Thread: Grand Unified Theory

A New Gut Theory

The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that cannot be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature and which we know exists and was thoroughly researched.
The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have two pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same velocities. On the other hand, the other two forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.
Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than the repulsive component, by about 10-37, this would create a gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity 1.
. And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10-15 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton or neutron). Another fact to discredit the strong force is the lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 2. Also, atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium nucleus) which has the strongest binding force within the low mass range.
There are three nuclei with mass numbers (A) 4, 5 and 6. The first is the helium nucleus with mass number 4. With a SF concept of nucleus contact, there would be six contact points between each nucleon and the range of this strong force extends to just the width of each nucleon. In the 5 nucleon nucleus, there would be eight and one half. This would have to be a stronger bound nucleus than the helium nucleus. I had an illustration for this but was unable to reproduce it here. In the atomic mass number 6 nucleus, there would be twelve contact points which should be bound much more strongly than the helium nucleus. If the strong force is real, then these discrepancies would not exist.
Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the nuclei referred to as the ‘magic numbers’. There is also the spectral characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force) would not possess3.
If the strong force does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei? My theory is that the particles within these nuclei spin at extremely high velocities where the outer portions approach closely to the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold these nucleons together. The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these particles and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the characteristics.

1 Although I arrived at my theory independently, H. A. Lorentz, the famous physicist, had the same idea at the beginning of this century. Refer to “Progress in physics” by A. Shuster, pages 156-157.
2 Refer to “Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics” by H. Semat” 4th edition, p. 588.
3 Refer to “Basic Concepts of Nuclear Physics” by Stearns, p 36 and 60.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that cannot be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature and which we know exists and was thoroughly researched.

Are you saying that the strong and weak nuclear forces don't exist? How do you explain radioactivity then?

Originally Posted by Mike NS

And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10-15 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton or neutron).

I think you forgot a prefix there because nucleans aren't the size of buses.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Another fact to discredit the strong force is the lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 2. Also, atomic mass number 6 and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium nucleus) which has the strongest binding force within the low mass range.

That didn't even make sense. You just put a bunch of numbers one after the other. Do you know how to use units? How can an atomic mass number have a binding force? And what do you mean binding force? There are lots of attractive forces at that scale. Do you mean electronegativity?

Originally Posted by Mike NS

There are three nuclei with mass numbers (A) 4, 5 and 6.

You mean elements? I'm so confused...

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The first is the helium nucleus with mass number 4. With a SF concept of nucleus contact, there would be six contact points between each nucleon and the range of this strong force extends to just the width of each nucleon. In the 5 nucleon nucleus, there would be eight and one half. This would have to be a stronger bound nucleus than the helium nucleus. I had an illustration for this but was unable to reproduce it here. In the atomic mass number 6 nucleus, there would be twelve contact points which should be bound much more strongly than the helium nucleus. If the strong force is real, then these discrepancies would not exist.

SF? contact points? 5 nuclean nucleus? Do you mean helium - 5? This would be a lot easier to understand if you used some form of units and didn't use acronyms until after you'd used the full term.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the nuclei referred to as the ‘magic numbers’. There is also the spectral characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force) would not possess3.

The nature of the strong nuclear force is gravitational? Last time I checked they were different forces which is what gave us this problem of unification.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

If the strong force does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei? My theory is that the particles within these nuclei spin at extremely high velocities where the outer portions approach closely to the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold these nucleons together. The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these particles and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the characteristics.

Missing mass numbers? I can name several elements with mass numbers 5 and 8: ⁸Be,⁵He are two.

Even if this "theory" was well defined and proofread, you would still have to present evidence that contradicts the numerous proofs that the strong and weak nuclear forces exist. Even some math would have been nice...

On the plus side, for the first time, Mike has included some references.

Mike, let me ask you a sincere question, though you may feel that motivationally it is dripping venom.
What is it that gives you such self confidence (I managed to avoid saying almost inconceivable arrogance) to reject the work of thousands of very intelligent people, whose work has dovetailed so neatly over the last one hundred plus years? What makes you believe you could be right and they are wrong? Especially, as you come to this, not with any kind of solid understanding of their work, but from a rather cursory, superificial grasp of what current particle theory and the like says.
I am genuinely puzzled as to what would lead one to such a bizarre stance. Any clarification would be welcomed.

For one thing there is no problem making a non-quantized unified theory of gravity and electro-magnetism. This was done long ago by two sweedish scientists Kaluza and Klein. Gravity is the odd one out because it is the only force that we haven' t been able develop a fully working quantum field theory for. The Standard model is a quantum field theory that unites all the forces except gravity. String theory (or rather M theory) is the best hope for developing a quantum theory that will include all the forces, but all the difficulties have not yet been ironed out and there has been no experimental verification either.

Ophi
I am a realist. If it does not seem true, than it isn't.
The first thing I consider is the probability factor.
I was aware of the strong force and its characteristics but then I came accross this 'missing atomic mass' problem.
If the strong force which is 'strictly' attractive, why should it discriminate toward the 'atomic mass numbers' 5 and 8? This should not be a possibility.
Another reason is the extremely short ranges which seem to be created just to complete the math.
The weak forces range is still shorter with it being 10^-37 meters. Wow, this is still too ludicrous to accept.
So while studying physics with two other astronomy friends, I realized that there is other evidence as well that fit quantum physics more then the strong force gravitational effects. These are the 'magic numbers'. Any physics encyclopedia will have information on this.
Then the similarities between EM forces and gravity enabled me to promote the 'one force' (EM dual nature) concept.

Mike NS

Here's my issue with your explanations in this and other threads.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

If it does not seem true, than it isn't.

If it doesn't "seem" true on what criteria? Your intuition? That's all that appears to be required for you to decide something can't possibly be. The universe isn't always intuitive especially when our intuition is tuned to the particular size we exist at. Intuition is not much help, and in fact may lead you astray, if we deal with mega-sizes and distances, or microscopic/Plank scale sizes and distances. What in the hell does it matter what "seems" likely at those scales when our intuition cannot be applied?

The first thing I consider is the probability factor.

That's interesting, because I see no probability calculations in your posts.
Once again, you are simply using your intuitive notion of what you think the probability is. Which, of course, is worthless.

Mike, your speculations and posts on this and other topics are welcome on this forum. They have sparked some interesting responses and discussion.
However, so far all of them appear to be based upon what you think, not upon what you can demonstrate. In that regard, since they also fly in the face of accepted science, they constitute pseudoscience. Neutrino has summarised the issue neatly in the previous post. I am therefore moving this thread to pseudoscience. Again, if you can post any material that removes the claims from that of opinion I shall be happy to move it back. A mathematical treatment; a detailed, step-by-step construction of the hypothesis; supporting evidence from scientific literature; any of these would be appreciated.

Ophi

The BB was born in the head of Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest that did have a PhD but no other evidence to speak of unless he was aware of Sliphers redshift observations.
So this bit of evidence that had to be MODIFIED to conform to the BB concept is certainly 'flimsy' evidence to accept.
Then, of course, you know the other evidence that refutes this concept.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The BB

What does "BB" refer to? Please don't use any acronyms until after you've used the full term! It makes posts a lot easier to understand.

He means Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Ophi

The BB was born in the head of Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest that did have a PhD but no other evidence to speak of unless he was aware of Sliphers redshift observations.
So this bit of evidence that had to be MODIFIED to conform to the BB concept is certainly 'flimsy' evidence to accept.
Then, of course, you know the other evidence that refutes this concept.

Mike NS

if you can formulate a credible theory after watching an episode of the Simpsons does the fact that you got your idea for the theory from a popular TV show make the theory any less credible.

I think not.

wallaby

I do not watch cartoons. That is for the children to enjoy.

When it comes to TV, I watch the science programs that deal with the physical rather than the biological on public TV.
When it comes to fiction, I watch science fiction and police dramas because PD teach you a little about 'forensic science'. I also watch PD's because the criminals get caught everytime (almost) and that is justice.
However, law is a personal opinion so it is political more than scientific but the BB'ers create their own laws. Ha Ha.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

I do not watch cartoons. That is for the children to enjoy.

When it comes to TV, I watch the science programs that deal with the physical rather than the biological on public TV.
When it comes to fiction, I watch science fiction and police dramas because PD teach you a little about 'forensic science'. I also watch PD's because the criminals get caught everytime (almost) and that is justice.

So if I watch an episode of Baywatch, parents should let me lifeguard their children at the beach? You can't learn everything from TV. That's why they still have school.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

wallaby

I do not watch cartoons. That is for the children to enjoy.

When it comes to TV, I watch the science programs that deal with the physical rather than the biological on public TV.
When it comes to fiction, I watch science fiction and police dramas because PD teach you a little about 'forensic science'. I also watch PD's because the criminals get caught everytime (almost) and that is justice.
However, law is a personal opinion so it is political more than scientific but the BB'ers create their own laws. Ha Ha.

Mike NS

that didn't aswer my question.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10^-15 meters.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Ophi
I am a realist. If it does not seem true, than it isn't.
The first thing I consider is the probability factor.

I just had to say this exact same thing to Martillo. Incredulity is no basis for scientific investigation or for doubting scientific fact.

This is science, and a science is based on mathematics. The mathematical science of probability involves actual assessment of frequency of observed events. The strong nuclear force is demonstrably 137 times the strength of gravity, and it demonstrably falls off at 10^-15 metres. The probability of the nuclear force exhibiting those properties is therefore 100%.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

I was aware of the strong force and its characteristics but then I came across this 'missing atomic mass' problem.
If the strong force which is 'strictly' attractive, why should it discriminate toward the 'atomic mass numbers' 5 and 8? This should not be a possibility.

Atomic mass is derived from the sum of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. What makes an element an element with its concomitant properties is the number of protons, which is the Atomic Number. There has to be an element for every number of protons in the nucleus. The number of neutrons in the nucleus starts off at parity with the number of protons, but tends to increase in order to maintain the nuclear stability. The simplest atom, Hydrogen, Atomic Number 1 remains stable without a neutron. The next atom, Helium, Atomic Number 2, has two protons and two neutrons, so the atomic mass is 4. Lithium has 3 protons and 3 neutrons, so the atomic mass is 6. Exactly how is the "missing atomic mass" of 5 in any way strange? Masses 2 and 3 only exist because of the creation (through neutron bombardment I assume) of deuterium and tritium, both unstable atoms.

silas quote
Masses 2 and 3 only exist because of the creation (through neutron bombardment I assume) of deuterium and tritium, both unstable atoms.

reply
Hydrogen has two isotopes. Deuterium or as applied to the nuclei deuteron and triton.
Deuteron is a stable element and exists naturally. tritium is an isotope with a short half life.

Atomic mass numbers 4, 6, 7 amd 9 exist while 5 and 8 are missing.
How can this be if the strong force which is attractive with its extremely short range should 5 and 8 not exist? This does not make sense.
This glaring omission is enough for me to refute the theory of the strong force.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Atomic mass numbers 4, 6, 7 amd 9 exist while 5 and 8 are missing.
How can this be if the strong force which is attractive with its extremely short range should 5 and 8 not exist?

Berylium has a mass number of 8 and helium with one extra neutron would have a mass number of 5 as would lithium with one less neutron.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

This does not make sense. This glaring omission is enough for me to refute the theory of the strong force.

This "omission" isn't as glaring as you think. Please provide more detail, evidence and a new theory to replace the standard model.

Originally Posted by cs-comm

Berylium has a mass number of 8 and helium with one extra neutron would have a mass number of 5 as would lithium with one less neutron.

reply
The atomic mass number (A) of beryllium is 9. It has 2 isotopes with AMN's 7 and 10 that do not exist naturally.
Helium has only one isotope with AMN 3. This isotope is stable but very rare.


cs quote
This "omission" isn't as glaring as you think. Please provide more detail, evidence and a new theory to replace the standard model.

reply
I have a book entitled The Elements by John Emsley.
It gives a complete description of the elements.

Like I said, AMN's 5 and 8 do not exist in nature.
No need to change my theory.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by cs-comm

Berylium has a mass number of 8 and helium with one extra neutron would have a mass number of 5 as would lithium with one less neutron.

reply
The atomic mass number (A) of beryllium is 9. It has 2 isotopes with AMN's 7 and 10 that do not exist naturally.
Helium has only one isotope with AMN 3. This isotope is stable but very rare.

My mistake.

cs quote
This "omission" isn't as glaring as you think. Please provide more detail, evidence and a new theory to replace the standard model.

reply
I have a book entitled The Elements by John Emsley.
It gives a complete description of the elements.

That is just dandy.

Like I said, AMN's 5 and 8 do not exist in nature.
No need to change my theory.

Mike NS

Like I said, maybe you could provide some evidence that the none existence of amn's 5 and 8 means that there is no strong nuclear force, followed by a new theory that will replace the standard model.

Note: The evidence you will provide cannot be
a) a book
or
b) a quote from a book

How do the positive protons stay together without a nuclear force to keep them together?

cs quote
How do the positive protons stay together without a nuclear force to keep them together?

reply
Again, I want to emphacise here that mu ideas are 'new science'.

The reason for this is that the current nature of the strong force just does not seen scientific anf especially with those glaring missing 'atomic mass numbers' which is the most compelling.

The central regions of the newly forming stars force the HA's together to fuse into helium.
Because of this 'compressed environment, one electron can be forced to form a deuteron by centrally cementing two protons together with the added force resulting from the 'high spins' of the protons to form magnetic fields.
These protons are caused to spin at these high velocities because the condensed atoms squeze the electrons close to the protons where they may acquire near light speed velocities that cause these high proton spins. The resulting powerful magnetic fields are the biggest factor in binding the deuteron. Naturally, the deuteron appears to have one neutron as a component that can only exist in this way as a permanent nucleon.
These strong MF's can then bind to form a helium nuclei.

This is a brief explanation of how the strong force can be eliiminated.
A helium nuclei would then prevent a fifth nucleon to be attached to it because of these spins and unneeded fifth particle that would upset the balance or symetry of the nucleus.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by cs-comm

cs quote
How do the positive protons stay together without a nuclear force to keep them together?

reply
Again, I want to emphacise here that mu ideas are 'new science'.

The reason for this is that the current nature of the strong force just does not seen scientific anf especially with those glaring missing 'atomic mass numbers' which is the most compelling.

The central regions of the newly forming stars force the HA's together to fuse into helium.
Because of this 'compressed environment, one electron can be forced to form a deuteron by centrally cementing two protons together with the added force resulting from the 'high spins' of the protons to form magnetic fields.
These protons are caused to spin at these high velocities because the condensed atoms squeze the electrons close to the protons where they may acquire near light speed velocities that cause these high proton spins. The resulting powerful magnetic fields are the biggest factor in binding the deuteron. Naturally, the deuteron appears to have one neutron as a component that can only exist in this way as a permanent nucleon.
These strong MF's can then bind to form a helium nuclei.

What is a deuteron? Do you mean deuterium?

This is a brief explanation of how the strong force can be eliiminated.
A helium nuclei would then prevent a fifth nucleon to be attached to it because of these spins and unneeded fifth particle that would upset the balance or symetry of the nucleus.[/quote]

For the last time I would like you to give evidence of the inadequecy of the standard model. Please name an experiment that has contradicted on of its predictions. Not a thought experiment a real experiment.

cs quote
What is a deuteron? Do you mean deuterium?

For the last time I would like you to give evidence of the inadequecy of the standard model. Please name an experiment that has contradicted on of its predictions. Not a thought experiment a real experiment.

reply
A deuteron is the nucleus of the deuterium atom.

My evidence is my 'new science'. I gave adequate evidence of why the AMN's 5 and 8 are missing.

Suppose you provide evidence of why they are missing?
As far as I am concerned, the 'standard models' use of quarks is not realistic since they DO NOT exist in isolation.
The only basic matter is the proton and the electron. Both can exist in isolation so they are real and have been studied thoroughly.

Mike NS.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

cs quote
What is a deuteron? Do you mean deuterium?

For the last time I would like you to give evidence of the inadequecy of the standard model. Please name an experiment that has contradicted on of its predictions. Not a thought experiment a real experiment.

My evidence is my 'new science'. I gave adequate evidence of why the AMN's 5 and 8 are missing.

I think this has been mentioned before. Just because your "science" is "new science" doesn't make it right. You still have to provide evidence ie an observation that you are right. You also have to explain in detail please why missing atomic mass numbers means that the nuclear force can't exist.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Suppose you provide evidence of why they are missing?
As far as I am concerned, the 'standard models' use of quarks is not realistic since they DO NOT exist in isolation.
The only basic matter is the proton and the electron. Both can exist in isolation so they are real and have been studied thoroughly.

What about tje neutron? What about the hundreds of experiments that have shown us that quarks exist? Were they hallucinations brought on by the nuclear force?

That's it all right, cs. This is where I usually grow exasperated or utterly lose interest in a topic. When the person stating the postulate says in effect, "no, I will not defend my hypothesis - instead, you explain why all of scientific thought on this matter is correct."

Horse / Cart = Hitched Backwards.

No offense, Mike, but this is where the scientific pedal meets the metal. Either you can explain in detail why tens of thousands of scientists, theories, and physical observation expressed over a Century of work are wrong, or you have nothing but an idea.

cs quote
What is a deuteron? Do you mean deuterium?
For the last time I would like you to give evidence of the inadequecy of the standard model. Please name an experiment that has contradicted on of its predictions. Not a thought experiment a real experiment.

reply
A deuteron is the nucleus of the deuterium atom. My evidence is my 'new science'. I gave adequate evidence of why the AMN's 5 and 8 are missing.

Cs quote
You also have to explain in detail please why missing atomic mass numbers means that the nuclear force can't exist.

Reply
The description of the SF is that it is gravitational with its very short range.
With these circumstances, AMN’s 5 and 8 should exist. Why would the SF discriminate against these nunbers?

But by substituting two deuterons with ‘high spins’ locked together with their magnetic fields, this automatically eliminates the 5th particle as a component of an AMN because it cannot be shown as an individual attachment to the two deuterons that form the helium nucleus. It is simply the ‘odd particle out’.

Cs quote
What about tje neutron? What about the hundreds of experiments that have shown us that quarks exist? Were they hallucinations brought on by the nuclear force?

Reply
The neutron decays after about 15 minutes. The quarks are interpretations of particle fragmentations that are not natural occurrences. So I see no reason to consider them primary particles that serve no purpose.



Yevaud quote
That's it all right, cs. This is where I usually grow exasperated or utterly lose interest in a topic. When the person stating the postulate says in effect, "no, I will not defend my hypothesis - instead, you explain why all of scientific thought on this matter is correct."

Mike, Either you can explain in detail why tens of thousands of scientists, theories, and physical observation expressed over a Century of work are wrong, or you have nothing but an idea.

Reply
Well, these establishment scientists also promote the BB and that, to me, is also refutable.

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Reply
Well, these establishment scientists also promote the BB and that, to me, is also refutable.

Mike NS

Yes, they do. And there's also been several million man-hours of painstaking research, observation, theorizing, and mathematical models to explain why they believe they're correct.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Atomic mass numbers 4, 6, 7 amd 9 exist while 5 and 8 are missing.
How can this be if the strong force which is attractive with its extremely short range should 5 and 8 not exist? This does not make sense.
This glaring omission is enough for me to refute the theory of the strong force.

Mike NS

why should they exist?

Yevaud quote
Yes, they do. And there's also been several million man-hours of painstaking research, observation, theorizing, and mathematical models to explain why they believe they're correct.

reply
The Laws of Physics and empirical evedence have been violated such as the Laws of Conservation and the M-M experiment.

wallaby quote
why should they exist?

reply
They should exist because the described nature of the strong force is not a quantum effect but instead a gravitational effect which currently is not quantum. So there is no reason why AMN's 5 and 8 should not exist as the SF is currently described..

Mike NS

gravitational effect?

the stong force only affects anything in its range.
if the neucleus of and atom with mass 5 or 8 can't get within this range of all the other particles then the atom won't form.

Originally Posted by wallaby

gravitational effect?
the stong force only affects anything in its range.
if the neucleus of and atom with mass 5 or 8 can't get within this range of all the other particles then the atom won't form.

reply
During star formation when the atoms are packed closely, then the AMN 5 should exist. If AMN 4 happens, then AMN 5 should also happen.

Your argument above is not proving anything.

Mike NS

yours isn't saying much either.

what does chronological order of mass have to do with the formation of the elements?

Originally Posted by wallaby

yours isn't saying much either.

what does chronological order of mass have to do with the formation of the elements?

reply
I am only concerned with the low mass numbers as they pertain to my argument.
The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy imply that matter always existed. So I am not about to explain how all this mass originated.

I can only apply my argument to the stars and the formation of the 'low mass' components. This alerted me to the missing numbers. The rest is history.

Mike NS

that doesn't answer my question.

what do missing numbers have to do with the strong force?

Originally Posted by wallaby

that doesn't answer my question.

what do missing numbers have to do with the strong force?

reply
This may be beyond your level of understanding.

My idea conforms to Quantum physics while the strong force conforms to the gravity concept which currently is not considered quantum physics.
Do you get that?

Mike NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

The Laws of Physics and empirical evedence have been violated such as the Laws of Conservation and the M-M experiment.

The law of Conservation of Parity was assumed to apply to certain quantum events and particles, but there was a problem in theory. Postulating the concept that Parity was not conserved was a revolutionary idea, and it helped the theory, but required evidence. Then someone designed an experiment which would test the matter, and the violation of the Law of Conservation of Parity was confirmed. This was a case where theory did precede experimental verification, but said verification occurred and the problem of the Weak force was solved.

The Michelson-Morely experiment certainly showed that the aether theory of light propagation was in trouble. Einstein demonstrated a new theory of light which was later confirmed by experiment (though apparently he claimed that he was unaware of Michelson-Morely, and had made the assumption of an unchanging lightspeed without knowing that it had already been demonstrated).

What we see when we look at the elements table is that generally an additional proton requires at least one additional neutron, though there are isotopes where this is not the case. What we don't see is a "glaring omission". There's nothing in the theory that would leave a mass of 5 as an unexplained non-outcome. I wouldn't know where to look this up, but I'm quite certain that the quantum model fully explains why Beryllium (for example) only has the number of neutrons it has, or one or two more, but never one less. Unless you can demonstrate knowledge of quantum theory to that extent, then I'm not sure if you're qualified to provide a new theory at all.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

what do missing numbers have to do with the strong force?

reply
This may be beyond your level of understanding.

My idea conforms to Quantum physics while the strong force conforms to the gravity concept which currently is not considered quantum physics.
Do you get that?

Mike NS

You're not seriously suggesting that what you stated forms anything like a sufficient explanation, whether the subject is "beyond his level of understanding" or not!

You've expressed doubt about the Strong Force theory on the basis that such a strong force ought to be felt at a greater distance. If you think that the Strong Force "conforms to the gravity concept" - whatever that means - perhaps you are labouring under the misapprehension that the Strong Force falls off as a square of the distance, as Gravity and electromagnetism do. The Strong and Weak forces do not obey inverse-square laws - and that is why they are part of quantum theory and not "the gravity concept".

I hope this has been helpful, as well as "within your level of understanding".