holes, planets and stars.

    Our solar system is analagous to a nucleus of electrons, unless there are black holes hiding somewhere in it, assume not. Our solar system is attracted to nuclei of black holes.

    Two black holes orbiting each other could be orbited by planets or stars in the plane parallel to the "equidistant plane" between the black holes, due to the "weak force" suction described above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    I have not modeled this theory on a computer because I have poor mental health and other projects to work on. I am probably capable of doing it given enough time alone to work on it. Please beat me to the model if you wish, but let me know how it works out. Time permitting, I could check it out myself in the next few years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    A possible start: Calculate the relative compression of space from the fact that since the moon always faces the earth, the inner "half" of the moon and the outer "half" cross equal amounts of space in one orbit of earth. (Otherwise the moon would spin.)

    Post the equations, so I can see if we agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    This theory also may explain why "nothing goes faster than light speed".

    Moving objects compress space in front of them and stretch space behind them. At some point (light speed) the space behind them tears and the fast moving object is propelled backwards into the rip in space by the compression in front of it. As this point it winks out of existence.

    Analagously, imagine a wide coil spring compressed between two rigid pivots. Grasp the spring in the centre and push it towards one of the pivots until the stretched half of the spring snaps. Your hand is pushed with lots of force back the way it came.

    Since the Universe is old, anything that could go faster than light speed has pretty much done so and disappeared already.

    What has happened to the tears is space? Unknown, but conceivably they are still there, torn ever since. They would look much like a radiationless completely black patch of space the size of the object that created them. Anything that touches them ceases to exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    If you want to make anything go faster than light without ripping space, you need to find some way to take the compression of space in front of the particle and throw it behind the particle before space can tear. Apparantly, rotating magnetic fields can do this to radio waves, confirming unified force theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Interestingly, if any physics experiment has torn space in earth's orbit, it seems earth may revisit the hole in space. If the hole is large, you can expect it to suck up the atmosphere and create volcanoes.

    Creatively, one could place rips in space in the earth's path in orbit. Which would be an interesting weapon. I wonder if it could do an earthquake?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    GC, nobody appears to be interested in responding to you at this time. I suggest you let the topic go. Bumping the thread up the list when you're the only contributor creates the impression that the thread is generally frowned upon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Biologista, have you read the thread? Do you agree with the unified force theory? Can you or anyone else contradict it? How is it not science?

    Look, E-M is a squeezed pumpkin seed effect, when space is more compressed on one side of an object than the other it is pushed outwards. The fact it is in a field of expansion means it is pulled inwards towards the other "particle" as that particle expands to meet it. Moving orthogonal to the field turns the object as the compressed space at it's base grabs it more than the thin upper space.

    Keep in mind that any force(s) must be scalable as the Universe is expanding. When an atom expands to become the size of a solar system the same rule of physics governing its operations must be at work all along.

    So with my approximate equation for the relative compression of space the four forces are expanded on and unified. Is this of interest to anyone? I mean, isn't it amazing that "thescienceforum.com" just broke this news? Is this something everyone who goes to University science conspires to hide? What's the problem really?

    If you must do away with the thread, let me know as I would like to print myself a copy first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    Biologista, have you read the thread? Do you agree with the unified force theory? Can you or anyone else contradict it? How is it not science?
    I don't care about that. I posted in order to warn you to stop bumping an inactive thread, not to discuss it's content.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    Is this something everyone who goes to University science conspires to hide? What's the problem really?
    If you find that there's a correlation between the level of education people have and the likelihood that they'll disagree with you, why would you assume that the relationship is due to a conspiracy? Isn't it much much more likely that the relationship is causal and based upon the level of knowledge they have? Or are you ruling out the possibility that you're wrong? Because you just claimed that this was science, and a scientist never expresses certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    If you must do away with the thread, let me know as I would like to print myself a copy first.
    I don't plan on deleting the thread. I generally only do that with spam. Worst case would be a lock, which will leave the thread visible to all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    Keep in mind that any force(s) must be scalable as the Universe is expanding. When an atom expands to become the size of a solar system the same rule of physics governing its operations must be at work all along.
    There is no evidence to suggest that atoms expand along with the expansion of the universe. The latter involves the expansion of space. Matter within that space remains dimensionally unaffected. If you have contrary evidence on this point please present it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    So with my approximate equation for the relative compression of space the four forces are expanded on and unified.
    Perhaps this has meaning for you. For me it is a jumble of jargon with no apparent significance. You might reasonably deduce the absence of other responses means that other forum members feel the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    Is this of interest to anyone? I mean, isn't it amazing that "thescienceforum.com" just broke this news?
    It is amazing that you think it is newsworthy. I haven't been keeping track, but you must be at least the fiftieth (or maybe two hundredth) person who has presented thescienceforum with the ultimate scoop of The Theory That Will Change The World. These presentations generally share the following features:
    1) They are badly written, with poor sentence structure and much ambiguity.
    2) They make extensive use of undefined, or ill defined jargon.
    3) They lack cohesion and structure.
    4) Mathematics is avoided at all costs, or misrepresented.
    5) Absolutely no evidence is offered in support of the ideas.
    6) Implicitly or explicitly it is suggested that there is a conspiracy to suppress the work.
    7) etc

    How many boxes do you tick?

    Do you see why no one is interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    What's the problem really?
    The problem is you seem to be talking bollocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    If you must do away with the thread, let me know as I would like to print myself a copy first.
    The bad news is that the thread will remain visible for as long as the forum lasts, as a testimony to your wooly thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    You don't know what I said.
    You think I implied what I did not imply.

    Like most people, your ideas about yourself and everyone else are wrong. That is the only way you are still here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    You don't know what I said.
    You think I implied what I did not imply.

    Like most people, your ideas about yourself and everyone else are wrong. That is the only way you are still here.
    It's no good just stating that. If you don't explain how, then this thread shouldn't be in a science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    I find "how" on the issues presented irrelevant.

    Except have an equation:

    The average compression of space on the volume swept out by the inner half of the moon to the compression on the outer half:

    Vi/Vo = (3 PI a +4 b)/(3 PI a - 4 b)

    where a is the distance from the centre of the earth to centre of the moon, and b is the moon's radius.

    This is my own equation. Do you have a reference? Do you do your own problems and answers? You are learning a thing from me, what then do you tell me? Have an adult principle.

    Are you going to suggest I chip in the occupancy of the orbital radius? Help me out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    I find "how" on the issues presented irrelevant.

    Except have an equation:

    The average compression of space on the volume swept out by the inner half of the moon to the compression on the outer half:

    Vi/Vo = (3 PI a +4 b)/(3 PI a - 4 b)

    where a is the distance from the centre of the earth to centre of the moon, and b is the moon's radius.

    This is my own equation. Do you have a reference? Do you do your own problems and answers? You are learning a thing from me, what then do you tell me? Have an adult principle.

    Are you going to suggest I chip in the occupancy of the orbital radius? Help me out.
    I don't think you understand my role here. I'm moderating. I've asked you not to bump an inactive thread and not to respond to a rebuttal by saying 'no that's wrong' without explanation. I'm not interested in the content of this discussion. I'm interested in the way it's being conducted. I'll leave the content to those better grounded in the subject matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 No answers here 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    It's been a few months and no answer on the question of orbital occupancy. I can't get the integral done without software. Online integral calculators are inadequate. Does someone own Maple?

    I also have made a partial piecemeal computer model of the unified forces due to particulate expansion. Predicted are orbitals internal to the nucleus. In particular I tested a 6 particle sphere packing which suggested a periodic tweak to the orbit would stabilize the orbit right through the large particle cloud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Unified field forecasts sun spots are black holes 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    If there are orbitals internal to the nucleus, then the theory predicts that our sun is such an object and that sun spots are rather black holes. Which makes a certain amount of sense, because what otherwise would be black near or at the surface of the sun? Magnetic field aberations really? Don't black holes have magnetic poles and emit radiation like sunspots? Anyway....
    The theory predicts that there are twenty or so black holes in the neighbourhood of the sun, whereas there have been observed up to around 250 of them. This in turn predicts half so many orbiting planetoids in our solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by GuildCompounder
    I find "how" on the issues presented irrelevant.

    Except have an equation:

    The average compression of space on the volume swept out by the inner half of the moon to the compression on the outer half:

    Vi/Vo = (3 PI a +4 b)/(3 PI a - 4 b)

    where a is the distance from the centre of the earth to centre of the moon, and b is the moon's radius.

    This is my own equation. Do you have a reference? Do you do your own problems and answers? You are learning a thing from me, what then do you tell me? Have an adult principle.

    Are you going to suggest I chip in the occupancy of the orbital radius? Help me out.
    This equation doesn't make much sense to me:



    You claim that it is an equation to calculate the "compression of space by the moon", but the above equation just doesn't really seem to do this- seeing as the subject seems to have no units anyway (the metres used for the distances cancel out).
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    That equation was rough and I made a mistake in the calculation. Inner half of a torroid to outer is not it, but it is illustrative of what I mean.

    Assuming a circular orbit, however, because the elliptical one is beyond my math although I might compute it with a computer, the radius measured from earth through the moon intersects the moon at each instant in time as a sphere-sphere intersection. Shell calculus for one orbit of the moon gives a ratio of the inner and outer equal shell 'volumes' which move through equal amounts of space given a certain calculable compression towards earth.

    I am kicked off the computer now....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Could someone check this?
    d+b e
    integral W dr0 = integral W dr0, e=?
    e A d-b A

    where the weight of the rotated sphere-sphere intersection W is
    A
    y1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
    W = [ 4 PI y (r0 - y ) atan((1/(2 d (r1 - r0 - d ))(4 d y + r1 - 2 r1 (r0 + d ) +
    A -y1

    3 2 2 3
    r0 - 2 d r0 + d))]

    Compression W on the above integral using a radial compression function F(r0),
    C
    d+b
    W = integral F(r0) W dr0
    C0 e A


    e
    W = integral F(r0) W dr0
    C1 d-b A


    W = W
    C0 C1

    with enough data, F(r0) can be known.

    This forum page ate the white space on the exponents and subscripts so they are just out of place....
    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
  •