All forces should be connected and possible to deduce from
one another, according to the dimension model but also assumed
by many physicists.
Still, there doesn't seem to be much of
that connections in the latest standard model.
Outsiders are perhaps too inclined to believe the physicists'
interpretations of the day, much of which is speculations
within a given framework A certain skepticism could sometimes
be relevant as for instance towards economists of the day.
MEGA-fields - as a suggestion:
Adopting fully the Big Bang theory, in a more fundamental
way than many physicists, starting with a point in this
model, we could presume a 4-dimensional vector field as
a preliminary stage out of which force components of gravitation
and electromagnetism, those which the physicists have defined,
are developed. As a suggestion here called MEGA-fields:
A for Acceleration (outwards), FA
G for Gravitation (inwards), FG
E for Electric field component, FE
M for Magnetic field component, FM
Out of this MEGA-field the forces should crystallize through
polarizations, partial crossing over (pole exchanges) and
combining in later steps, emerging into complex polarities
towards lower d-degrees - and composed of each other.
The polarity 0 00, center anticenter, outward
direction inward direction, could first apply to
A,E <====> G, M:
G - M as 00-forces, A - E as 0-forces.
(Note that we here will regard FE
and FM as separate
It´s said also (by Hoyle) that gravitation
and the electromagnetic force seems to have been equally
strong in a universe with 1 particle (interpreted as one
mass unit or as the entire Mass?).
When Kulaza after Einstein tried equations for a 4-dimensional
space and got one extra equation very similar to Maxwell's
for the electromagnetic force, it seems to agree with the
suggestion here. One could perhaps talk about "meta-volumes".
Illustrations of 4-dimensional cubes for example (in a book
from the 1960th) give the form of a hollow cube inwards,
as built-in into a 3- dimensional one.
Compare the string theory (commented here)..
(One aspect could eventually be a gradual branching off
through angle steps - but hardly as in this figure from
the original with G first:
With the other two forces that physicists recognize as
such, the nuclear force or "strong interaction",
Fst, and the the "weak interaction", Fw,
the original suggestion here looks like this:
(W- and Z-bosons not identified in the 70th. Fw, Fst
have now new interpretations in the standard model.)
outward acceleration force:
According to the model here all forces should show up in
FA, an acceleration force,
is not identified as a special force by physicians, but
which force should else be responsible for the Big Band?!
(Now, in later days, the view is accepted that Universe
expands, and one talks about "vacuum energy".)
Radial acceleration and gravitation is
counterdirected vectors as complementary forces out of outward
/ inward direction.
In this meaning Acceleration can be seen as "anti-gravitation"
and the force responsible for the expansion of Universe
(and its negative radii of curvature? About negative curvature,
se the booklet "Astronomy" of this series. Einstein
noticed gravitation as an answer to acceleration, but did
only see the latter as a mechanical force created by human
Gravitation could be seen as the answer
to this expansion of Universe. Acceleration and Gravitation
out of 0- and 00-poles as "meta-forces".
That gravitation must have a counterforce
is reasonably obvious - what should else maintain the separation
of celestial masses?
We can compare with longitudinal waves
of concentrations and thinnings which mutually presuppose
one another, of motion directions towards and from one another:
> | <, <|
Gravitation collapses seem to be followed by an increase
in the centrifugal force with energy transportation outwards,
- as an interaction between complementary vectors.
(According to the fundamental hypotheses
in the dimension model we also have that converging movements
define a new 0-pole - for a secondary 4-dimensional vector
field with primarily outward direction, and that diverging
movements define a new 00-pole, giving inward direction.)
G - EM - connected with
physical qualities - and Fst ?:
That gravitation is coupled with Mass
and the electromagnetic force to the relation between opposite
is out of question.
We can assume:
- Mass and Vacant Space as transformations of G-A-fields
d-degree step 4→3, or 4←3,
- Charges as p+ and e- as transformations of E-M-fields
in d-degree step 3 → 2, or
3 ← 2.
Compare that EM-waves (photons) can transform
to electron-positron pairs in the neighborhood of heavier
masses, interpreted here as in inward direction.
But how on earth could strong interaction, Fst, be
connected with the entity Distance, or in the step 2 - 1
related Charges and Distances (1-dimensional potentials)
as suggested here?
Two things are evident:
Gravitational gathering of big masses,
leading to high pressure and high temperature in stars is
also needed for fusion and the development of a nuclear
farce - conquering Distance!.
And the nuclear force cannot develop before
the polarization of the property Charge into (+) and (-).
In this aspect a later step in relation to the electromagnetic
Fst seems to be more of a superposition of elements
in the earlier to forces, G and EM, a result of the differentiation
of potentials in these earlier forces into perhaps 2-1-dimensional
ones. This view is also in agreement with how physicists
tentatively described the force some decades ago.
According to the dimension model here
we have that number of motions increases towards lower d-degrees
of structure. And physicists have stated that the nuclear
force can be analyzed in spin-spin- and and spin-path-couplings,
that is to say motions.
The particle for communication between protons is the π+
compare perhaps the relation between poles
Protons composed of 3 quarks, mesons of 2 quarks!?
More about the strong force here.
Adding one more thing about this strong p-p-binding force:
The real complementary force ought to be - not bonds between
anti-p-particles - but the molecular, covalent bonds between
electrons in a much colder universe, leading to the eminent
development of all life processes.
Or should we, more likely, first see the
pairing of electrons with opposite spin in the atomic orbitals
(connected with the Pauli principle) as the complementary
force on an earlier stage. (Nor is this principle identified
as a force, but why not.)
Fw, the force of weak interaction, is connected
with the neutrino, mostly recognized as (loss of) kinetic
energy in disintegration of particles with mass. So in the
disintegration of charged μ-leptons.
That is two reasons to see this force connected with the
last step in the dimension chain of forces. More about the
force of weak interaction
The reach of the forces:
1/r3: Fst reach for the strong interaction.
The expression could be interpreted as a product 1/r1
x 1/r2: strong interaction as a result of factors
in previous forces?
The expressions can be read as a series of derivations
à la d-degree steps
1/r1 FG- reach
for gravitation within a mass.
Mass as d-degree 3. 1/r1 also valid when masses are accelerated.
Fem - reach between masses and between
charges. Charge, d-degree 2.
When charges are accelerated, there comes
to this a term 1/r1, an addition in opposition
to the same factor for accelerated masses, which can be
interpreted like mathematical integration.
G-M-p and A-E-e relationship:
There ought to be a relationship between inward directed
components of the forces:
We have FG,
gravitation, as an inward directed field vector, and FM,
the magnetic factor in the electromagnetic force, which
in many respects has a circular character, representing
the anticenter pole (the 00-pole) in lower d-degree, in
relation to the radial electric one.
Physicists have looked for a magnetic
"monopole" (not yet found?) and estimated that
it should have a mass circa 137 times the electron's. This
indicates that magnetic fields can be associated with the
property Mass, as Gravitation - in spite of being seen as
rather unreal, that is belonging to "vacant space".
G-waves and M-radiation, a note:
Gravitation waves have been difficult to detect. They
are said or presumed to be virtual and only realized when
masses are accelerated. In this aspect too they seem to
resemble magnetic radiation witch only is realized by charges
in motion. Hence, it seems that the gravitation field shows
up to be the complementary pole to an (outward) acceleration
force, according to the MEGA-hypothesis here.
We have the similarity between G- and
M-fields too that neither the graviton or the "monopole"
has been found. (?)
In general terms we could presume the
view that anticenter poles (00-type) as G and M are continuously
redefined by the motion of the unities of the center-poles,
the inward direction as answers (to A and E): Lost d-degrees
in a d-degree step are translated into motions according
to the fundamental hypotheses. Hence, a charge which is
set in motion or an accelerated mass will represent (or
"reach") the higher d-degree from where they originate.
They become then momentarily coupled - through the higher
d-degree as underlying level - to their complementary poles,
to the "anti-matter" as a "negative"
energy of different degrees, that is activating the virtual
M-field or G-field.
Assuming the relation G - M, we have in next step the particles
p+ and e-,
protons representing most of the mass (and "inward
directed" in the sense of taking the nucleus position)..
In plasma physics there are mathematical
relations which show that
p ~ M2, the magnetic factor squared,
(~ sign for proportional to)
e ~E2, the electric factor squared.
This seems to show a dominant heredity from the magnetic
force FM and indirectly
coupled with gravitation, FG.
We could add that the π+-meson,
involved in the binding force Fst between protons,
has got an essential mass, in opposition to the weightless
photon, carrier of the electromagnetic force. And its mass
is 273 x e, that is ca. 2 x 137, the presumed mass of the
FA- which we connect
with expanding Vacant Space -
(and with "-E=mc2 ", according to Dirac),
should in the same way be most closely related to FE,
the electric factor in he electromagnetic field (radial
in relations to the magnetic one), and with the electron
with mostly kinetic energy in next step, (as e- is proportional
to E2 in the plasma formulas above).
This in spite of the connection of Dirac's
"E= - mc2 " with positrons and anti-matter.
We should assume that both E- and M-fields, the electric
and the magnetic fields, are complex combinations of factors
in both the primary G- and A-fields in a new polarized relation:
M-fields also related to Vacant Space in their immaterial
property, and E-fields with the Mass and G-fields as electrons
have positive energy and makes up an essential part of our
Compare one interpretation of the
Mass, matter and Charges
as "inversion" of vector fields:
In other chapters the hypotheses are brought up
Matter and Charge
should be possible to interpret as "inverted"
fields, the result of inversion and/or a change of external
fields to inward direction, or with factors of negative
acceleration and negative velocity respectively. In this
dimension model that corresponds to d-degree steps.
Both the complementary "poles"
or forces in the d-degree must then take part in this change.
In p-anti-p-annihilations for example, via π-mesons
and leptons much of the energy is transformed to electromagnetic
radiation and neutrinos.
Macrocosm - microcosm:
One of the important aspects on dimension chains in this
model, is a stepwise building-in of the 00-pole into centers
with growing complexity during the development, centers
defined as such, as 0-poles. The building in of the surrounding
opposite pole as inward directed.
So we - obviously - have celestial bodies
of Masses built-in into Vacant Space in Macrocosm,
and shall find Vacant Space built into
mass and matter in Microcosm.
G - EM: dimension degree
G-and E-waves 180°-90°:Some numbers:
Interpreting gravitation according to the dimension model,
we should be able to assume that G-waves are longitudinal,
in relation to EM-waves as transversal? G-waves à
la sound waves:
- Longitudinal waves: 4 -- 1-waves: Out of radial, antiparallel
fields (4), propagation in one (1) dimension, counterdirection
- Transversal waves: 3 -- 2-waves: Counterdirection E -
About Gravitation and electromagnetic force as connected
with Mass and Charge in d-degree 3 and 2 respectively:
Assuming that the cube of the radius of
Universe is about 1080, radius then 1026,66.
m (said to be circa 1026
and calculate the atom radius as the "Bohr
radius" for hydrogen, the quotient will be:
Volume of Universe
√ 3 in log-numbers
Sum of volumes of atoms
Volume of atoms (e-shells, negative charge)
√ 2 "
Sum of volumes of atomic nuclei
Presupposed circa 1077
nucleons in Universe (Estimation 1973). The
radius of the atom nucleus, given as circa 10-15
m, would be 10-14,8 m.
(Would it be possible, eventually, to conclude
the existence of gravitation waves - indirectly - from changes
in the magnetic field of the earth for example? G- and M-vectors,
according to assumptions here, related to one another.)
About d-degrees of forces:
a. According to classical physics gravitation ( FG)
and the electromagnetic force (Fem) becomes 2-dimensional
if Mass is interpreted as 3-dimensional, Charge as a 2-dimensional
quality and Time and Distance as 1-dimensional. These
forces could in that case be interpreted as "roots"
out of 4-dimensional vector fields or as components in them.
b. However, if Time is interpreted as a 0-dimensional
entity, FG, gravitation
becomes 4-dimensional and Fem 3-dimensional if we
as before regard Charge as a kind of derivative of Mass.
(Velocity could be seen as a 1-dimensional
quantity. Primarily interpreted as an expression for a d-degree
step, velocity corresponds to the loss of 1 d-degree)
Appearance of the same force in different d-degrees:
If we assume that the force components from a MEGA-field
show up restructured in following d-degree steps, it ought
to imply that the phenomena which are identified as gravitation
or electromagnetism must be interpreted in different dimension
degrees (or steps).
So for instance, it seems that we have to distinguish between
revelation forms of gravitation in different d-degrees.
They could perhaps be described as follows:
- negative acceleration or antiparallel acceleration in
- as equivalent with Mass or "inverted" into Mass
- as an explanation of the motion structure between 2 celestial
bodies in d-degree 2, with one radial and one tangential
acceleration vector perpendicular to one another,
Compare also the hypothesis about Matter
and Vacant space on a potentially graded minus-energy:
empty space of different quality and degrees of "sweating".
"Carriers" of forces,
forces acting over distances
It has been an old problem - for Einstein and others - how
forces can act over distances (as e.g. gravitation). The
first natural answer should be that it is "forces"
that creates distances. There is nothing like "distance"
at first, no such concept.
The Big Bang of Universe is one example.
And ordinary mechanical pushes. Distances too become forces,
which for example give birth to road buildings (path ways),
which in their turn bring about traffic motions, with cars
as "force mediating quanta" or "carriers
(The human need that transforms a distance
into a road construction is of course an expression for
a fundamental binding force.)
Now when we have distances, that is a space and different
positions of matter: are there empty distances or the virtual
existing of something, of a memory of a bond?
"Carriers" of forces:
What do the physicists mean with "carriers" of
forces, with "force mediating particles? Some type
of quanta in motion, one-way or return in interaction..
One speaks about gravitons and photons
as wave quanta, or other elementary particles with more
or less particle like structure.
The relation ordinary particles and these quanta of forces
can perhaps be imagined as in this figure, as a relation
between levels of dimension chains, related to the difference
between borders and intervals |---|---|.
If we assume that levels are "1/2"-step displaced
in relation to one another, or displaced a partial step,
as border/interval, that which is seen as forces on one
level could show up as quanta (with more or less of particle
like structure) on another level, and vice versa.
Cf.. the relation coenzyme - substratum
in biochemistry? Coenzymes as forces on a biochemical level.
Language can be defined as a force on superposed levels,
that is an interaction between human beings. If the content
is the force, the words are the quanta of that force, or
At the same time the air as medium for
the sound waves can be called the carrier of the force.
The concept becomes ambiguous. The air would represent the
"field" concept,. quantified in quanta.
What is a "force"?
In ordinary physics we meet a mess of expressions for "forces",
forces as only "connections" or mathematical relations,
forces as fields, "electromagnetic field", "gravitational
field", the force of gravitation as inertia, equivalent
with mass, "carriers" of forces as quanta, the
same as forces or what?, forces as "waves", gravitation
waves, electromagnetic (EM-)waves, forces as "interactions"...
With the basic definitions in the dimension
model here, where "forces" are seen as "relative",
as a relation between different dimension degrees, the different
expressions for forces become rather easy to understand.
A structure concept for one d-degree becomes
a force concept in relation to another d-degree as structure.
We can say that fields become binding forces in the mass,
in he same manner that translation ways or path lines are
binding forces in motion.
Some comments on comparisons with the "standard
Physicists' views focus on external relations between
particle like quanta, but we shall of course see these motions
of communication built in into the structure of more complex
unities as atoms and nuclei and galaxies.
We could also adopt the thesis that all
the interactions between units use the "negative energy"
of Vacant Space for their "implementation". See
What about the physicists' statement that all carrriers
of forces have integer spin, are so called bosons, in opposition
to other, more material quanta with spin 1/2, the so called
fermions? Is it possible to get this to agree with the dimension
model here? Not in any easy way. Note
that there seems to be to ways to get integer spin, one
through being very simple in the structure and one being
composed of ½-spin particles which naturalize each
others' spin, as the alfa-particle.
And as said before: p and e with spin
½ are"carrier of forces" on the level of
biochemistry. See further about
the strong and weak force and Spin.
There is also " carriers" both without mass and
with heavy mass in the standard model and this without explanation?
And two of the four carriers of identified "forces"
are not seen, only theoretically assumed.
Example of another problem concerns the graviton; If the
photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic force, that
is the combination of FE
and FM, we likewise ought
to have a quantum representing the combination of FA
and FG, a "ga"-quantum,
not only an expression for gravitation.
Physicists have (earlier) distinguished
between polar forces like Fem, (and Fw) and non polar, aggregating
ones, as gravitation and the strong nuclear force. According
to the"dimension model" here there should exist
complementary forces in each d-degree (or on each level)
and as many polarizing forces as binding ones.
Now, in later years, when Vacant Space
has been recognized and awarded its own type of energy,
we could probably look at the four old "forces"
as a kind of conservatism depending on historical heritage.
Physicists have also, in more detailed studies, found both
attracting and repulsing moments in the electromagnetic
"binding force". More about Attraction - Repulsion
More discussions about forces in the standard
model - and critical aspects on this model here.
The 5th force ?
Many, so it seems, have looked for a 5th force. In this
model here we cannot aspect that the 5th d-degree, the primary
Entirety or unity, should be directly found as a force,
as it is unpolarized and all "forces", as one-way
directed on some level, will have canceled out each other.
With the hypotheses in this dimension
model, we should see Motion (d-degree 0/00), - all
the motions of Universe - as the translation and expression
for the 5th d-degree, the 5th "force". (Call it
Fk, k for kinetic, or Ft, t for temperature.)
Of course Motion too must be seen as a
force, not only as the result of forces as in old mechanical
physics. Big Bang is one example, ordinary pushes or hits
At the same time we can identify its poles 0 and 00 as
the next primary forces: 0-pole (the center) as the binding
force and 00-pole (the anticenter) as the polarizing force.
Between these poles are the following lower dimension degrees
We get two aspects on the 5th degree as primary "entirety
force" or pair of forces:
- As pair of forces it is binding force relative to lower
degrees, as joint "fork of a branch".
- As polarized, the 0-pole becomes the secondary binding
force in relation to the 00-pole as secondary polarizing
force "the other way around".
- Binding character for the 0-pole: integrating from inside.
- First binding character for the 00-pole in 5th degree:
aggregating from outside.
Even if the physicists should find a 5th force, that doesn´t
mean that it is the 5th one.
It seems very dubious too if the definitions
of the 4 "primary" forces which the physicists
have recognized up till now - and their concept apparatus
can be seen as final or conclusive and satisfy the need
for a world of inner connections. There is really not much
beauty in the "standard model".
Strength and weakness of
Some more general comments
Number of particles in Universe:
The number of particles (nucleons) in Universe was estimated
to about 1077 according to the physicist in the
year 1973. That is to say, about the inversion of the relative
strength of the gravitation squared and with negative sign.
~ relative strength
number of nucleons
Fg / Fem in Universe
(Mass of the entire Universe at that time estimated to
circa 1050 kg. Year 1973.)
It is a bit difficult to see Gravitation as a more high-dimensional
force than for instance the strong nuclear force. Both in
its weakness and its property of aggregating masses of nuclei.
One aspect is to see the "00-components" of forces
as FG and FM
meeting from the end of a dimension chain, - or to view
the lost d-degree in d-degree steps outwards meeting the
0-components of forces (FA,
other way around" from outside inwards:
Another question is how for instance the
electromagnetic force Fem could be interpreted as keeping
up the polarity between the FG
and the FA forces - in
agreement with the first postulates that lower d-degrees
act polarizing on higher ones ?
Other sketched illustrations
in a dimension chain:
"Polar - non polar forces as from
To the Strong and Weak forces here.
Fw as the ramified or forked stalk, FG as the peel - flesh.
FEM as core and Fst as the pips.
Apples and oranges:
For the rest, to pair together the gravitation force with
the electromagnetic force seems similar to pairing apples
(Newton´s apple) with oranges. Apples with a homogeneous
pulp and thin shell, with the segmented oranges in a more
liquid and filamentous state - and thicker shell: a polarization
that has gone further, chemically towards lower degrees
The sun with its convection cells and
magnetic sections should perhaps be seen as a hybrid.