"What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?"

(I have written an extensive thesis on this but I thought I'd better not post it all here!!! However, I'll try and condense the theory so I can get some input from you all.)

Gravity is everywhere. Or is it?

To us, on Earth, and to cosmology in general, gravity is king. It explains everything from the orbital motion of planets and galaxies to the very laws of Newtonian motion themselves.

BUT:

Deep within the atomic nucleus, at the quantum level, it is the Strong Nuclear Force that is by far the most abundantly powerful force – binding together protons despite the naturally repulsive electromagnetic forces of the positively charged particles.

This Strong Nuclear Force is the most powerful fundamental force in the Universe (a trillion, trillion, trillion times stronger that gravity on Earth), but it is only effective at quantum distances (smaller than a trillionth of a millimetre).

To maintain equilibrium, I assert that as the Strong Nuclear Force depletes with increasing distances so must the forces of electromagnetism and gravity correspondingly strengthen; electromagnetism with increasing wavelength and gravity comparable with an increase in mass.

As Max Planck detailed the “Planck Constant” (length) of h (6.626x10^-34) below with length electromagnetic waves could never shrink, so too should there be a “Le Marcs Mass” – being the amount of mass at which gravity gains dominion (either via Newtonian attraction or Einsteinian warping of space-time), but below which level of mass renders gravity insignificant in the sub-atomic world and entirely submissive to the other fundamental forces.

Arguably there could also exist a measure of constant length relating to the Strong Nuclear Force, being the corresponding distance required between particles/objects once achieved “Le Marcs Mass” to overcome the Strong Nuclear Force, but in line with quantum theory this may be comparable to Planck’s length. However, as far as coining a name for this theoretical quantum distance I would suggest the “Peake Distance” or maintaining the ITLADian tradition of dreadful puns………….the “Peake District”

*English groans*

An enormous amount of time and money is presently being spent by leading scientific researchers into finding the role of gravity at the sub-atomic level. Here I postulate that it has NO role at some quantum levels in an inverse way that the Strong Nuclear Force has no effect in the macro-scale universe. The two are kings in their own dominion ONLY. And the search for the elusive Graviton (the assumed particle of gravity) seems futile to me as we have never even recorded Einsteinian Gravity Waves at the Cosmological level. So trying to find a single Graviton when we can't even see any evidence of the wave seems proposterous. Indeed can there even occur a gravitational wave collapse at observation if Gravitational waves themselves are not proven?

To summarise: I postulate that the “Le Marcs Mass” is the quantity of mass required for any material object/particle to obtain before it can possibly exert any gravitational force. Below this mass level it possesses neither no gravitational pull nor sufficient space-time warpage and consequently, at such small mass levels and deep within the quantum field, gravity has no effect in sub-atomic quantum physics.

The “Peake Distance” is the distance required between sub-atomic particles (particularly protons) for the Strong Nuclear Force to weaken and electromagnetism and gravity to become effective.

This, in as simplistic form as I can manage, is my theory of Quantum Gravity.

Discuss !

(any input is valuable as I develop this theory so your thoughts are welcomed either in the comments section or, given the complexity of this subject, via direct email to me.)

**A Dark Philosopher**

**Karl L Le Marcs**

## 24 comments:

*some hard science for those interested*

At the Cosmological level (C)

Mass of Sun = 1.98892 x 10^30 kg

Mass of Earth = 5.9742 x 10^24 kg

Distance between the two = 150 x 10^9m

At the Quantum level (Q)

Mass of Proton = 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg

Mass of Electron = 9.10938 x 10^-31 kg

Mass of Neutron = approx 1,839 x Electron Mass

Distance or Bohr Radius = 5.3nm (5.3 x 10^-9 m)

Now, the ratio of Cosmological (C) to Quantum (Q) calculates to roughly 1:10^73

(which is a considerable number)

Given that F = G M1 M2

-------

r^2

Where F = Force; G = Gravitational Constant; M1 is the Mass of 1 object and M2 is the mass of the other object; and r is the distance between them – if M1 M2 is viewed as the ratio (C) to (Q) then:

(C)

∑ F = G (1:10^73)

(Q) -----------

r^2

“Le Marcs Mass” would be a constant above which G makes F a positive result and below which leaves F at zero.

“Peake Distance” would be r where the Strong Nuclear Force effect is depleted so G again takes a positive dominant F.

(Writing mathematical equations on blogger is chuffing difficult !!!!)

I hope this makes (some) sense, but comments or direct emails to me are welcomed as I try and work on this thesis in the long insomniacal nights (and it gives my hypergraphia something to do).

*Smile*

*looks around the room*

Has no-one got anything to say?

Ken, surely!! Tony will, I know, chuck in his lot when he returns from the SMN but I hope some more of you will help me along.

Karl, I need more time to assimilate this AND your third-person comments to my post. My Pentium II is chugging along full bore and I'm paging in and out of my 512MB of memory like ... like ... like ... like ... an oyster shucker ... at ... a ...

Sorry, segmentation fault. Where was I?

I agree that "finding the role of gravity at the sub-atomic level" seems useless if you are considering the force between sub-atomic particles. But, what is interesting to me is how gravity interacts with matter and, more specifically, how does it do this on the sub-atomic level? The earth runs around the sun but how does it "know" that it should do this? Is this the role of the graviton -- to interact with matter and transfer this "knowledge"?

Whether or not the Graviton is measurable, I cannot give an informed opinion. But something must be telling the matter in the earth that it needs to move in such a way as it does.

As far as the "Le Marcs Mass," I would suggest that you consider defining it as the amount of mass at which gravity equals the strong force, or something like that. "Gains dominion" seems a rather subjective measurement but "becomes equal to" is more objective. But isn't distance also necessary? You could have a tiny black hole with enough mass to be significant but it would still need to be appropriately close. Maybe you need a "Le Marcs Constant" with dimensions mass/length?

The problem is that I don't have a feel for how the strong force depends on mass and distance. Does it decrease smoothly or is there a sharp transition as distance increases? Gravity, presumable, would be a smooth function as mass and distance decrease even into the sub-atomic range. Where the two profile cross would seem to be the most interesting point.

FWIW

After a little bit of rumination...

I think that considering the Newtonian gravitational force (i.e. F=GMM/r2) between sub-atomic particles is not relevant. It is far too small compared to the strong force. I totally agree with you that on the sub-atomic scales, gravity is not important and on larger scales, the strong force is not important.

I'm also not convinced that comparing the gravitational force on the cosmological and sub-atomic scales is meaningful. What is special about the sun-earth system that it would be the standard? Why not the gravitational force between our sun and alpha centauri or the earth and the moon? And why should gravity on the small scale necessarily be comparable to gravity on the cosmological scale? The force between me and the earth as I step off my second story balcony is some10^20 times less than between the earth and sun but it's still important.

I must admit I did not understand (probably due to problematic formatting due to blogger) your last equation and the "above which G makes F a positive result and below which leaves F at zero." Gravity goes like the product of the two masses under consideration so it will never be identically zero.

From some VERY brief readings about quantum gravity, the point is not the gravitational force between protons and electrons but the mediation of gravity by a particle called the graviton. It is the anticipated merging of gravity with the other three forces (and about here my current comprehension starts to fade).

Karl, you and I have touched upon this issue when we last met and I am even more interested in this idea now - particularly after reading a couple of books discussing the concept of 'quantum fields'. In my opinion you are suggesting something very powerful and I am hoping that your concept of the Le Marcs Mass (otherwise known as the 'Dark Mass' - 'Dark Matter' maybe?) will be published elsewhere and commented upon by specialists far more qualified than myself (although I suspect that Ken has clear specialism in this field - indeed I just stand back in awe at the vlevel of your debate). Honoured by your 'Peake Distance' by the way. Lets hope that the followers of Abraham Maslow do not sue you - wouldn't that be an 'experience'.

Ken, thank you as ever for your input, it is all greatly appreciated.

You asked: "something must be telling the matter in the earth that it needs to move in such a way as it does." which reminded me of the famous quote by MIT professor Alan Guth - "Space tells matter how to move. Matter tells space how to curve."

I agree with the semantics of "gains dominion" so that will be amended. And you said: "But isn't distance also necessary?" which is where the "Peake Distance" or puntastically the "Peake District" comes into my equations.

Again Ken, thanks for your help.

Tony,

Looking forward to discussing Quantum Fields with you in the pub shortly then. *smile*

I'm not sure of your connection between my "Le Marcs Mass" and "Dark Mass" or "Dark Matter", I think some more explanation maybe required from me over a soothing ale or two.

And your standing "in awe" is deeply humbling especially as you should remember that many of my theories are as a direct consequence, or certainly majorly inspired by both your book and yourself.

I rather like the "Peake District" myself by the way - It's great when you can make yourself laugh !!

And congratulations at throwing a name at me that I have no knowledge of.

*runs off to revise on Abraham Maslow*

Karl-- I feel that I'm missing something in your ideas (which would not be surprising to me). Are you, indeed, talking about the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles and is this what scientists are, indeed, investigating?

Anthony-- I am a scientist/engineer by education but I have not speciality in physics or quantum theory or anything.

Ken, don't worry, I'm missing somethings in my ideas as well *smile*

Yes I am theorising on the sub-atomic gravitational effects (or non-effects as I postulate). The elusive Graviton that is being sought is the hypothetical particle of gravity. However, I argue 2 points. 1, That as the Gravitational Waves that Einstein predicted have not even been discovered at the Cosmological level how likely is it that we will discover such a small fragment when the bigger force is not evident. And 2, I wonder if it is even possible to collapse the wave function of gravity to produce a graviton anyway.

And to answer your question on how the SNF depletes either uniformly or with sharp decline I've been doing some calculations and I would think that as between nucleons, neutrons and protons, the strong force is mediated by pions it would simply decrease with increasing distance by the inverse-square law and an exponential term something like exp(-x/d) where x is distance and d = hc/(2.Pi.E) from the uncertainty principle.

But I may be getting in way-hey-hey too deep here.

*tries pulling self out of mental black hole*

KARL and ANTHONY-- Have you heard of the Penrose Interpretation? In this one, gravity causes the wave function collapse eliminating the need for both Many Worlds and conscious observation. Found it on wikipedia

Ken, problem being the word "gravity". In my theory of Quantum Gravity there is NO gravitational effect, either Newtonian or Einsteinian at the Quantum Level therefore the Penrose Interpretation collapses as the hypothetical wave as "Gravity" cannot be a force to collapse the wave at such a quantum distance (until both "Le Marcs Mass" and "Peake Distance" have been achieved - see original post for definitions of these "Constants")

However, by very nature of MWI we all become observers, not just in our own universe but also in those in which we have an entaglement (Quantum or otherwise).

I feel you and I Ken (and also Tony) ideally should discuss much of this over a plentiful supply of Malt Whiskey.

*smile*

Make it a nice bourbon (preferably something 16 years or older) and you're on!

Course there is the slight problem of that puddle between our domiciles. Surely there is one of my Many Worlds in which I reside in the UK. Just need to swap places with that ken. Wonder if you can carry a bottle with you on that trip? That way I could bring my own nectar.

KARL-- But gravity has infinite range (unlike the SNF which seems to reach only a few fm before going to zero) and there's no competition with the SNF in Penrose's theory (at least that I see).

I did a quick calculation and the gravitational attraction between two dust specks each being the Planck mass in size and separated by 1 micrometer is equal to an acceleration on one of the dust specks of almost 1.5 micrometer/s^2. This is far from negligible.

I used the Planck mass for the calculation because that's the scale at which Penrose suggests that standard quantum mechanics will fail. So, he's saying gravity is a factor for things much larger than electrons.

Which, I guess is kind of off-topic for a post on Quantum Gravity.

I'd suggest a nice 16yr old Lagavulin Malt. I'll see if I can carry one on an Astral travel??!!!

Ken,

I don't agree that "gravity has infinite range", this is the basis of my theory of Quantum Gravity below the "Le Marcs Mass" and at distances within the "Peake Distance". Elementary particles, and even Quarks and Leptons do not have sufficient mass, nor energy to generate what we "know" as gravity, neither in the Newtonian "pull" variety nor the Einsteinian "warping of space-time".

I agree with Penrose regarding gravity at scales "much larger than electrons" which is the case I'm trying to present. It is when mass of any particle falls below my "Le Marcs Mass" that any gravitation effect become negligible or if the "Peake Distance" has also been reached, that the SNF becomes the dominant force.

KARL-- I feel like I'm coming across as argumentative, and I don't mean to be. At some point you'll just have to tell me to shut up until you share your theory with me.

So, that being said . . .

1) I don't think comparing the Cosmological level to the Quantum level of the gravitational force makes sense. From what I've found online, the Strong Force potential energy is on the order of 2-50 MeV. I calculated the potential energy of the earth-sun system (i.e. the energy required to remove the earth from it's current location to infinity) as 3.3x10^46 MeV.

2) The SNF goes to zero for distances of only a few femtometers. For a distance of 2 fm, to get a 2 MeV potential via gravity would require particles of mass 3.1x10^-9 (only one order of magnitude away from the Planck Mass, interestingly enough) But this mass is 10^18 bigger than a proton which would make a very dense particle, indeed! So, I don't see any feasible, realistic mass or distance for which the SNF still has a non-zero value and gravity is comparable.

Ken, you're not argumentative at all. This type of dialectical arguement is what I need.

I have no time today but I will get your comments answered soon.

KEN:

Ok, in answer to your points:

1) I'm NOT comparing Cosmological Forces to Quantum Forces, merely pointing out the vastly differing laws of physics within each. At a ratio of 1:10^73 the difference between the two is awesomely inconceivable. The SNF "potential energy" is problematic as its existence, as you rightly state in point 2 is only felt over a few femtometers BUT it is SO powerful that it overcomes all the other elemental forces combined to a trillion times. And I'm rather lost as to why you mention PE in cosmology to "remove the earth from it's current location". *scratched head and looks comedically confused in the now legendary Stan Laurel manner*

2) You actually confirm my point in point 2 while dialectically positing your argument in an interestingly paradoxical way.

You mention this hypothetical particle just a magnitude away from Planck Mass which is 10^18 bigger than a proton. This still makes the mass much larger than that which I argue about in my Quantum Gravity post. At protonic level, even are quark and lepton level, atomic physicists are currently seeking the elusive "Graviton" the particle of gravity to learn the role of gravity at the atomic level and also back to the role of gravity within the singularity (which of course is a different matter than we are discussing here as a singularity would have infinite mass at the atomic level, but anyway.......) At the atomic level of "nature" the SNF fades to zero effect over a few femtometers after which the forces of electromagneticism and ultimately gravity take over. If the MeV potential via gravity requires a specific mass then this would relate to two constants - namely the "Le Marcs Mass" and "Peake Distance" of elementary particles.

*lies down*

KARL--

1) I computed the PE of the earth-sun system to have a comparison with the values I was taking from plots of the SNF. I thought, from way back at the beginning of this post (your first comment, to be precise), that you were comparing Cosmological to Quantum forces of gravity and defining your "Le Marcs Mass" in terms of that ratio. I was trying to demonstrate why I don't think you should do that. But you're not. So a moot point.

2) I try to be dialectically interesting in a paradoxical way at least once a week. "Use it or lose it" and all that. In any case, and despite the fact that I don't remember what I was positing (I try not to posit but once a fortnight) I think I was going somewhere along the lines of where does gravity overwhelm the SNF and trying to show that the SNF goes to zero long before gravity has a chance because gravity would require particle masses so massive but so small (so as to fit into a femtometer or so) that they would be extremely dense and so impossible.

In short, I think I have demonstrated that I am ignorant enough of your theory to offer much in the way of constructive comment yet knowledgeable enough to do a few computations and report my results. So, until I am better informed, I think I shall have to refrain from further comment.

Ken,

You make me smile and challenge me at the same time which if you were female would have some interesting alternative potential.

*smile*

Your comments are ALWAYS welcomed, and as I'm always telling Tony, I put my theories on here specifically to get an alternate view. Theories based on a one-sided blinkered view are weak, but those built via good diallectical discussions are strong.

So thank you Ken, and I do hope that's not the last I hear of your thoughts on this matter.

Post a Comment