A general doubt:
These forces, the strong, nuclear one and the so called
weak interaction, acting in microcosm, have naturally been
more difficult to investigate - and several news have been
introduced into the "standard model" the last
decades, since the original writings here were born.
Yet, the views of today are partly only
theories - about unseen "gluons" among other things
- and implies a certain choice of concepts and what to focus
on. It must be allowed to doubt that this apparatus of thoughts
is the best or final one. More about the "standard
model" later perhaps. First some aspects building on
informations from the 1960th and 70th.
Nuclear force a combination of other forces ?
According to physics about 30 years ago the nuclear
force or strong interaction seems to be a combination of
"earlier" forces or of components from them -
. In the same way as later steps in a dimension chain follows
from the earlier ones.
At that time physicists told that the strong force was made
up by a lot of potentials, some resembling gravitation,
some electromagnetic ones.
In a more detailed description
there is talk about 8 times a gravitation like force, 8
complex potentials resembling electromagnetism and 8 simple
attractive potentials. (If correctly understood, they should
correspond to 8 mesons with spin 2, 8 mesons with spin 1
and 8 mesons with spin 0?)
If 3 x 8 potentials, they could perhaps be illustrated as
in the figure below, with the strong force as a complicated
result from earlier d-degree steps.
The 2x-series gives number 8 after 3 polarizations,
which could correspond to step 5-4-3-2, and number 16 then
at d-degree 1: one reason for the absurd simplification
(see Forces - MEGA-fields)
to assume that the strong force is connected with d-degree
24 units is also the result of 4 x 3 x 2 (x 1). And
if we take the assumed "potential values" (sum
of poles) in d-degrees 4-3-2, that is 10 E, 8 E, 6 E, and
count with a displacement of 2 E in each step, we get 8
E, 8 E, 8 E.
The number 8 shows itself again in the information that
the strong force is not fully developed in nuclei until
it has 8 or more nucleons.
To all this comes the "octette rule" for covalent
bonds, which could be identified as the complementary
force. 8 e- give a full shell in the atom (in fact 6 + 2).
(Cf. the later presumed "gluons",
6 + 2?)
Further, if we accept the hypothesis in this model about
angle steps in the dimension chain, from 180° polarity
(FG) and 90° (FEM) to 45°,
there is 8 x 45° in a circle. Which 45° ? See below.
In terms of Motions:
According to the physicists the strong force can also
be analysed in terms of spin-/spin-dependence and spin-path-dependences
between the nucleons: that is to say in couplings between
This could perhaps also support the suggestion
that the strong force is coupled with a d-degree step 2→1.
According to the chapter about motions we have assumed that
the lost d-degree in step 5→4
is translated into 1-dimensional motion, path movements,
corresponding to step 1-0/00, and rotation (cf. spin) out
of the second polarization step 4→3,
corresponding to step 2←1.
According to this model, it should be
possible to analyse all forces in terms of motion structures,
but this could be easier to detect in lower d-degrees where
more potentials have been polarized into motion. In d-degree
2 there should be movements in 3 dimensions, in 1-dimensional
structures d-degree movements in 4 dimensions. Which would
be the 4th? Inside the proton?
Remember here the coupling between the proton and M2
and what has been said about the magnetic
force or vector, that it totally depends on the
spin of the photon.
D-degree step 2 1 and
Two things are obvious, as said in the text about "Forces
and MEGA-fields": 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 force.
And the nuclear force cannot develop before
the polarization of the property Charge into (+) and (-)
is a fact, in this respect a later step in relation to the
electromagnetic force FEM.
The primary physical quality of d-degree 1 is Distance.
In one of two central aspects, distances are created by
the polarization between opposite charges of the proton
and the electron. That too is rather obvious:
as property (~ inertia) is a kind of "inversion"
of G-fields (cf. "negative acceleration" ) and
as property a result of "inverted" EM-fields -
as presumed, and Charge - as inversely proportional to permeability
- could be interpreted as a surface structure, and with
the physical quality Distance in d-degree 1, how imagine
"negative" distances as a central property
of heavier nuclei? It could mean that the nucleons partly
were overlapping, existing inside one another ?
With "inversion" interpreted
as "going underground", a change to inward direction
and energy in a complementary, negative form? Inward
directed surfaces as 2-dimensional magnetic fields as parabolas
or hyperbolas squared ?
Proton-/antiproton relations in nuclei?
Some decades ago there were thoughts among physicists that
it could exist some p /anti-p-relation inside the nuclei.
This information gave rise to the idea that inward directed
magnetic fields around the protons could overlap each other
and therewith define an area with opposite, outward directed
M-field as antimatter:
The figure above could illustrate a kind of role exchange
between convex and concave forms and inside/outside, presumed
in this model as the first simple geometrical definitions
of 2a and 2b, the poles of a polarized d-degree 2.
In terms of "inverted fields" we could guess
that it chiefly concerns the M-component of the EM-field,
the magnetic field with assumed roots in Gravitation. (Electrons
mostly an expression for the FA-field
and the Electric component.)
One presumption in this model is that the d-degree steps
in a dimension chain are associated with angle steps, simplest
assumed as halvings:
FG/A FE/M Fst
180° 90° 45° 22,5°
ccccccccccccc ??? ????
In d-degree 2 we should have a relation 45°.
This could perhaps be illustrated with the value of tangens
in a unity circle:
unity charge value is set to 1, the tan value at 45°,
a background for calculations of quarks' charge values.
Here we can remember some old and as it
seems conflicting informations: one that Charge seemed to
go towards infinity inwards the electron (?), and one that
said that charge is built up from outside inwards towards
heavier nuclei, (protons), interpretable as if directed
towards zero inwards.
Tangent too is the derivative of a circle, the geometrical
form of d-degree pole 3a according to first simple postulates.
We could also imagine perhaps that the E- and M-vectors
of the electromagnetic field undergo a change in their angle
relation towards lower degrees 2-1-0/00, possibly, if at
last nearly parallel, responsible for some anti-gravitational
behaviour and happenings in plasma physics? ?
Complementary force to the nuclear
With the assumption in this model that the "real"
antimatter is of complementary type and not a mirrored world
, the real complementary force to the nuclear one 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 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? (Why isn't the Pauli principle identified
as a "force"?) More generally: the e-shell building
"forces" of the atom?
- More wave-like and in that respect outward directed towards
complementary atom neighbours.
- 2-dimensional as squared amplitudes in Schrödinger's
equations for their probability existence "somewhere".
Reach of the nuclear force - the
The heaviest element in nature is Uranium 238 A, one
measure of the reach of the strong force. Two rather beautiful
or funny derivations of the number, remembering that the
strong force, as atoms, should be combinations of other
Inverting the triplet-number 2-1-0 out of the dimension
chain (times 10E5) we get the number of 2 x 238.
From Chemical elements.
Another derivation, from the "natural logarithm"
5 ----- 4 ----- 3 --|--- 2 ----- 1 ----- 0/00
<----------------> | <---------------->
- e e
543 / (5-e) = 237,97 ~ 238. = A mass number
210 / (5-e) = 92,036 ~ 92. = Z charge
number of U
(543-210) / (5-e) = 145,94. ~ 146. = N neutron
number of U
It's probably left to the future to find out if these "derivations"
reveal a deeper meaning.
(2382/3 = ~38,4 = 10-power of the Gravitation weakness
compared to the nuclear force. )
(102,3765 = ~ 238. (237,95.) Somewhere around this figure there is
a log-number which in the 10-base system gives 100 times itself.
Reach ~1/r3, -
a tentative suggestion:
According to earlier informations the strong force falls
of proportional to 1/r3, which can be
read (?) as a derivative from the same term for the electromagnetic
force, 1/r2, or as a product 1/r1
x 1/r2 from earlier or more fundamental forces.
Suppose we could read these 1/rx
-relations as inversions of the forms of motions in the
1/r1: 180°: 1-dimensional motion "space"
or degree of motion inside a Mass or when a mass is accelerated:
a "bond line" of 180°.
1/r2: 90°: 2-dimensional "space"
or degree of motion between Masses or opposite Charges:
Cf. orbital planes for planets or electrons.
1/r3: 45°: 3-dimensional "space"
in "the angle" of the strong force? Cf.. perhaps
that 8 x 45° = 360° and that the strong interaction
is fully developed first with 8 nucleons. The degree of
motion (3) should close its form - perhaps one cause to
the stability of protons.
Note too that the "carrier" of the strong force
- or the exchanged quantum between protons, the π-meson,
has got Mass, a considerable one, - in opposition to
the carriers of the previous forces, the assumed graviton
and the photon of the EM-field, both without mass.
"Carrier" - the π-meson:
Before the "discovery" of gluons,
the π-meson was identified as
carrier of the strong force. It is still seen as the communication
particle between protons as whole entities, gluons as "carriers"
between quarks inside the protons. But is there any reason
not seeing the interaction by π-mesons
between protons as expression for the strong force? Quarks
not being free particles? (The assumed gluons as another
"force" if we will?)
The annihilation between protons and antiprotons produces
during the disintegration - not quarks but π-mesons
which disintegrate in μ-leptons,
μ-neutrinos, electrons, e-neutrinos
and electromagnetic radiation. (Gamow).
Compare the relation between poles in d-degree step 3-2
in the dimension chain of this model: 3a < 2 >3b:
Protons composed of 3 quarks, π-mesons
of 2 quarks. Yet, the pole 3b ought to represent the antimatter
on this level, according to the model here..
Now the physicists describe the π-mesons
as consisting of one matter quark and one antimatter quark,
so it partly seems to agree in number with the 3a
2 3b illustration of d-degree 2.
Could we imagine the p-mesons as virtual parts of the communicating
protons with quarks "uud" ?
p = uu| d u ud = p
π= ud, u or d changing charge to the antimatter quark? Compare
the thought of overlapping magnetic fields above
with the change convex-concave or inward-outward direction.
A note for a lover of numbers:
If we assume that the mass quotient (1836,
proton and electron, (p/e) in the bottom is an integer,
and mirror the number, we get:
1 8 3 6 | 6 3 8 1
6 , 6 3
, the inversion 1/36,36 = 273,000273000273
numbers" 36 and 63 as "loop numbers for
54 and 45, and number 273 among
Apart from the ten-power, that number
273, repeated, is the number of the charged π-meson,
the quotient π/e.
A couple of associations:
3 types of ovary Embryo
sac of a flower
B.Ursing: Svenska växter1944 Biologi
I, A Müntzing 1970 (Figure sources)
According to information sources (Gamow) the number 137
as a quotient appears in three contexts, presumably connected:
- The quotient between the strength of the strong interaction
force and that of the electromagnetic force = 137.
That is about half the π-meson.
- The mass of the (assumed) magnetic monopole. = 137 times
that of the electron.
- The quotient between the velocity of light and that of
the electron around the atom nucleus (in an orbit model
of the atom) is said to be about 137.
These are indications of 3 parts or areas inside
the proton, where charge seems concentrated. Some negative
charge too. The names up-quarks and down-quarks with positive
and negative charge respectively in our ordinary matter,
seems to agree with the fundamental view in this model here
that Direction (d-degree 4) underlies and characterises
all poles of lower degrees in different angles and geometries.
If the quarks cannot be free particles
or quanta, as physicists assume, it could depend on the
"quarks" simply being the essential inner structure
of the proton itself, as walls in a three-room flat. (The
possible break down of an inner wall making it a two-room
flat. - As mesons?)
The believe is that the 3 quarks uud together
have a mass of about 25 MeV/c2. (New data: Up-quark u 1.7
to 3.3 MeV/c2, Down-quark d 4.1 to 5.8 MeV/c2.)
Mass of the proton is 938,3 MeV. Accordingly
there must be a lot of other energy. In "bonds"
between quarks? * Compare the view here that Matter
is a measure of the degree of inner structure or included
volumes. (see further about Charge.)
Then not necessary in terms of "bonds".
Yet, physicists have introduced the gluons in the
standard model: Gluons as communication quanta between the
quarks is seen as the real strong force carriers, p-mesons
as only secondary exchange quanta between gluon-processes
in each proton.
*(Compare that the average binding energy
per nucleon in
heavier elements is estimated to circa 7-8 MeV. In Uranium
238 A it should give a total bond energy of about two protons.)
About the nuclear force in d-degree step 2 - 1 again:
1) The charges attributed to quarks, u = +2/3,
d = -1/3:
A very simple illustration or interpretation here, partition
as expressions for the polarizations in 3 - 2 - 1-step in
the dimension chain:
2) We have the number 8 for the strong force again in the
number of gluons. 6+2?
Compare as above: 3b 2
About 6-dimensional (3a + 3b?) Calabi Yau-rooms
p/e - π – μ
- numbers - and a K -meson:
K° = 975/e, disintegrates into π-mesons.
in μ, e and ν
Spin: the different way for π to get spin Zero: not commented: Gluons attributed spin
1, a spin of the same kind as the photon.
Fw - Weak Interaction
Some essential changes has occurred in the physicists'
aspects of this weak force since the 1970th and the original
texts here. Yet the neutrino is still closely involved,
earlier seen as carrier of the force. First, from informations
at that time:
Weak interaction was chiefly seen as the "force"
responsible for disintegrations, such as the disintegrations
of π-mesons and the so called
μ-"mesons" (not being
mesons now but leptons).
This seems to be one good reason
for relating this force to d-degree step 1 - 0/00 in our
dimension chain. (Seeing π-mesons
of the strong force in previous step for example as a binding
force in relation to this weak one, according to first postulated
definitions. Or inversely: the weak force as the polarizing
force of lower degree in relation to next higher degree
The neutrino is also regarded as nearly pure kinetic energy,
another reason to relate this force to the step from 1-dimensional
potentials to Motions (d-degree 0/00).
Neutrinos of the weak force was mostly
registered as a a loss of energy: a loss of about half the
energy, for example, in p-anti-p-annihilations, and a loss
of spin ½. Neutrinos are (therefor?) attributed
Loss of "1/2"?
According to one hypothesis we should sometimes expect the
loss of a 1/2 in the dimension
chain , one half of a step or half the chain: Step 5→4
implies a polarization of d-degree 5 in the poles 0 and
00. We could then imagine that only the one branch, 5→0-pole,
through further developments leads to a quantum, a unit
with enclosed center, that is half the chain. The branch
5→00 will be open, undefined,
equivalent to the "surroundings".
A dimension chain as a repeated cyclic process could perhaps
be compared with a standing wave, where half a wavelength
is lost at reflexion? (Note: step 1-0/00 branched off from
Yet, there is something wrong with this analogy, if spin
½ corresponds to two turns of a quantum, for
looking the same again, see Spin.
a sea urchin, ancestor to human beings:
They have a very complete and beautiful 5-numbered shell
on the outside but inside a wave-form of only 4 + 1/2. (At
least one specimen!)
Another illustration is the spiral: a typical example of
the missing 1/2. Half a turn is always missing, farthest
in or farthest out:
as spiral. νand anti-v-quanta
Here we have a matrix relation: the curled line as a potential
(from a 0-pole) and the building-in of the surroundings
as 00-pole. Compare that there are at least two types of
neutrinos, those coupled to the heavier μ-leptons,
and those coupled with electrons, like the matrix "substance"
in different turns of a spiral. The weak force connected
with a spring constant?
Participation in all d-degrees?
The weak force, if related to d-degree step 1-0/00, ought
to show up in all the other steps too, since this step is
branched off in all higher d-degree steps. So it does in
the disintegration of π-mesons
of the strong force and in connection with p-anti-p-annihilations
and release of elections (at n →
p + e + ν, charges out of EM-fields.
What about gravitation-acceleration fields,
the "GA"-force ? The character of a disintegration
force could reveal its connection with the FA-force,
the outward acceleration, coupled to Vacant Space, as anti-matter
partly built into microcosm.
Perhaps the weak force in one aspect is
connected with the presumed 1-dimensional motion in these
4-dimensional vector fields. According to first postulates
in the model here 1-dimensional potentials (d-degree 1)
should have motion
moments in 4 d-degrees, e.g. illustrated as growing-decreasing
spirals, motion forms defining a 4-dimensional "space".
Connected with which physical
With Mass connected (and some kind of "inversions"
of) G(A)-fields and Charge as property connected with EM-fields,
aggregated positive charges in nucleons of higher elements
connected with the strong force as a superposition of factors
of the previous fields and perhaps"negative distances"
- which elementary physical qualify or quantity should with
the same views be coupled with the weak force?
It should be Motions
as such," to and from each other", in d-degree
0/00 according to the suggested interpretation here, (motion
as the derivative of 1-dimensional distances, and motion
as the transformation between Distance and Time. The d-degree
step 1-0/00 means a loss of an element in structure.
The other way around, in first step 5-4,
the "physical quantity" suggested
is the concept of Density, a measure of the distance to
a center. A connection with Density could be one aspect
on neutrinos or the anti-neutrinos. Cf. perhaps the extremely
heavy W-Z-particles, see below.)
(In a chapter about physical
quantities (Physics I b), some transformations
of these to the quantities meter and seconds are tested, from the suggestion
that Mass could be written as" negative" or inward
acceleration and Charge as" negative" velocity.
Density gets the form: [-1/m2s2] ,
that is the negative square of inverted Distance x Time,
the only quantity that becomes a product of these units,
Weak interaction was also said to differ from FEM
and Fst (and FG ?) in the fact
that parity is not preserved, which implies that there isn't
symmetry between "right" and "left". This
could be understood as expression for a new polarization,
added to the other, (like outward / inward, forward / backward
/ up / down). Another reason for identifying this force with
the latest step. Or rather first step?
Are there any expressions in the strong force and the weak
interaction for the assumed angle steps in lower degrees,
22,5° in d-degree 2 and 11,25° in d-degree 1?
- Tan 22,5° (the strong force in step 2-1) = √2
(or 67,5°, √2 +1)*
- Tan 11,25° ~ 1/5, 0,2. (0,199.)
* (Cf. convergent series - ? - and the quotient denominator
in the series expression for √2.
Repeated processes in atomic nuclei ?)
It has been said too about neutrinos that they hardly at
all interact with matter. In some way that sounds absurd.
Feynman is said to have viewed photons
as sewing matter together, and shouldn´t that be valid
for the neutrinos as well in at least the same degree!?
Hypothetically one aspect on neutrinos could
be that they are responsible for the bond between the poles
0 and 00 in a very primary sense. Like electrons and protons,
which can be seen as secondary 0- and 00-poles, where
FEM is acting. Neutrinos
could then be seen as an expression too for the connection
between the poles positive and negative Mass (Mass - Vacant
space). (Neutrinos - anti-neutrinos in different directions,
outwards / inwards).
The "standard model",
There are at least three odd things in the new interpretation
of the weak force:
1) The interaction occurs between quanta of
family 1 and 2: μ-leptons and
μ-neutrinos, belonging to family
2, are introduced on one side.
2) The interchanged particle are the new W-bosons
(found or produced?), which fulfills the condition of spin
a) are charged (+/-), in opposition to the carriers of the
other forces in the new scheme,
b) are three with the zero-charged Z-boson,
c) are immensely heavy, about 105 (wrong old guess, now year 2014) calculated to about 80-90 times a proton)x the mass
of the proton, while the carriers of the other forces are
assumed or known to be massless.
3) Perhaps the oddest thing is the new thought
that exchange of these bosons occur while electrons are
transformed to electron-neutrinos and on the other side
μ-neutrinos instead transform
This is very hard to swallow for us who
have heard about these quanta and thought that at least
electrons had a rather stable existence in our energy use
and in the atomic world.
The belief in transformations to / from neutrinos, to/from
electrons and my-leptons could be sign of a difficulty to
distinguish between d-degrees and d-degree steps, as between
borders and intervals, a structure and its matrix (cf. a
spiral), or between a d-degree structure of potentials and
the pattern of motions (kinetic energy)?
The pole exchange in d-degree 0/00 in the
dimension model here, where "motions from each other"
(outwards) define a 00-pole, "motions to each other"
(inwards) define a 0-pole, could perhaps imply a new start
and be coupled with the transition to quanta of family 2 in
0 and 00 as outer poles of d-degree 4,
the vector fields, and the coupling between step 1-0/00
and step 5-4, could perhaps also lie behind the heaviness
of the new bosons.
More perhaps later about the odd views on
forces in the
Additions 2014-02: See file
x1: Englert - Higg's theory, Higgs boson and trhe Standard model
Three general aspects on the
concept of forces:
1) Forces as outer correspondence:
:The view in the standard model makes forces look like correspondence
between quanta, while these "transform" to them
selves (!) or to other quanta. This correspondence is illustrated
like some kind of wave bonds, but seems more like expressions
for these bonds, as "the outer connection",
not for the underlying real binding force.
2) Forces as translated to motions:
The new word for the concept of forces is "interaction",
and it resembles to some extent what in this dimension model
has been defined as the d-degree of Motion: motions "to
and from each other". polarized and quantified potentials
(of one or more d-degrees?).
The old question from mechanical physics
about what forces cause these motions is dismissed. A question
which in this dimension model is equivalent to the question
how the Forces can be derived from each other
3) The complementarity principle dismissed:
At least the well-known, "polar" electromagnetic
force was earlier seen as a bond between complementary units,
charges of plus and minus.
This complementarity principle between
corresponding quanta in these interactions seems now totally
The photon, quantum of the force FEM,
is now described as an exchange quantum between solely electrons,
quite difficult to understand. So is the assumed graviton
of the gravitation field, FG:
illustrated as an exchange particle between electrons only!
Still more curious, if possible!
One could ask: Has Feynman's way of illustrating interactions
seduced the physicists? And their frenetic fixation at the
least possible "material" particle? Even if outsiders
have to accept that physicists' view, with today's information,
is one way to look at facts, we must be allowed
to believe there are better ways.
About comparison with the dimension
1) Use of anti-matter:
With he electromagnetic force or interaction as example,
and the π-meson of the strong
force (keeping to the view that this is the real "carrier"
between protons), we can predicate that "carriers"
is using the anti-matter on their level for their existence
and propagation. Photons using the magnetic field, the counterpole
to the electric one, and p-mesons one quark from the anti-matter
region. Similar as said above to human beings using surrounding
air for the speech. (Cf. "Electromagnetic
Waves".) We should be able to assume
that the same is valid for the other forces, as "ga"-carriers
for "gravitation" and those of a weak force, for
a homogeneous definition of forces.
If so, there is in this respect a similarity
with first postulates
here about higher d-degrees (defined as potentials between
complementary poles) as binding forces in relation to lower
2) Motions as polarizing force:
In the dimension model here lower d-degrees and ultimately
d-degree 0/00 of Motion are postulated to be the polarizing
forces in relation to higher d-degrees.
Perhaps we could read the illustration of forces in the
standard model in another way:
It's the motion of electrons (described
as transformed to themselves!) that polarizes the EM-field,
activating the M-field as complementarity pole.
It's the motions too of electrons
(!) that polarizes a G-A-field, / activating also Gravitation,
coupled to FA, the complementary
pole, as electrons are according to interpretations of "MEGA"-fields
in this model...
Then, what the physicists actually describe is (in one
sense) not the binding forces but the polarizing ones, which
makes their model a little easier to accept.
(But don't we have to believe that also free protons in
motion polarizes the EM-field - and GA-field? )
3) Mutual relations between the forces:
As for the derivations of forces from each other, the
mutual relations, they should in this model be the same
as between different d-degrees. It surely remains quite
a lot to verify this and it probably demands of physicists
some redefinitions of "forces" - of what to designate
Are there for instance any possibility to show that a two-way
directed vector field (!) of G-A is the inner bond between
electric and magnetic vectors in an EM-field? (E- and M-fields
perhaps anti-parallel on a meta-level, in d-degree 4?)
Compare photons polarized into +/-e, that
is positrons from antimatter and electrons from matter...