The One Force of Nature

The One Force of Nature

Unification of the Forces is Wrong

By David Simmons

Smashwords Edition

Copyright © 2016 by David Simmons. All rights reserved.

###

Contents

Introduction

Abstract

Chapter 1: In the Beginning

Chapter 2: The Nuclear Forces and the Quark Theory

Chapter 3: The Standard Model

Chapter 4: The New Big Bang

Chapter 5: Transcript of The First Second Video

Chapter 6: Multiverse

Chapter 7: Quantum Fluctuations

Chapter 8: Cosmic Inflation

Chapter 9: Matter and Antimatter

Chapter 10: Fundamental Particles

Chapter 11: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Chapter 12: Photon-photon Collider - May 2014

Chapter 13: Radioactivity

Chapter 14: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

Chapter 15: Homing Pigeon Navigation

Chapter 16: New Theory of Gravitation

Chapter 17: Science of Telepathy

Chapter 18: Orbital Theory

Chapter 19: Morphogenetic Fields

Chapter 20: Electromagnetism

Conclusion

About the Author

Introduction

In one of his public lectures, Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University, used this quote The initial mystery that attends every journey is how did the traveller reach his starting point in the first place? by Louise Bogan in Journey Around My Room.

My interpretation of this is that the traveller is the scientist in this context; the journey is the path of discovery; and the starting point is the starting materials/knowledge that the scientist used to derive his discovery. So before we can discuss the discovery, we must get to know how his starting materials came to be.

Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing implies that his starting point is Nothing. Then he tells us that if you take all the matter and energy from space, you're left with nothing. But that nothing weighs something; empty space is a bubbling, boiling brew of virtual particles that become real for a fleeting amount of time and disappear before we can measure them. This is allowed by the laws of physics particularly the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was supposed to show that there's an absolute minimum error in any measurement because the act of measurement interferes with what's being measured. It was not designed to allow creation out of nothing. Yet scientists unashamedly use the HUP to falsely claim that creation out of nothing is allowed by the laws of physics when it isn't. How long are we going to tolerate these false statements?

Louise Bogan was right - the starting point is the most crucial point of any journey of discovery. Krauss's starting point is a lot of space that has virtual energy sometimes known as zero-point energy or vacuum energy. At t=0, there was no space hence no vacuum hence no virtual particles to use the HUP. But, crucially, Krauss didn't tell us how he got to his starting point of nothing. Starting with empty space that's full of particles and not telling us how that empty space came to be nor telling us how those virtual particles got into the vacuum destroys his own argument.

Since the laws of physics breakdown at t=0, sometimes called the singularity, no scientist can explain the creation of the universe from nothing as it violates the conservation laws. Lawrence Krauss simply wanted to make a lot of money out of this controversy. This means that some scientists will sell their souls to the devil for a fistful of dollars. They already do that when endorsing products in adverts. This makes their testimony worthless.

When I was at high school, I concluded that everything in the universe can be explained except the electric charge. By breaking things down into smaller and smaller particles, you'll get to a stage where you can't break them any further; and these were the electric charges. This served as a clue to the fact that there is only one force of nature that of electromagnetism which operates between electric charges. That's how I got to my starting point intellectually.

But, the starting point for this book is t=0 where there was no space, no vacuum, and no vacuum energy. Since you can't make anything from this type of nothing, I have to start with something. I arbitrarily chose energy as my starting point. But how did that come about? I can say I don't know; all the other scientists say they don't know either. However, it did get there; religions say that God created it - let there be light - and we know that light is a form of energy. Scientists are implying that it just happened by an as yet unknown mechanism.

Let us discuss the current theory of the evolution of the universe and we may conclude that any explanation is based on definitions and assumptions that may turn out to be wrong. This is the path that science takes whereas religions are stuck with unchanging scriptures; maybe their interpretation can change at least according to St. Augustine.

I will begin with a précis of the evolution of the universe from energy to the formation of atoms. Then I'll define individual concepts in greater detail and end with descriptions of some phenomena from my or rather from the perspective of the new theory.

Because I’m introducing alternative explanations of my own to current theories that I consider to be inadequate as of 2016, I have to specify the assumptions and rules that govern how I arrive at the alternative explanations:

1. All matter is made of charged particles.

2. Forces cannot exist without matter i.e. they're caused by matter.

3. There are laws that describe the action of forces and laws that lay the ground rules.

4. Space and Time are separate, invariant, and eternal i.e. there's no such thing as spacetime.

5. Space is not curved and cannot be curved.

6. Matter occupies a finite volume i.e. no singularities.

7. Length contraction and time dilation don’t happen because of invariance (item 4).

8. Kinetic Energy (KE) and Electromagnetic Energy are 2 different types of energy

9. KE cannot be converted into mass - only electromagnetic energy can.

10. Any theory that uses zero quantities or infinity is invalid e.g. photons are not massless.

11. Everything in the universe is made of particles including electromagnetic energy.

###

Abstract

Current theory claims that there are 4 fundamental forces of nature which existed as a symmetrical superforce at t=0 i.e they all had the same strength. These are Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, and Gravitational Force. They existed as a 'jewel' that was symmetrical; then the symmetry was broken and the 4 forces separated.

In 1932, Carl Anderson experimentally proved that gamma-ray photons split into electron-positron pairs for which he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1936. Physicists at Imperial College London built a photon-photon collider where low energy photons collide, coalesce and split into electron-positron pairs. This means that the primeval energy split into electrons and positrons. The electrons and positrons formed the plasma not quarks and gluons. Although electrons and positrons annihilate each other into energy that can't split, because this energy is trapped by the plasma, they're forced to collide, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs i.e. the energy is recycled.

Protons and neutrons were made from the electrons and positrons in which protons and neutrons would have positrons as a nucleus orbited by electrons just like atoms. The protons will have one excess positron and neutrons will have equal numbers of electrons and positrons. When they bond to form nuclei, they do so electromagnetically. So, the strong and weak nuclear forces are manifestations of the electromagnetic force which implies that gravity is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force i.e. there's only one force of nature. So unification was the wrong method to derive a Theory of Everything. In fact, I believe that electricity and magnetism shouldn't have been unified in the first place as they seem to act independently. This is important for Ampere's law.

I will go on to explain a lot of the natural phenomena, in terms of the electric and magnetic forces, like radioactivity, Pauli's Exclusion Principle and how pigeons navigate using the earth's magnetic field. I believe that much of the 20th Century was wasted so I'll be using 19th Century physics as well. My theory and explanations will be non-mathematical and don't require higher knowledge than high school physics.

This means that the current Standard Model of both particle physics and cosmology are wrong because their foundations are wrong i.e. the quark theory and the nuclear forces are wrong and that there are no strong and weak nuclear forces; at best, they're manifestations of the EM force. It seems that Quantum Mechanics (QM) has very little to do with the Standard Model yet scientists speak as if it does. I suppose it's to do with borrowing huge amounts of energy from the quantum vacuum for the W and Z particles that are used to convey the weak nuclear force. Similarly, General Relativity (GR) also has very little to do with the Standard Model. Scientists are trying to unify QM with GR to derive Quantum Gravity and all they're getting is an infinity of infinities. Scientists speak about the Standard Model + GR as a theory of everything.

Although I'll be writing separate books on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I'll mention them here to compare and contrast with the evidence for the one force of nature. In my forthcoming books, I'll be converting the probabilities of QM into proportions of electromagnetic fields to explain orbital formation and the Pauli Exclusion Principle in my book on Quantum Mechanics; and in my book on Relativity, I will describe how Galilean Relativity reigns supreme and Einstein's versions are superfluous; and how General Relativity mimics the equipotentials of the Newtonian gravitational field. Once gravity is accepted as an electromagnetic phenomenon, GR will cease to be used for anything. Wishful thinking I know.

###

Chapter 1: In the Beginning

"… to me that is the highest and most sacred duty—unifying physics. Simplicity is the criterion of the universe."

- Albert Einstein

And you can't get simpler than having only One Force of Nature.

Richard Lighthouse, in his book Preliminary Model for Grand Unified Theory (GUT):

"Einstein's model of the universe included all of Newton's concepts, while extending them. Any new model will need to include Newton's ideas, Einstein's ideas, and other recent ideas that have some experimental evidence in laboratories.

If a new model is to be formulated, it would need to explain a mathematical relationship between the fundamental forces:

Including

1. Electromagnetism

2. Gravitation

3. Strong Force

4. Weak Force

and ideally include explanations for time travel, antimatter, and parallel universes."

In what way is that simple?

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

- Albert Einstein

My theory uses only one force, the electromagnetic force; hence there's no need to accommodate gravitation, strong force, and weak force apart from explaining them in terms of the electromagnetic force. As for time travel - it's impossible because my assumption specifies that time is invariant. Antimatter is ill-defined as I shall explain later; and parallel universes don't exist and neither does the 4th dimension that is required for Einstein's theories to work, but I'm not considering it in this book. It means that string theory, in all its versions, is also false.

In the beginning all the fundamental forces of nature existed as one symmetrical force known as the 'superforce'. Then the symmetry began to break and the force of gravity separated first leaving the other three as a Grand Unified force. Then the strong nuclear force separated leaving the electroweak force - this is the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak forces. Finally, the weak nuclear force separated from the electroweak force leaving all 4 fundamental forces separate as we know them today.

This implies that the forces have an independent existence as entities that have to be created. In my theory, the underlying assumption is that a force can only exist if there's matter or at least energy available to generate it. For example, the electrostatic force comes into being when electric charges are around; the magnetic force comes about when an electrically charged particle moves. Hence forces come into existence when matter comes into existence at the same time. To understand this, we have to study how all the matter in the universe got created. This is described by the Big Bang Theory:

According to the mainstream Big Bang theory, in the beginning (t=0) there was nothing: no space, no vacuum, and time hasn't started. They call it the singularity. Then an infinitesimal amount of spacetime appeared out of nothing. Although they don't say it, the vacuum appeared at the same time as spacetime complete with vacuum energy. Then spacetime began to expand thus creating more vacuum. The vacuum was increasing exponentially as spacetime was increasing linearly thus the vacuum energy was increasing exponentially as well. They can't explain how this happens because the laws of physics fail at the singularity. They don't even know what a singularity is. It's a term to hide our ignorance said Michio Kaku of