Quantum Theory of Gravity
1. REDEFINITION OF MASS AND GRAVITY
"The most beautiful experience is the encounter with the unknown."
- Albert Einstein -
Mass! Even the particle physicists don’t measure the mass of an electron ... let’s say ... with a weighing machine, that is, in kilograms, or Newtons, or any of the units of mass or weight. For example, it is establish that the mass of the electron at rest is 0,511 MeV, this means, millions of electron-volt, which is a measure of amount of energy!
The masses of sub-atomic particles are thus expressed in units of MeV / c2, usually shortened to MeV. And it is said, for example, that the mass of a proton is 939 MeV. This is the amount of energy that would be produced and released in case the mass of the proton would be destroyed and completely eliminated.
According to Einstein's equation, the energy released by a tiny amount of mass would be huge: E = m.c2
Looking at this equation we can see that it is sufficient to multiply a minimal amount of mass by c2 to have a result of a huge amount of energy.
But Mass still keeps many secrets for the scientists that, repeatedly, keep trying to reveal the mechanism by which the small particles of atoms are compose with Mass. Still continue to search and try to discover what is the minimum unit of matter, or what is the mechanism that provides the quality of Mass. Because it has always been said that Mass is an intrinsic property of Matter.
All of these considerations are very interesting ... but, after all, what is the Mass?
Indeed, atoms and matter are consisted of electrical charged particles, as such, shouldn’t they be considered at least as a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum?!
I even dare to say that it would be desirable, and even more, to give preference to a theory that make up the Gravitation Force and the Electromagnetic Force as having the same source! Different manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon!
Once assumed that the Force of Gravity is a Force of Radiation, perhaps it is now easier to rearrange a new non standard theory, once we have release of a large preconceit!
We could start our investigation with the following question: What is the property that all particles with mass have in common?
Let us start by remembering all of the stable particles with mass that we know:
Starting with its identification we have: protons, neutrons, electrons ... ... Quarks some bosons ...
What is the common variable in all these particles?
Looking closely, however strange it may seem, all of these particles have a common variable … the property that these entire particles share is ... electrical charge!!
All particles endowed with mass have to have charge in its constitution?! Curious ... this could be our 1st clue ...
The protons are positively charged, the electrons have negative charge, and neutrons are neutral since this resulting charge is made of quarks with fractional charge. The atom itself is also composed with different types of electrical particles. The addition of all of these particles makes the contributions for the electrical charge of the atom, with a total result of a neutral charge. The atoms have neutral electrical charge. And the atoms have mass.
We can consider that the photons and neutrinos have no charge in its constitution, therefore, these particles have no mass.
It seems that mass cannot exist without the presence of electrical charge ... that seems a little bit strange! Is this the correct variable? ... Or maybe not! ... But it is a good evidence.
Is it here any chance of relationship and unification between Electromagnetic Fields and Gravitational Fields? Considering the hypothesis that Gravity is a force of radiation, in what way does that provide gravitational attraction between two objects, and in what way does that give and extent the quality of mass to matter? And what kind of relationship can be established between the property of mass and the property of charge in the middle of this entire scenario? ... Very confusing ...
Well, it might be better if we start with a subject at a time ...
But, looking closer to what has been happening over the last three decades, the unification of Gravity with the theory of Electromagnetism has demonstrated to be very inconsistent and so hard and difficult to achieve, so it is more likely that one of these two theories may not be quite correct as we think!
Again, let us star from the beginning:
I stop in this equation, or Newton's law of gravitational force between two masses:
Fg = G. m.m / r2
And after this, we can stop in this equation, the Law of Coulomb for electrical force between two charges:
Fe = K. Q.Q / r2
As you can see, until here, we have no secret!
Both of these theories describe with success two distinct theories and apparently, unrelated phenomena.
By choosing one of the equations, we could start by checking the veracity of Newton’s Law.
Let us start then with our rigorous analysis.
This part of the equation of the Law of Gravity: m.m/ r2, we have already seen earlier in this work that it is incorrect, since it leads to an indeterminacy of the infinite problem... because when he radius is equal to zero the force of Gravity becomes infinite. And if the Force of Gravity becomes infinite in the center of every object, everything would collapse …
r = 0 → Fg = ∞
And the other part? The Gravitational constant ‘G’ ... what is the meaning of G? It is said that it is a constant … a gravitational constant ... but constant of what? ... Constant that relates masses … but what properties, specifically, among the masses?
Theoretically, the description of this constant is defined as follows:
The constant of proportionality G is a universal constant of Nature, describing the intensity and proportion of the force with which two masses are mutually attracted.
And that this constant takes the same value for all substances, whatever the composition of these chemical elements, this means that this constant is independent of their constituent elements, of density, weight ... the very own constitution of mass or of matter!
A constant that describes the interaction between two masses is independent of mass itself? Curious ...
But we can also address it in another way, describing this constant in another form: that this is a constant between the forces of attraction ...
Ah! Yes, now this is more like it and this is a very different sentence.
Based on the observations of Galileo, it found that the acceleration of bodies in free fall is independent of its mass. This means that, disregarding the force of friction, the bodies may have different masses and different weights, however, both bodies fall down at the same speed and touch the ground at the same time, because the acceleration is the only constant ... very interesting.
The value of gravitational constant is G = 6.6742 x 10-11 N.m2/Kg2 or also in their official notation G = 6.6726 x 10-11 m3/Kg.s2 (these units refer to the cube of the distance, divided by the mass multiplied by the square of the time) and was obtained experimentally with a device designed by Sir Henry Cavendish in 1798, the torsion balance.
The procedure to this measure was the following: Put up two objects, or two spherical masses, suspended by a thread but united as a dumbbell made of a very light rod. Then, place it down to the bottom another fixed dumbbell consisting of heavier spheres and with higher volume.
After that, we try to measure what is the gravitational attraction that occurs when approaching the spheres. The wire suspending the small ball is forced to twist due to the gravitational pull caused by the heavier spheres, making an angle with respect to the axis of origin. The extent of this small angle of rotation is measured and related to the force of attraction.
This experience, in practice, requires a few more details, however, the basic idea is the one presented and the conclusion is the following:
That the gravitational force of attraction is relatively weak and that, for example, in practice if we considered two spheres of one kilogram each, placed at a distance of one meter in relation to its center of gravity, we will detect a force of attraction between these two bodies of 6,67 x 10-11 Newton.
In the Newton’s law we can simply replace m = 1 and r = 1 in the equation of gravity to obtain the value of the force measured. It is postulate a minimum value for the gravitational attraction and this minimum value is placed as G in the Gravity equation and designated as a universal constant... which is in fact a value of a force!
A minimum strength, a very small force of attraction, but it is the value resulting from the force of attraction between two masses with one kilogram, separated by a distance of one meter. I do not think we can consider this as a Universal Constant ... at least, in my point of view, this constant should need some reviewing and have a better explanation…
But, some think that this relation is useful and that will fit in the Gravity equation and resolve many problems, and so there it is, we introduce G in the Newton’s equation, and everything works perfectly ... very convenient!
But, in fact, it seems that this constant it is not working that well. What we see in practice is that the Gravitational Constant G is rather difficult to determine.
The oldest constant of Physics, the Universal constant of Gravity, is in fact the most difficult to determinate with precision and has proved by far to be the most inconsistently constant to define with good accuracy.
Usually, all other universal physical constants can be measured with a precision that is up to eight decimal places, or even more, for G, the differences appear after the third decimal place, sometimes even before!
The error in the measurement of G is so big that it is too high to be used in studies of gravity and space operations. To avoid that error we take as a reference another celestial body with a mass 'm' higher, and with that, in practice, what we do obtain is a new G!
The experimental results do not match and so we think that the main problem is on the measure devices. Then comes up some new investigators with new ideas for new devices, more modern and more sophisticated, they go into the field and adventure into the measurement of G and find out, once again, what they will get as a result is always a different value … which is very annoying!
This reminds me the inverse story of 'c'. The early steps for the determination of this constant was made in the direction to obtain different values for the speed of light, but insistently, the value of ‘c’ always wanted to remain constant. Now we are seeing the opposite, constantly trying and demanding the same value for G, but at every measure different values are always found!
This number of the gravitational constant insists to be inconsistent and inaccurate, and the truth is that until today no one knows its exact value!
It is generally believed that the problem is in the measuring devices which cannot measure this constant with quite precision and perfect accuracy.
I wonder why the oldest constant of Physics it is so enigmatic …
Furthermore, we could try another approach and try to accept and assume the evidence of facts. And what are the evidences?
I leave you to reflect for a moment.
Before going any further, let us see how with a few small experiments and some simple calculations, we can explain and clarify a little bit more some of the anomalies of our Gravitational Constant.
A work entitled "Geophysical evidence for non-Newtonian Gravity" published in 1981 by F. D. Stacey and G. J.Tuck, has developed some measurements of G below sea level, at the bottom of mine.
What was found in these measurements was that amazingly the gravitational constant G had achieves values up to 1% above the official, much superior than the measurements that are performed in the laboratory at the surface of the Earth. And, the greater the depth, the greater was the value found for G!
Shouldn’t G be always constant?!
What this means is that the force of attraction between two spheres it is no longer the same, is different. Thus, the force of Newton will be higher as it increases the depth ... for the same spheres at the same distance ...!
If the mass is a measurement of the number of atoms of the spheres and if the amount of mass remains unchanged, both the spheres and the planet Earth, why is the pattern of gravitational attraction different?
The same experience of Cavendish leads to different results! What is the variable in this experiment? It is not the mass for sure.
Are we still so sure that the gravitational attraction is a function of masses?
Another study published in 1924 by Charles F. Brush, called: "Some new experiments in Gravitation", shows us photographic pictures which demonstrates that heavier bodies made of metal atoms and more dense tend to have more force of gravitational attraction and fall faster into the floor than bodies with the same mass, but less dense or with lower atomic number. This difference is minimal but measurable.
Why does this happen? Another anomaly of G?!
This new anomaly leads us to introduce again the following observation: that the amount of electrical charge, number of the electrons constituent of the atom has an influence on the amount of mass, or the amount of gravitational field which is produced. But how is this possible?
Finally, the most enigmatic experience of all, which completely challenges the incontestable validity of the Law of Gravity.
In 1798, Henry Cavendish had the curiosity to pursue the experience of the torsion balance but in a slightly different way. While he measures the gravitational constant he has resolved to heat, with fire, both spheres.
Surprisingly, he had found that the force of attraction between the two spheres had increased considerably, therefore he has determined a value for G much higher!
This experience has been challenging the Classical Physics for over 200 years!! And all efforts made to try to explain this phenomenon have been in vain or very weak.
After all, what is generating more Gravity? Again, I will repeat ... it is not the mass, for sure!
Advances in Science are not always made forward, sometimes it seems that we are moving backwards ...
Now, let us repeat the question: what is the evidence of these facts?
The evidence is, at least, that G is a constant which does not seem very constant at all ... and with this kind of evidence we could think that perhaps G is not even a Universal Constant!
This could be our 2nd evidence: the force of Gravity that relies so much in the gravitational constant G, the universal constant of Newton's formula, this is not even a constant but a variable, a parameter of location, which can take values and results always different, depending on the local and external conditions in which the measurement is being determinated.
We should remind that Universal Constants are references of the Cosmos. As such, a Universal Constant does not change, does not vary, it is universal because it applies to the entire Universe. And it is certainly independent of external conditions and locations of measurement.
The experimental evidence that G varies, it shows that this is not an innate or a fundamental property of mass, and it is a proof that the gravitational constant G is certainly not a Universal Constant at all!
Without wishing to complicate Physics, we must accept the facts! As much they seem to contradict our fundamental ideas...
However, assuming that there is no gravitational constant with universal application, there still is an apparent constant of attraction with application for a specific location.
Probably the approximate value of G that appears in our equation is a consequence, a relationship between other properties inherent to the masses. All we can ask at this moment is what could be those other properties?!
Before we continue, I will leave you another comment about the Law of Gravity, which is:
Imagine an astronaut, for example. We know that an astronaut on the moon does not have the same weight as if he were on the Earth, nor have the same weight as in Jupiter. Because in Jupiter the extreme gravitational forces tend to compress the mater and then an astronaut would feel his body to weigh increasingly, becoming very heavy and wanting to collapse on itself. Its weight would have a value almost three times bigger that of Earth, a weight impossible to support, a weight which no human body can stand.
It is good to know we are aware that we cannot send man expeditions to Jupiter. However, we have already sent astronauts to the Moon, and with these conditions we might assume the opposite. We know that an astronaut on the moon weighs significantly less one-sixth that on Earth, and therefore it is said that the reason why this happens is because the astronaut is less exposed to gravitational influences, which is why his weight is lower in that place. However, despite being less subject to gravitational influences, his body does not extend, doesn’t expand, so it does not change the form! The geometry of the body remains ... the geometry of the body remains the same ...
What I have said may seem an irrational idea, because we know that atoms are minimally stable, independent of the intensity of Gravity. This implies that the internal forces of the atoms tend to adapt to each location, so that the micro atomic system remains stable. The stability of an atom depends directly of balance of the internal electromagnetic forces.
Despite the influence that inter-atomic binding energies of molecular and covalent connections, that probably will take more effort to maintain stability and balance of the atomic system, since tolerating the absence of gravity must require a great effort by the body of the astronaut, we must consider that there is indeed a factor that has been changed: the gravitational intensity.
In practice, we can resume these observations as the following:
1st The amount of mass: = is maintained => Because the mass is a measure of the number of atoms, and it remains the same number of atoms;
2nd The value of Weight: = it changes => The weight changes considerably, because the body is exposed to a lower ‘gravitational’ field;
3rd The Form: = remains the same => Because it appears that the geometry and gravitational attraction of the body does not change considerably.
Again: the gravitational attraction of the astronauts body does not change significantly but the weight changes a lot … very subtle ... strange ... but curious!
This leads us to suppose that the gravitational attraction is quite independent of weight, since the weight change is substantially but not the form. So we could ask again the same question: what is Gravity?
We believe that this force is responsible for transmitting weight and also the form of an object. But as we can see, these two properties of Mass do not appear to be directly related ...
I do not wish to confuse the concepts, but it seems to me that there is something under here that wishes to be very well disguised!
Are we still so sure that weight and gravitational attraction are one and the same thing?
The Law of Gravity is becoming each further more complicated!
Soon we will see a light at the end of the tunnel ...
If Gravity is a force related to Masses, then this force must be very special because it does not allow many analogies. For example, when a gas is subjected to enormous forces of pressure, it tends to compress; making an analogy, we can consider that if the gas is exposed to a lower pressure, tends to expand. The forces that are acting on the gas vary, so the gas changes its shape. Right?
But in our case, Gravity does not change the form, even when the forces that are acting on the masses are suppress or have substantial differences! You may not agree, but I find this a little bit strange! Quite strange! What kind of force is this?
Even though it’s of common knowledge that Gravity is considered as a Field Force, it must be noted, inevitably, a 3rd evidence: that this Force of Gravity it is not, unquestionably, a Mechanical Force or a contact force.
What we usually call of Force of Gravity cannot be a universal property of Mass. This force linked to the attraction is not proportional to the amount of mass of each substance, but it is related to another property of matter!! ...
Without wishing to cause any inconvenient, and with all the respect and admiration that I share for Sir Isaac Newton, I would say that the Theory of Gravity is losing points ... many points. So, it would be good and preferable if we keep as a reference the Theory of Electromagnetism.
This is the moment which seems that I will have to say something completely absurd. Listen carefully: If Gravity is not a mechanical force, what kind of force can it be? Again, there are not many hypothesis left ... it can only be a field force ... a force of radiation … an electromagnetic force!
Try to follow my thoughts and again, without any preconceit.
If Gravity is not synonymous of mass not even of weight; then, the only thing that we can say with some certainty is that Gravity is a force of attraction between atoms.
Very well, considering Gravity as a force of attraction, what other forces of attraction do we know in Nature?
Let us look at the magnetism. This phenomenon known for centuries shows us how two magnets can attract so quickly due to a mysterious force that unites them. Is there any force more attractive than this? What is this magnetism?
Magnetic fields are everywhere, naturally produced and artificially produced. The largest natural magnetic field that involves us is the one created by our planet Earth, the terrestrial magnetic field. Other manifestations of magnetic attraction are present in small magnets.
Magnetic fields can also be produced artificially, every time an electrical device is in operation. But man can not directly feel this magnetism, it is an invisible force that works quietly through the empty space without being notest ...
The magnetic effects are a by-product, a secondary manifestation of a fundamental force, which results of the behavior between particles with electrical charges.
All particles containing electrical charges in motion create electromagnetic fields. Nature does not have isolated magnetic charges. The magnetism is a consequence of the movement of electrical charges which can be produced by electrons, protons, atoms, planets or stars and all of these objects can create magnetic fields.
All particles have their own magnetic field, resulting from its rotation, however, it may also arise another additional field, if the particle has a speed of translation.
Wherever there is movement, there is magnetic field.
Even neutrons have their own magnetic field. Although these particles are electrically neutral, they do not cease to consist of quarks with fractional charge, as such, they also create magnetic fields.
We can conclude that all atoms have their own magnetic field and the intensity of this field also decreases according to the law of the inverse of the square of the distance, as stated in the theory of electromagnetism.
One of the properties of objects in rotation is called angular moment, which is a measure of the amount of rotation. A particularity of the angular moment is that this force can be transferred.
For example, if we are sitting still in a rotating bank while we are holding a bicycle wheel horizontally, so that its axis remains upright, if we put the bicycle wheel to rotate and begin to reverse the direction of its axis, surprisingly , we will also start to rotate in our rotating chair. The reason why this happens is because the angular moment can be transferred ... very interesting!
Back to the atom. In this case we have particles that are in a constant movement of rotation and therefore they can also create an intrinsic angular moment, however, since these particles have internal charges in its constitution, in addition to generating an angular moment these particles can also generate a magnetic moment.
Since the magnetic moment is a vectorial quantity, and assuming that all the magnetic vectors are always aligned, we can speculate that the magnetic moment of an atom is the resulting of the vectorial sum of all these small contributions, so that the moment or the magnetic field produced by an atom is a constant in time.
It is the intrinsic magnetic moments of the particles that are responsible for the macroscopic effects of magnetism. The magnetic moment of a system is a measure and a consequence of the intensity of the magnetic source. It is a quantification of the system's internal magnetism. This source is generated by magnetic particles constituents of the atom, the same number of protons neutrons and electrons, whose ratio is always proportional and constant, unless exceptions.
Each atom creates a magnetic field, each group of atoms creates a magnetic field slightly larger, and larger clusters of atoms can create bigger magnetic fields.
The existence of this tiny and subtle magnetic field that each atom produces is simply a magnetic attraction, with the same behavior as a very small magnet.
Unfortunately, the magnetic field generated by an atom is very weak. According to the theory of electromagnetism its magnitude it’s always weaker with further distance, thus we can consider that the magnetic field produced by an atom is almost negligible and as such we cannot suppose that this force is responsible for a universal attraction of matter, for the Law of Gravity.
It is true that this field is extremely weak to achieve and contact with another distant atom and be able to attract him ... but maybe there still missing another variable in this model that makes all the difference ...
It is now that we should consider another phenomenon: the electromagnetism manifestation at the macrocosms. As we know, the electron-photon interaction produces the Electromagnetism. This electromagnetic radiation is produced to outside the atom, for the macrocosm. The emission of this radiation is then spread throughout the space in the form of electromagnetic waves at the speed of light.
The theory that I wish to demonstrate is the following: The emission of the electromagnetic field does not travel alone. Along with this is associated another field, the magnetic field of the atom. What I think is that, in some way, the magnetic moment of the small atom is transferred trough the way of electromagnetism emission to the macrocosm, and this force of attraction, the magnetic momentum of the atom, although small, can achieve infinite distances.
If in Classical Physics, the angular kinetic moment is transferred, much probably, the angular magnetic moment can also be transferred.
And this would be the phenomenon responsible for causing Gravity!
A simple experiment shows us that the chemical unfolding of the Hydrogen spectrum has two very distinct fine lines, rather than a single line. What is the meaning of these lines? The physicist response is still somehow inconclusive, however, we could say that this flaw in the spectrum is related to the magnetic moment of the electron or of the atom itself. We could suppose that these two lines of Hydrogen spectrum show the absorption of two different sources of radiation: Electromagnetic Radiation and Gravitational Radiation.
These two lines may clearly demonstrate the existence of the absorption and emission of a double radiation resulting from an internal magnetic field (gravitational source) and an external electromagnetic field (classical electromagnetic source), exchanged and circulated continuously throughout the space at speed of light.
The emission of this new gravitational field obeys always to a constant value, since each atom has got an exact proportion of its constituent fundamental particles, the same number of electrons, protons and neutrons. And with this we can conclude that the amount of charge is, in general, always constant and equal. The ratio of magnetic moment is therefore a constant ... very interesting ...
The advantage of this New Theory of Gravity is that the constant of attraction does not need necessarily to have a fixed value, the gravitational constant does not have to be always constant, it can be variable.
Take the example of the production of artificial small magnets. These industrial magnets can be made out of a diamagnetic material expose to an external and intense electromagnetic field. Depending of the intensity of the field, you get a magnet with more or less magnetization. That is, if you wish to have a stronger magnet, more magnetic, you can simply submit the material to a stronger electromagnetic field. And we know that an electromagnetic field is more intense as more rapid it changes.
Now, back to the macrocosm. If we consider a planet or a star in which its speed of rotation is higher, this will be reflected in the production of a stronger external electromagnetic field.
The subtlety of Gravity is as follows:
If the star exposes itself to a stronger and more intense electromagnetic field, it will happen the same analogy as our artificial small magnets, which is: the star intensifies the inner magnetic field of the system, the residual internal magnetic momentum of each atom increases, which in practice it will be reflected in an increase of the gravitational constant!
The same applies to the experience of Cavendish. While we are heating the spheres we are transferring kinetic energy to electrons, and as a consequence these particles move more quickly, shacking rapidly, and this increases and intensify the external electromagnetic field which is produced. If the spheres involves itself to a stronger electromagnetic field this will also interfere with the internal magnetic momentum of each particle, therefore, this residual internal magnetic momentum, the gravitational field of attraction, also increases and inevitably the G 'constant' must achieve a higher value!!
The inconstant G does not reveal a surprise … actually it shows the way Nature works …
In addition to this theory we must say that the magnetization is a phenomenon that is only possible because it produces the alignment of the domain.
In our case, what could be those alignment fields of the particles of Nature?
There is a strange property of matter that has passed by a bit unnoticed, because in fact, nobody knows very well for what it serves: the property that I am referring to is the enigmatic and mysterious Spin.
Why would Nature need to create this property? All particles have a very well defined spin, and this is a fundamental characteristic of matter and it cannot be changed. The spin, is related to the direction of the axis of rotation, or with the intrinsic angular moment of a particle, and is one of the most intriguing properties of quantum physics. Until this moment there is no convincing physical interpretation to explain this particular characteristic of Nature ...
Interestingly, all the entire family of fermions, which includes the stable and unstable matter, has got the exact same spin. For us, we should note, particularly, the stable part of this family, the common particles around us.
Quite amazingly, nobody noticed that all particles with stable mass have all an identical property: Spin ½.
The electrons have spin ½; The quarks have spin ½, which are the constituents of the nucleus, therefore, also the protons and neutrons have spin ½, so all atoms have spin ½.
This identical spin to all of these particles means that they all operate in the same direction around the same virtual universal axis. All particles of matter perform a rotation in the same way so that the spin associated with this movement always corresponds to the module 1/2 ... And this is how it is performed the alignment of the domain!
Perfect! The magnetic fields of all these different and distinct particles are related with one universal alignment according to their spin, which is always equal to the module ½, and behave themselves as small magnets spread around the Universe with two poles, the only change that can be made is with a spin of 1/2 or -1/2, to allow the combination of the two poles, let’s say, add a North Pole with a South Pole.
The resulting magnetic moment is the total sum of all these individual contributions of each particle, which is a constant ratio of the magnetic moment per unit volume. So that, the final magnetic moment is always constant and always proportional to the amount of mass and number of particles that produces this magnetism, therefore, the constant G arises as a constant of magnetic attraction.
The Spin is the secret of Gravity!!
This revelation is very far from being glorious as it still is incomplete, because the Force of Gravity still has got many more mysteries and secrets to reveal.
If the Gravitational Force is a magnetic force, responsible for the form of the objects, so then what is weight?
The weight as we shall see, it is another story ...
The Force of Gravity is responsible for the geometry of the bodies, responsible for the attraction of particles of matter, however it is not directly related to mass or weight. Indeed, these are three distinct concepts, mass, weight, gravitational attraction. As we will see, these qualities are absolutely different and independent!
I do consider these three concepts as being absolutely independent, and I will explain why:
First, the attraction of a body is therefore a function of the attractions of its atoms. However, this attraction it is not a universal and essential property of the body, or of their particles, or of mass. Indeed, it is not even a specific and innate property, but a consequence.
It seems that without an electrical atmosphere we would not have the generation of Gravity, since, according to this theory, it is due to electron-photon interaction that produces the phenomenon of electromagnetism to the outside of the atom and therefore the emission of Gravity into the macrocosm... and this feature is very interesting !
As we can see in Nature, we rarely find solitary atoms. Nature tends to form groups and acquire more complex forms. However, what allows the first approximation of these atoms, it is a force of attraction ... a magnetic force … the one that we usually call of Gravity Force.
This Magnetic Gravitational Field, appears as a small interference, a slight imbalance in the position of particles, requiring that the matter can no longer stay in a static equilibrium and are forced to move into a state of dynamic equilibrium. The mass has a tendency to agglomerate, but it does not disintegrated, It doesn’t collapses on itself, there is no infinite gravitational forces in the center of the nucleus, in the center of mass where the radius is equal to zero, because Gravity does not emerge from the center ... this is the action of the New Force of Gravity!
It is only later that there is the union of atoms. Without wishing to enter in the fields of Chemistry, the union of these atoms is reflected by molecular links, ionic and covalent, much more resistant. The electronic connections of the valence electrons, those which are at a more distant orbital, are very strong and it ensures the construction of chemical elements in a more complex and stable structures such as molecules and crystals. Later, this structure takes a strict and defined form, resulting in the classification of this substance as a solid, a liquid or a gas.
However, the existence of atoms and molecules does not establishes that there must exist a predetermined weight, because the weight is always a variable.
The next big question is try to explain what is the mechanism that gives mass and weight to matter.
In a very short analogy, very succinct and without any mysteries, I would say that if the photons are responsible for transferring the electrical charge, then, our neutrinos or gravitons are responsible for transferring the mass.
We cannot forget that these are the fundamental properties of the Cosmos: Charge and Mass, two very exotic properties!
The neutrinos would be the particles responsible for building and produce all the mass that we are made of!
Until now, our neutrinos have little affected the lives of the particle physicists. It would be good if we could give a little more attention to these subtle particles and develop further studies.
The existence of the neutrino was first postulated by the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1931. Pauli based this hypothesis in apparent non conservation of energy and time in a certain specifically radioactive declines, the Beta disintegration. This type of neutron disintegration resulted in the appearance of two new particles, the proton and electron, but apparently there was a tiny quantity of energy missing. Pauli suggested that the missing energy would be carried by a neutral and invisible particle. Later, Enrico Fermi baptized the name of this new particle as a neutrino . In 1959 it was finally discovered a new particle which corresponded exactly to the characteristics of the neutrino.
The neutrinos are neutral elementary particles that interact with matter only through the Weak Nuclear Force. However, the process of production of these neutrinos can be provided from very diverse sources.
Most of the neutrinos production happens in our Sun. These small particles are continuously generated in nuclear reactions inside the Sun and in other stars. The neutrinos are the most important component of the whole cosmic radiation that constantly arrives at our little planet Earth.
The most fascinating feature of this small particle is that neutrinos barely interact with matter, since this particle does not have electric charge and probably does not have any mass, this ghost particle can cross the planet very easily, without reacting with matter, because for these neutrinos the whole matter is almost transparent, and they can get through it without any difficulty!
The solar neutrinos arrive from all directions at every moment, coming across the space and through the planet Earth, extending until the ends of the Universe.
These neutrinos may have different distributions of energy, depending on the nuclear reaction that produced them. Given the luminosity of the Sun, it is possible to calculate the number of neutrinos generated at every second. If two neutrinos are emitted per 28 million eV, as they expand in all directions across the spherical area of the solar surface, it is estimated that the number of neutrinos that reaches the surface of planet Earth is, approximately, 60 billion of neutrinos per cm2 per second!
And as bigger the mass of the star, the higher is the amount of neutrinos that are generated. It is estimated that currently there are 10 billion neutrinos per proton. These particles are practically undetectable and probably, at least, as abundant as the photons. And at the same way as photons these invisible particles must travel at the speed of light.
Still, the production of these particles is not limited to nuclear reactions of stars. The neutrinos can also be produced inside the Earth, through the radioactivity disintegration of some elements; in nuclear power centrals installed at the surface of our planet; and even by the human being, as a result of specific reactions with Potassium atoms that compose our bodies.
The truth is that, a human body produces 20 million neutrinos per hour; besides that, it is crossed by 100 billion neutrinos coming from nuclear centrals; and finally it is crossed by another 50 trillion neutrinos coming from the Sun!
Therefore, it is not an absurd to say that we are crossed by trillions of neutrinos in a short space of time!
Amazing … neutrinos get trough us at every moment without being notice …
These particles, so subtle and omnipresent, were created almost since the beginning of the Universe, the entire evolution of Nature has had to rely on these structures, therefore, these particles must have a fundamental function ...
It is an idea a little difficult to prove, the materialization of matter through the neutrinos, but only this way makes any sense, other wise ... why would Nature create so many neutrinos? ... Take away all the neutrinos of the Universe and everything will vanish into dust and dilute into air ... literally!
The neutrinos would be the transmitters of the material energy, a property that gives mass to matter, as the photons are the carriers of the electromagnetic energy, a property which gives electrical charge to matter. These would be the two essential properties of atomic elements, electrical charge and mass, mediated by these two particles: photons and neutrinos.
Thus, according to this analysis, it seems that we should reconsider and divide the structure of our Old Force of Gravity into two components:
1st Component - The Magnetic Gravitational Force, responsible for the geometric shape and form;
2nd Component - The Material Gravitational Force, responsible for transmitting the quality of mass;
These two forces combined together and related, gives us the illusion of the existence of a single force, because they fit almost perfectly in order to compose a Secondary Force that we normally call of Gravity Force!
The sad conclusion is, that there is no Force of Gravity as an endemic and original force of the Cosmos, this exotic force deludes us with its beauty as a magnificent hybrid!
With this information, we are forced to readjust the major structural forces of the Universe, reconsidering for them on a new model, a new Equation of the Cosmos:
Weak Force = Strong Force + Electro-Magnetic-Gravitational Force + Material Force
Nevertheless, it would be necessary to postulate a Theory for Neutrinos, prepare new experiences, in order to better understand what is their real interaction with matter.
Recent experience in this area, that wants to count the number of neutrinos that constantly crosses our planet Earth, have found that the number of neutrinos coming out is not exactly equal to the number of neutrinos coming in. There is, therefore, a deficit of neutrinos.
There are some suggestions that have been made in order to provide an explanation for this phenomenon. Some scientists believe that the equipment and the way some experiences are made turns out impossible to count certain species of neutrinos; other scientists believe that there is a transformation of this particle into another ... but we can venture another alternative which is: the neutrinos that are passing through our planet are absorbed by atoms, interfere and mixed with the matter.
It would be important to inquiry and investigate whether these neutrinos actually mix with the matter, thus confirming that they are responsible for transmitting the quality of mass that we are made.
Another interesting property of this particle is the Spin, again. The neutrinos also have spin ½. Interestingly, this mediator of the material interaction does not have an integer spin as the other mediators of the other forces of Nature. The photon, for example, mediator of electromagnetic force has a full spin 1.
The reason for this spin could be related to another fundamental characteristic of matter, the fermions … all particles with mass have spin ½. The ability that neutrinos have to overcome the electronic atmosphere without disturbing the atom, once this particle has no charge at its constitution therefore does not interfere with the electrons, allowing it to achieve the core and get inside the nucleus without any difficulty. The fact of having spin ½ is the password for entry. The neutrinos would be the particles responsible for transmitting throughout space the same momentum and material energy.
Relate this property with the variation of weight consists in another challenge. We know that an exact same mass can have different weights. But where does it come from, what’s the origin of this strength of the weight?
If the weight is not an innate characteristic of the masses and is not directly related to the magnetic force of gravity, then, what is this 'weight ', which is beginning to weigh on our thinking?
To clearly understand this phenomenon I would say that the weight is closely linked with two unique properties raised by Einstein in his Principle of Equivalence and already studied and presented before by Galileo. The abstract characteristics which I am referring to are the inertia and acceleration. These characteristics are deeply related to the concept of weight.
To recapitulate and summarize it is suggested the following:
1. Gravitational Attraction => It is a Magnetic force;
2. Mass => It is a form of energy, is a Material force;
3. Weight => It is a force of acceleration caused by the space-time deformation as a result of the presence of a large amount of energy. The mass, or the material-energy present causes the material deformation of the space tissue, it changes the geometric form of space; and depending on the value of the material-energy present, more or less curvature will be presented in the space tissue. Under these conditions, every single mass is required and forced to perform an acceleration and win a state of inertia, from which derives the status of weight.
And that is why it establishes a principle of equivalence between:
Inertial mass = Gravitational mass
Gravity = Acceleration
These three forces combined together overlap at the same time, making us think that this is a single force, which erroneously is called as Force of Gravity. But as you can see it is not only one force that we must considered, but in fact they are three!
Since these three forces are consecutive consequences of each other, in practice it is almost impossible to separate them and distinguish them from which, and somehow, it does not arise any problem in maintaining our tribute to Newton and continue to designate it by Gravity Force. Without, however, never forget that gravitational attraction, mass and weight are quite different concepts.
We will now review the state and point of situation of our astronaut.
Forgive now the flow of my words, because this description actually requires a higher degree of abstraction.
The 'Gravity' from the astronaut operates through three components:
At first place, we must consider that the gravitational attraction is almost constant, therefore the geometric shape of the astronaut practically does not change, the astronaut does not change its form, because the gravitational attraction is a magnetic attraction and a radiation force, thus, if it is not a mechanical or a contact force the appearance of the astronaut does not expand and it is maintained;
Second, even having an internal reserve of own production of neutrinos that ensures, guaranties and gives its structure material, the astronaut is exposing himself to a lower flow of these particles, because it is farther from Earth and the production of neutrinos generated by the lunar satellite it is considerably lower, since this satellite has ceased almost all of its internal geological activity.
Third, as a result of these conditions, although the amount of mass ‘m’ remains exactly the same, the material energy surrounding the astronaut is clearly reduced. And if the material energy that is affecting the structure of space-time is lower, this will be reflected in the curvature of space which will be less marked, thus, if the declivity is not much accentuated so the acceleration ‘a’ of the astronaut is smaller, and therefore the astronaut presents less weight!
And the weight ‘W’ is represented just the same old classical formula:
W = m.a
Because Weight is a force that arises as a result of the material energy acceleration. Its manifestation is a direct consequence of changes and distortions of the space-time which a mass is involved.
This is the first theory that explains and justifies the fact that there is a direct relationship between these concepts: Gravity, Acceleration and Inertia.
Explains what happens and why it happens, without having to establish any confrontation between Newton’s and Einstein’s Gravity Theories, because both theories have correct features.
Gravity is not only a geometric force representing the deformation of space-time. In Gravity there is mass-energy present and there is also deformation of space-time.
With that said, perhaps it is not necessary to use and appeal for new concepts, new fields, new particles ... including the greatest Boson of Higgs …
And, talking about Higgs particle ... the reason why it is being building the LHC in Geneva, the Large Hadron Collider ... between the enigmatic Graviton and the grandiose Higgs, another question arises immediately in my mind: The Quantization of Matter…