I’ve been thinking about language a lot. People get stuck in their definition of words and get angry when people use words in the “wrong way”. The problem is that someone might be more right than someone else, but they are still being pains in the backside insisting being right.
For some time I’ve struggled with the word fundamental. It’s incredibly easy to state that you believe in fundamentals, and you have the proof to back your claim up. I’m especially troubled by the phrase fundamental force. In physics, fundamental forces are “the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions”. How do we know that they are fundamental? The forces are called fundamental because there is no simpler way for physicists to understand what the forces do or how they do it (their action).
Based on what I’ve observed experimentally and from my attempts to understand the results mathematically, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no fundamental forces, at least in the strictest sense of the word fundamental. But this is just language. This doesn’t mean that the forces that are called fundamental forces suddenly don’t exist. It just means that they are not fundamental. They are very true mathematical constructs that describe the interactions that emerge as a string moving at the speed of light interacts with itself (when knotted) and other surrounding strings.
To allow a possibility for one fundamental force, it might be that of the force of light, or radiative pressure. But even there, this force is only expressed when a supraphoton of light interacts with matter. The force was not present in the supraphoton before the collision.
A much more unambiguous is to say that there is fundamental momentum. And this is the momentum of a single Planck sphere. The momentum pD =mDc, where D denotes dot, my new word for Planck sphere, which is just too long a phrase for such a fundamental entity, and mD, of course, is the mass of the dot. So, this fundamental momentum can be called the dot momentum. If not interacting with another dot, the dot moves in a straight line. If the dot interacts with other dots, they follow the Newton’s third law of motion:
“If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.”
Thus, force is an emergent phenomenon of the collision of strings. This means that if there are four apparent fundamental forces, there are four different ways for the strings to collide.
Don’t take this as solid truth, but more as initial guesstimates of the interactions:
Electromagnetism is the rotation of quantized entities, be it a single electron, or a large supramolecular orbital. Everything with a negative charge spins in the same direction, whereas everything with a positive charge spins in an opposite direction. The attraction of negative and positive charge is due to a spooling effect. Exactly how this spooling works is unclear to me, but has to involve a physical connection of the entities with negative and positive charge. The physicist David Bohm had noticed that electrons behave in an interconnected (see below) way that suggests that there should be a deterministic quantum theory. Very crudely put, electrons, spinning in the same direction, are nevertheless connected. This means that the connection causes their spinning to make them rotate around each other. Exactly what takes place is still beyond me, but I’m working on it.
The strong interaction or strong nuclear force is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into proton, neutron, and other hadron particles. This is the collision of one loop of string with another loop, knotted into and orbital. Basically what you see in the center in the image below, where two semi-circular loop segments have knotted with two segments each comprised of two quarte circles.
The weak interaction is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms. This probably relates to the tension of packing several orbitals together and the associated transformation of the orbitals to fit them together, or to split them from a whole. The phenomena involved are things like inverse beta decay.
And relativity is something I consider something pretty much nailed by Einstein. There might be some tweaks due to the string nature matter, but probably nothing as big as with the other forces (famous last words). Relativity relates to all matter moving in space within the same of reference. The possible tweak might come from the curvature of space-time being the curvature of supramolecular shell of hydrogen, along which celestial bodies move. This seems to be a matter of language, but I can’t yet rule out that the whole concept of space-time and the associated mathematics is a way to explain away the physical curvature of space just because of the supramolecular nature of celestial hydrogen.
So, we have rough guesses what causes the specific string-to-string interaction that are expresses as gravity (indirectly), electromagnetic force, strong force and weak force. But as you notice, I’m not suggesting mathematical expressions for these forces. The simple reason for this is that I don’t yet know how to derive them from these observations. Another reason is that we already know the mathematics of each of these forces. I.e. there’s probably nothing mathematically wrong with the current explanations of “fundamental” forces.
The next question is, why hasn’t anyone else suggested anything like this, if this is so self-evident? The problem is that they sort of have. String theory was originally developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but always with the notion that the strings themselves should follow fundamental forces.
From Wikipedia:
“The application of quantum mechanics to physical objects such as the electromagnetic field, which are extended in space and time, is known as quantum field theory. In particle physics, quantum field theories form the basis for our understanding of elementary particles, which are modeled as excitations in the fundamental fields.”
To some extent, the notion that there are no fundamental forces has seemed either heretical, or not possible, although this notion has been raised around string theory before. However, the criticism is that
“How can everything be emergent? To the best of my understanding, emergent laws of nature are derived by considering the statistical mechanics of the fundamental laws of nature. If there aren’t any fundamental laws, you can’t have any other laws emerge from them.”
Here the answer, as noted before, is that there are no fundamental forces, but there is fundamental momentum. So, you still need fundamentals for the interaction of strings, but we need to switch from force to momentum.
Comments