Dec 28 2008
Over 25 years ago I was blissfully soaking up science in college while trying to decide what I wanted to do with my life. I was (and still am) totally taken by science. All science. Thus the conundrum – which field to major in? I ended up on the engineering side because, simply put, engineers made more money earlier in their careers. And with a new baby girl in hand that was a very profound consideration at the time.
Science is my true addiction whereas politics is my hobby. For a time I was taking 16 credit hours of science (with four labs included) across the scientific spectrum of topics. It was during this period – when I was taking classes in physics, biology and chemistry (with math on the side) – that I came up with the essence of a Grand Unified Theory (or GUT).
A GUT is a single comprehensive theory that ties the four fundamental forces of nature together into a common physical model. I have worked this theory (in my head primarily) for 25 years and now it is time to lay it out to let it get thrashed (and it will get thrashed).
The problem I am going to face is that physics has been going down a path of ‘particles’ and ‘quarks’ and ‘colors’ to understand the multi-dimensional and hyper microscopic structures that are evident in the traces of high-energy particle physics. I think my theory will simplify and clean this up immensely. Which means it will turn physics on its head, which means my ideas will receive a lot of resistance. Such is life.
The other problem is my theory is observational. I donâ€™t have the time or math skills to prove it mathematically. I am hoping this will spark some interest in those who can assess the math and determine if the theory is true.
This initial post is the summary of the theory. I have a series of background posts drafted which go through my thinking and which give a bit of a tutorial on each area of science, which played into my thinking. They will probably be too detailed and boring for the average person and too high level and vague for theÂ scientists). So let’s get to the essence of the theory and then I will introduce the background posts at a later date. No matter how many times I have tried to put this to paper, it comes out long â€“ so please bear with me.
AJâ€™s GUT â€“ High Level Summary
My GUT is based on a very simple adjustment in perspective. Throughout all of physics it is assumed all sub-atomic particles (electrons, neutrons and protons primarily) exist in the same instant of time. But for particles that should exist in the same moment of time they behave very strangely. Especially when you look at each of the four natural forces on the sub-atomic level (i.e., at what makes up atoms, which make up the elements in nature). This strange behavior has resulted in complex theories of quarks and gluons and other exotic particles.
But the strange behavior can be explained quite simply if we assume electrons and neutrons and protons (and other particles) actually exist in distinct bands of time, where the GUT force acts across the time bands in a multi-dimensional manner. Basically we at the macro-atomic level have discovered sub-atomic interactions between physical entities that do not exist in the same time, but do impart effects on each other because they exist in the same space.
The Four Basic Forces
When we look at the world below the atom it does â€˜appearâ€™ that the Force of Gravity is at work on the subatomic level, attracting lighter particles (e.g., electrons) to heavier ones (protons). But electrons and protons (and neutrons) do not â€˜touchâ€™ each other under â€˜normalâ€™ environmental conditions here on Earth. Electrons â€˜orbitâ€™ protons and neutrons to make atoms and elements (e.g., Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon, Iron). Protons only â€˜touchâ€™ other protons under very extreme conditions. Only within the neutron do electrons and protons actually â€˜combineâ€™, which also takes extreme conditions to create. The question of gravity working at the sub-atomic level is yet unproven â€“ yet it should.
Even stranger, other electrons repulse electrons and other protons repulse protons â€“ which is the unique repulsion/attraction nature of the Electromagnetic Force. While â€˜negativeâ€™ electrons are attracted to â€˜positiveâ€™ protons, they are thrust apart from their own kind.
The Electromagnetic Force also describes how energy travels as light and other EM waves (e.g., x-rays). Itâ€™s as if the EM force is more about the fabric of space than the energy and particles that exist in space.
When we look to the Strong Nuclear Force we see a very interesting phenomena that binds protons (and neutrons) together to make atomic nuclei. Normally protons would be flying apart because of the repulsive nature of the electromagnetic force. But under certain conditions (the application of large amounts of energy) the protons can be pushed â€˜close enoughâ€™ together to bind. Basically a barrier needs to be crossed in order for these sub-atomic particles to form a stable structure â€“ the nucleus of all elemental atoms in the universe.
In my opinion it is no minor factor that these stable atomic nuclei requires the addition of neutrons to the protons. Neutrons are very stable sub-atomic particles, and what makes them interesting above all the rest is they are made up of an electron and proton. It is the one and only structure in which the electron and proton finally combine to make matter. A particle that has no electric attraction, but is affected by magnets. It is the one particle all four forces can act on. Coincidence? I think not. If electrons live on in end of reality and protons on the other, then the Neutron exists in the center between the two.
To round out the four primary forces we have the Weak Nuclear Force, which describes how larger sub-atomic structures, which are naturally unstable, fall apart and change one atom of matter into another. This is known as radioactive decay.
AJâ€™s GUT in Detail
All these forces provide hints to the allowable forms of the sub-atomic particles and the energy required to change the structure, or the energy released when the structure changes. What has muddied the clear picture of physics that existed in the day of Einstein is the fact that the math was complicating the model. As we learned more we had to go through more gyrations to make the math work.
Next thing you know we have quarks with spin and colour and all sorts of complications. But I believe there is another way to make the math work, and that is to realize that at some microscopic level there is a point at which fourth dimensional (and upward) structures and physics become apparent to us 3 dimensional macro beings.
It is akin to 2-Dimensional flat-landers existing within the skin of a balloon discovering their 2-D space had a positive charge on one side and a negative charge on the other. They could begin to detect different properties of matter when it was influenced by these charges, but the 3-Dimensional aspect of the physics would escape them until they began to think in 3-D. We have the same problem, we need to think in 4-Dimensions and the hypercube.
If, as science has proven, our universe is expanding like a balloon being blown up, then our 3-D existence could have an inner and outer surface.Â Each additional dimension is orthogonal to the others. One such orthogonal slice is time itself. If we look at time as the fourth dimension (there are other candidates) then we could talk about not an instant in time, but a range of time.
For humans, an â€˜instantâ€™ of time (T0 in mathematical equations) is perceived on the order of tens of milliseconds. High-speed computers can operate at nano-seconds and control devices at microsecond levels.
What if the current instant of time maps to a large range of time at the subatomic level? What if T0 in all those equations is in reality Tâˆ†E for electrons, and Tâˆ†P for protons where the âˆ† is the range within T0 in which the electrons and protons exist independently? If these two ranges, under the environmental conditions here on Earth, do not overlap in time then these particles could exist in the same space but be separated by time so that they can exert forces on each other (like gravity) but not ever physically touch.
This is not really a wild theory, because reality reflects this kind of nature. Electrons are always circling protons in allowable energy shells, but only under extreme conditions can they combine to form the neutron.
In my mind the energy levels of electron shells is a strong indication this is in fact true. Looking at natureâ€™s stable configurations of electrons the numbers are not 2-8-16 as one would expect in a 3-Dimensional symmetrical model. The 3-D symmetry would be built up by an inner shell of hemispheric symmetry (which means 2 electrons), then a shell of 3-D symmetry of 6 electrons (2 per each dimension), which would be built in additional layers of hemispheric plus 3-D symmetry – growing by 8 electrons to create the next stable structure. In this model the stable atoms would at atomic numbers 2-8-16.
However, if one looks at the Periodic Table and the Noble Gases along the left hand side we see stable symmetries at atomic numbers 2-10-18. This implies a symmetrical model that starts with a hemispheric symmetry of 2 electrons, but then 4-D symmetry of 8 electrons, followed by a layer of 10 electrons (one hemispheric 2 plus another 4-D 8 electrons. In other words the electron shells show a 4-D symmetry, which means the forces driving this stability are across 4 dimensions, not our usual 3.
The other aspect of my GUT is how energy changes the interactions between these sub-atomic particles. Again, with the assumption in mind that electrons and protons exist in the same space but in different time bands, it is interesting to look at how the interactions between the two particles change with energy levels. For electrons and protons to combine to make a neutron a lot of energy has to be applied.
It is possible for a proton to be transformed into a neutron, but you have to supply 1.29 MeV of energy to reach the threshold for that transformation.
What this means is each particle needs to take on more energy, moving ever faster in order to interact. With faster velocities (either in one direction or in a vibrating mode) Einstein showed time dilates as the velocity approached the speed of light (a speed electrons come close to easily). Time dilation is another way of saying the time band the particle exists in either expands or shifts.
What if the application of energy to protons and electrons caused their time bands to expand to the point where they overlap, to a point where the physical binding could take place? That is one essence of my GUT, that ambient energy levels can increase or shift the time bands. This means that particles existing in separate time bands in Earthâ€™s normal environmental conditions act differently in the presence of high and low energy conditions.
This characteristic is seen in the phenomena known as super conductivity. Super conductivity is the condition where the attractive EM force between protons and electrons in atoms is minimized to the point where electrons flow easily from atom to atom. This condition occurs when electrically conducting materials are super cooled to near zero degrees Kelvin. Under my GUT this would mean the electron and proton time bands are the furthest apart they can be, minimizing the attracting force and allowing the electrons to flow more easily from one atom to another. It is not proof of my theory, it just demonstrates my theory doesnâ€™t break when assessed against known physical behavior.
These last two examples illustrate the spectrum of behavior between energy levels and distance between the time bands of protons and electrons. High energies combined with protons and electrons make neutrons, low energies cause electrons and protons experience their smallest attractions to each other.
The concept of independent time bands in which electrons and protons exist would change the thinking in a lot of physics. The SchrÃ¶dinger Equation, which shows how matter and energy transform between each other, may not represent the ends of existence. What if on one end â€˜nowâ€™ we have energy and highly energetic particles, and on the other we have protons and large masses? Then the SchrÃ¶dinger Equation would describe how mass can become energy and vise versa.
This would make some sense to the big bang, where the initial blast was all energy. But microscopic discrepancies in density in the energy plasma would start to see high energy particles first condense out of the bow wave of energy. As these particles turned some of their energy into mass they actually fell behind in time to the pure energy. And maybe this process actually created two classes of particles: heavy positively charged protons and lighter negatively charged electrons. Maybe one group reflects the leading edge and the other the trailing edge of our n-dimensional balloon we call reality, which is expanding as demonstrated by Hubbellâ€™s Law.
The ramifications of this slight change in perspective as to what is â€˜nowâ€™ and what role sub-atomic particles play in â€˜nowâ€™ are pretty far reaching. I will expand on the ramifications in different areas of science (from physics to chemistry to biology) in later posts. I have already gone on too long for a single reading on this one.
But there are some interesting things to think about. For one, the fabric of space doesnâ€™t like the build up of positive or negative charges. You can create mass all day long as long as it is generally electrically neutral. But try and cram space with small amounts of the same charge and the repulsive forces are amazing. The instability of such collections of charged matter is self-evident as reality either tries to disperse the charges or bring in opposite charges to offset the imbalance.
The fabric of space also seems to have a limit to how large a nucleus it will tolerate. After a certain size the atomic nucleus starts to fall apart. This collapsing of an unstable structure is radiation and falls under the Weak Nuclear Force. But the limit on structures can be overcome through molecules, which create very stable electron shell structures using atoms, which need electrons to reach the numbers seen in the very stable and inert Noble Gases. So while the amount of protons and electrons and neutrons that can be crammed into an atom has a limit, molecules of atoms can be immensely long (e.g., polymers).
What is also interesting to contemplate is the energy given off by various unstable structures. When an atom decays it gives off highly energetic radiation â€“ which means the drop in state is in immense. When an electron in a molecule drops from a higher state to a lower state in the electron shell it gives off light. This transition represents a much smaller transition. Are these transitions particles falling back to a stable time band given the ambient energy?
Another area to really think about is life and consciousness. All existence is based on retaining a stable structure for a period of time. Sub-atomic particles do it and create atoms. Atoms do it and create molecules. Molecules do it and create both organic and inorganic matter. And organic matter does it by self-replicating offspring. We eek out our existence living on energy gradients, using the release of energy to drive our civilization.
In summary â€“ I think a lot of the quarkiness in physics can be recast to understanding the how the subatomic world is giving us a glimpse into the multi-dimensional universe. There is no reason to assume electrons and protons co-exist in the same instant of time. It is one of those assumptions that has never been proven or challenged. Now I am challenging it.
[Note: All images are linked back to their sources, just click on the image]