# Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory

1. Mar 31, 2004

I am not very well versed in quantum mechanics, however I was reading a theory stating that the strong and weak nuclear forces are the same. Any opinions?

By combining and analyzing the principles of Electrostatics, Isaac Newton’s Law of Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, I demonstrate both qualitatively and quantitatively that the “Strong Nuclear Force” that holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus is the same force as Gravity. This analysis qualitatively evaluates the Schrodinger Wave Equation with the Nuclear Gravitation Field as the Potential Function established by the mass of the nucleus of the atom using Newton’s Law of Gravity. The Schrodinger Wave Equation with the Nuclear Gravitation Field is represented as follows:

Where “G” represents Newton’s Universal Gravitation Constant, “i” represents the square root of -1, “h-bar” represents Planck's constant, “h,” divided by 2π, “Z” represents the number of protons in the nucleus, “Mp” represents the mass of a proton, “N” represents the number of neutrons in the nucleus, “Mn” represents the mass of a neutron, and “ψ(r,θ,φ,t)” represents the wave function of the particle of interest as a function of position in three-dimensional space (in spherical coordinates) and time.

The Schrodinger Wave Equation, above, is the “Classical Quantum Mechanics” equation. With the Nuclear Gravitation Field as the Potential Function in the Schrodinger Wave Equation, the Schrodinger Wave Equation must be modified to include the “Space-Time Compression” effects of General Relativity because of the intensity of the quantized Nuclear Gravitation Field. The quantized Nuclear Gravitation Field of the Uranium-238 nucleus is estimated to be 193g acceleration, or, in other words, is about 193 times greater than the gravitational field at the surface of the Earth at sea level. Earth’s gravitational field at sea level is 1g acceleration equal to 32.2 feet/second2. The gravitational field at the Sun’s surface is 27.8g and General Relativity must be considered in such a gravitational field. The Uranium-238 Nuclear Gravitation Field is 7 times greater than that of the Sun. The “Strong Nuclear Force” (the Nuclear Gravitation Field) intensity “drops off” much faster as it propagates outward from the nucleus than the expected 1/r2 function of Newton’s Law of Gravity from a spherical mass because of the “Space-Time Compression” effects of General Relativity in an intense gravitational field.

Quantum Mechanics provides the means for the “weak force of Gravity” to overcome the “Electrostatic force of Repulsion” of the protons from one another in the nucleus. Classical Physics predicts the Electrostatic Repulsion force to be about 3×1035 times greater than the Gravitational Force of Attraction. The Electrostatic Field disappears when protons are within 10-4 Angstroms from one another because the wavelength of the Electrostatic Field is larger than 10-4 Angstroms.

If you want to read the whole theory, http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Nuclear_Gravitation_Field_Theory.htm

2. Apr 1, 2004

### Haelfix

The theory he extorts is usually what is known as a crackpot theory. Eg a solo guy, with the *grand* theory of nature that will shatter modern physics as we know it and explain everything.

The internet is replete with such examples, and in fact such phenomena is true all the way back to the time of Einstein (he was bombarded daily with letters from amateurs explaining why he was *wrong* and what modifications he needed to do to make his theory sound)

So in general, be careful about grandiose claims, and make sure to check their academic qualifications (are they working in accredited institutions, etc etc)

3. Apr 1, 2004

### ahrkron

Staff Emeritus

I completely agree with Haelfix. Many people claim that they have found the final theory, or flaws in relativity or even in Newton's laws. Some times it is hard to tell them from real scientists.

This one, however, is an easy one to spot. His description includes a couple errors (for one, confusing force with acceleration), and the equation he writes is incompatible with General Relativity (GR) in a very important sense (it is not diffeomorphism invariant).

On the other hand, his quest is the same as that of current theoretical phisics: to find the way in which all fundamental forces are related. This is not known to be the case, but there are very indications that they all are, indeed, different aspects of the same beast.

4. Apr 1, 2004

Ahh, I see.

P.S. thanks for welcoming me

5. Apr 1, 2004

### ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
You're welcome :tongue:

6. Apr 11, 2004

### cartuz

I was seeing the paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0209025.
In this paper author write that in small distance the gravitation forces is strong. And more than electromagnetic forces.

7. Aug 21, 2007

### MurphysLaw

Here's the article cartuz listed:
""Generalized Hamilton Function in the Phase Space of Coordinates and Their Multiple Derivatives
Authors: Timur F. Kamalov
(Submitted on 13 Sep 2002 (v1), last revised 15 May 2006 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Refined are the known descriptions of particle behavior with the help of Hamilton function in the phase space of coordinates and their multiple derivatives. This entails existing of circumstances when at closer distances gravitational effects can prove considerably more strong than in case of this situation being calculated with the help of Hamilton function in the phase space of coordinates and their first derivatives. For example, this may be the case if the gravitational potential is described as a power series in 1/r. At short distances the space metrics fluctuations may also be described by a divergent power series; henceforth, these fluctuations at smaller distances also constitute a power series, i.e. they are functions of 1/r. For such functions, the average of the coordinate equals zero if the frame of reference coincides with the point of origin. ""