Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions

Discussion in 'Science' started by wgabrie, Sep 6, 2020.

  1. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, so now they(Indian physicists) have done it? They've united all 4 forces of nature? We've (the human race) finally united electromagnetism, weak force, strong force, and gravity?!?! Oh, yay! Do you have any idea how important this is? Things are supposed to get really good from now on.

    Quick do a news search for: "Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions" or look at these links:
    Profoundly sought-after link between Gravity and Electrical force revealed by an Indian Researcher
    https://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Profoundly-soughtafter-link-between-Gravity-and-Electrical-force-revealed-by-an-Indian-Researcher-nid-213819-cid-1.html

    Indian Researcher Delineates the Profoundly Sought-After Link Between Gravity and Electrical Force
    https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/s...n-researcher-delineates-the-profoundly-sought

    Or, buy your own copy of the (history-making) paper here:
    https://physicsessays.org/browse-jo...rces-under-normal-atmospheric-conditions.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    RoccoR likes this.
  2. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is nothing about quantum gravity or gravitons in this abstract. If it is so important, then why isn't there more evidence of excitement in the physics community? I can't find any commentary from
    respected physicists.

    This is the abstract from the paper:

    Super unified theories unifying the four fundamental forces require very high temperatures, which are possible only within 10_34 second after Big Bang. This article aims to unite the fundamental forces of nature under normal conditions of atmosphere. Well-established relation of general theory of relativity, between mass and space-time, is explored from fundamental level to design a model of the creation of matter particles from space-time. During this process, a stress gets generated in the surrounding space-time fabric. The relation of this stress with the matter created is examined. The stress developed in the space-fabric surrounding the created matter is found generating electromagnetic, nuclear, and gravitational forces. Changes in the space-time fabric are found related to the mass and charge of the sub-atomic particles. The research to unite gravitational force with other fundamental forces has been a subject of continuous research for nearly a century. This article not only provides the unification of fundamental forces of nature under normal atmospheric conditions but also elucidates the process of creation of matter particles from space itself.
     
    WillReadmore and roorooroo like this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that the title of the paper include the phrase "under normal atmospheric conditions" makes me extremely skeptical of the paper.

    We do all know there are a lot of Indian quacks, unfortunately, and being under "normal atmospheric conditions", if interpreted literally, should be completely irrelevant to this issue.

    Another issue is that none of the articles give any idea how this proposed concept works.
    Having to pay for a copy of the paper makes me suspicious it could be a scam, since there are a lot of persons in India willing to scam for relatively low amounts of money.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I noticed the bizarre phrase "under normal atmospheric conditions". This paper proposes that the 4 fundamental forces are united now, at the surface of the earth,.and that disagrees with conventional wisdom that these forces only unite at very high energies equivalent to 10 raised to the minus 34th power seconds after the Big Bang. According to the Standard Model of physics the electroweak force and
    the electromagnetic force are not even close to being unified under normal conditions of the atmosphere. The Standard Model is backed up by both experimental evidence and theory, such
    as the predictions of the masses for the W and Z bosons. I don't think that the SM will be overturned so I believe you are right to be skeptical. I was skeptical too and thought that it might be crackpot science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2020
    RoccoR and roorooroo like this.
  5. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some people say that there are no gravitons. So, give up on quantum gravity and embrace General Relativity.

    And this was only published online in the middle of August, last month. So, I don't think many people, with the education to understand this, have read it yet. And it's a peer-review publication. That doesn't mean it's true, but it was certainly tagged as interesting and might have scientific merit.
     
  6. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You pay because this is a publication source that requires payment to access their archive of science articles. This isn't the author's website.

    "normal atmospheric conditions" just means it's usable for useful applications instead of being impossible to harness.
     
  7. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I did a little investigation into the journal, "physics essays", and found some revealing information at Physics Forums. I used Google search under "physics essays creackpot". I am not sure
    if I put the word crackpot into the search or if that came up automatically, but there are many opinions that it is a journal that attracts crackpots.

    If this article had any merit there would have been plenty of time for a response from respectable physicists and to my knowledge none has responded.

    This question was posed by Lewis in February of 2006: I was browsing the periodical section at university library a few minutes ago and found a journal called "Physics Essays". It purports itself to be "An International Journal Dedicated to Fundamental Questions in Physics". I figured it might be interesting, so I picked it up and read a few articles, however it seemed like all it was were crackpots trying to prove Einstein wrong. Has anybody else read this journal? Does anyone know how physicists see it?

    Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/crackpot-physics-journal.111647/

    Answer #1:
    As far as I know, it is a valid journal. It is peer-reviewed with an international group of research pysicists as board of editors. I think it is one of the few journals that will accept far-reaching fringes and other contrarian views to otherwise well-accepted theories. This makes it the go-to place for the anti-Einsteinian etherists out there. I've read many non-crackpot papers in this journal, but I can't remember anything about them (time erodes everything).

    Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/crackpot-physics-journal.111647/

    Answer #2: Let's put it this way. MANY universities and institutions DO NOT have a subscription to this journal. This journal tend to emphasis on fringe physics, and the citation to papers appearing in this journal is abysmal. They are not looked upon as playing any significant role in the advancement of knowledge of physics.

    Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/crackpot-physics-journal.111647/

    I
     
    WillReadmore and kazenatsu like this.
  8. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, it's a crackpot publication? The author isn't going to work for a dark project secret government program, and we'll never hear about him again???

    You've shown a brilliant light on the error of my ways.
     
  9. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What evidence is there for the creation of matter particles from space-time, other than virtual particles? What evidence is there for some unknown stress being created in the

    space-time fabric? Wouldn't physicists know that if it was happening? Where does the energy come from to create the matter particles from space-time and then to modify the

    space-time fabric? Don't we already have a satisfactory theory for the gravitational force based on Einstein's theory of general relativity that does not depend on matter particles being

    created from space-time? What evidence is there that electric charge or color charge can be created from changes in the space-time fabric? Space-time is very flat around earth

    with little in the way of changes to the space-time fabric observed, so I assume he is talking about changes that occur on some submicroscopic level that no one has ever

    observed to account for his hypothesis. It seems strange that we could have all of these distortions of space-time going on with no one knowing about it.

    This hypothesis seems to rely on space-time as the basic building block for matter instead of strings or something else. I don't know if it addresses quantum gravity.

    Evidently, it has not excited the physics community.
     
  10. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you buy the paper? Because I did and I can tell you a little bit about it. It is divided into 6 sections as follows:
    1. Contraction of space-time fabric
    2. Creation of proton
    3. Creation of electron
    4. Neutron
    5. Electro-weak force and strong nuclear force
    6. Gravitational force

    I have to go now, but I'll be back later to further discuss this, but I'll leave you with a source of something coming from nothing from the article:

    L. M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing (Free Press, New York, 2012), p. 183.
     
  11. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions
    ⁜→ et al,

    BLUF: I'm not sure I understand the nature of the question.

    ◈ What do we mean by "force?"

    ◈ What do we mean when we say "Normal Atmospheric Conditions?"
    (COMMENT)

    Much of what we don't understand is at the basic level. In a sense, we (at least for me) don't really know what force is.

    Let's look a childhood experiment. We take a magnet. We lay a piece of white paper over it. Then we sprinkle iron filings over it.

    Magnetic Lines of Flux.jpg
    Definition: The number of magnetic lines of forces set up in a magnetic circuit is called Magnetic Flux.

    It is analogous to electric current, I in an electric circuit. Its SI unit is Weber (Wb) and its CGS unit is Maxwell.
    It is denoted by φ m. The magnetic flux measures through flux meter.

    When I ask, what do I see? I get the traditional response: We are detecting a pattern of magnetic lines of flux. When I ask what a "magnetic line of flux" actually is: we don't know. We merely can detect its presence. We can determine is strength and density. and we can determine the shape of its effect.

    The Unification Theory and Concept is just that; a theory and concept. But as to understanding what a (line of) force is, and what actually reaches out and puts an effect (attraction, repulsion, etc) we don't know. What reaches through the paper and attracted the iron filings (pulls it downwards).

    Yes, a child's experiment. Once you understand what a "force" actually is, not just the effects of an invisible thing. And with that new knowledge, one might be able to see what the relationship is to all other forces.

    I don't believe in coincidence. Whatever it is that influenced the iron filings in the childhood experiment, is also related to the gravitational force (another unknown), the weak force, the strong force, gravitational force (the fabric of space) etc, etc, etc... It might even go a long way to understanding the effects of the unknown "dark matter" and "dark energy." But the idea of a "unification theory" must first start with the baby steps. What is a magnet line of flux that creates the flow of electrons and protects the Earth from harmful levels of radiation?

    Once we understand what (exactly) a "line of force" → we will have the key to understanding is in common with all other forces.
    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  12. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    All known forces have particles that transmit the force: bosons , gluons, and the hypothetical gravitons. The electromagnetic force is transmitted by photons (a type of boson), the weak force

    is transmitted by W and K bosons, the strong force is transmitted by gluons, and the gravitational force is believed to be transmitted by gravitons. Magnetic flux lines consist of photons.
     
  13. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't buy it. I assume it is written in very technical language requiring one to know advanced mathematics like tensor calculus. I thought that

    it was strange for the abstract to be written in very non-technical language.

    I have read the book, "A Universe from Nothing: ...".
     
  14. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, so you've read the book. Here is the quotation in the paper that cites that work:
    Where that "4" at the end is the reference to the book cited in my previous post. There was only one page you had to read which was page 183.

    And yeah, there are a lot of equations in it, so I skipped the middle portion of the paper, but the equations weren't that long a few of them are maybe twice as long as Newton's gravity force formula. And there were large portions of just text explaining things.

    One thing I learned from reading the paper is that it seems they are still in the process of study. So, they haven't finished yet before publishing this paper. They have yet to get to final results.
     
  15. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Super unified theories are types of Unified Field Theories. Although I haven't looked them up yet, I think, they would be theories which say that we need super high energy levels to produce matter from space-time.

    Hey, I also used to play around with magnets too and no one would ever explain to me how it worked. But, I met someone a few years ago that pointed me in the direction of quantum mechanics. Sorry, at this moment I don't remember what branch of quantum physics it was.

    "Normal Atmospheric Conditions" means harnessing the forces at regular conditions without super-high energy level.
     
  16. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions
    ⁜→ skepticalmike, et al,

    BLUF: I'm not sure I understand.

    (QUESTION)

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is a chain of these elementary subatomic particles (fermions and bosons) make continuous field lines that form the fabric of space, that make-up the magnetic flux lines, the field lines that hold the nucleus together or are responsible for the associated decay, etc?

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  17. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,400
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do any of you guys actually have a degree in physics?
     
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The only field lines that I am aware of are the field lines associated with the electric field and the magnetic field.

    The electromagnetic has an infinite extent and is separate from the fabric of space-time. Fermions do not transmit force and include quarks and leptons. Magnetic fields

    are composed of photons that transmit that EM force. Gravity is not a force from the perspective of general relativity but physicists believe that there is a quantum mechanical description of gravity

    that involves gravitons as force carriers. Gravity deforms space-time according to the Einstein field equation..

    The nucleus is held together by the exchange of gluons which carry a type of charge called color charge. Radioactive decay is mediated by W and Z bosons.
     
  19. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a B.S. in Physics. Most of my information regarding this thread comes from reading books written for the popular audience plus reading articles on the internet. I have

    studied general relativity on my own and have a very rudimentary understanding of it.
     
  20. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions
    ⁜→ Grey Matter, et al,

    BLUF: I'm a EE.

    (COMMENT)

    I can build a transmitter from scratch. I'll be damned if I understand how a modulated signal jumps off the end of an antenna. Yet I can make it happen. I can make and a modulated transmission propagates through the ground (telluric transmission) yet I don't understand it - but it works.

    There are many things we use every day, yet we don't necessarily understand the magic behind it.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  21. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    New RE: Unification of Fundamental Forces under Normal Atmospheric Conditions
    ⁜→ Grey Matter, et al,

    Again I think you missed my point.

    (COMMENT)

    Well, let's just start with that - then. What is a field line made of?

    (COMMENT)

    An electron is one of several "fermions." The movement of electrons creates an E-field, which induces an H-field. Or by moving an H-field, you can induce E-fields. (I'm simplifying here for brevity.) That is why we say and EM-Field or an Electromagnet effect. When Cavendish deflected an electron beam in one of the first electron tubes, he used magnetism. Now I understand all that. What I want to know is what those magnetic lines of force are made from.

    Similarly, I understand that mass deforms the fabric of space. But to deform something --- there must be something to deform. What is the fabric of space made out of? Is the universe expanding into an already existing fabric of space? Or is the universe creating the fabric of space as it expands?


    (COMMENT)

    Space-time and the fabric of space are related. Gravity, The Weak Force, The Strong Force, and The Electromagnetic Force are what we generally refer to as the four fundamental forces in the universe. And we "think" that the Standard Model correctly relates The Weak Force, The Strong Force, and The Electromagnetic Force. Gravity, we just don't know about.

    (SIDEBAR)

    As the galaxies spin through the fabric of space do they generate a detectable force?

    (APOLOGY)

    I know that I - not having a proper education physics - must be frustrating to someone like you. But, as I am retired, I now have an opportunity to look at these questions. I sincerely apologize.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2020
  22. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,400
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks guys.

    There are quite a few qualified members it seems to me that post on a wide variety of topics here, but this thread is so far above my level of education that I have to question where the knowledgeable posts begin and where the crap posts end.

    Curious what wgabrie's background is.



    Personally, I've a M.Eng. ChE.

    That qualifies me about as much as an MBA to discuss Unified Field Theory.

    Worse, that experience is 25y old, and I'm nowhere close to where I was when I graduated in 95.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  23. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not a physicist. And I don't have a degree in such fields. I've just got an associate's degree in Liberal Arts.

    I just became interested in the search for a Unified Field Theory a few years ago when someone got me interested in it. Now I keep my eyes out for such a theory. Sharing as necessary.
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  24. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you're wondering about the condition of this thread topic, I got my paper handed back to me because I didn't do my due diligence on checking out the reliability of my sources.

    So basically I lost the debate. Is this conversation over?
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,484
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm wondering if this isn't a paper from theoretical physics (as opposed to the world of experimental physics which does not accept theories, including those of Einstein, without independent verification through experimentation).

    The posted material includes:
    Given this statement by CERN one would have to imagine this paper to be a breakthrough on the order of the very existence of CERN - which would be a physics story of the century, wouldn't it??

    I'm just wondering if this isn't coming from theoretical physics.
     

Share This Page