First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write. Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.
This is an elucidation on my crank ideas.
When I first began playing with these ideas, as a young teenager, I tried to account for quark behavior and gravity together by positing an additional type of polarized force. The attempt failed, but it did teach me a few things, and as a slightly older teenager, I concluded the normal polarized force - electrical fields - wasn't necessary either; the same concepts I used to try to explain gravity using a new form of polarized force worked even better describing a polarized force in terms of gravity. I hadn't heard of gravitomagnetics at the time, but I wouldn't have been surprised.
I think this is an issue normal physics is going to have to deal with, sooner or later, and I think too much framework has been built up around electrical fields to make the idea easily extractable from the ideas as a whole. Quantum spin is tied tightly into electrical fields, and you have to have a complete conceptual framework in place before you can start to pull electrical fields out.
My framework isn't complete. It might account for the behavior of a subset of the particles we observe, but I haven't really tried to incorporate neutrinos, or the wide variety of flavours of quark-based particles that aren't protons or neutrons (and neutrons aren't terribly well incorporated yet either) - mostly because I just don't have the inclination to try to figure out how neutrinos might fit into the system. The framework, insofar as I have developed it, just doesn't have much to say about them yet.
Pretty much the only part of my framework I feel certain about is that the electrical field is an effect produced by electrons and their motion - that there is no fundamental force operating there. You can get the same behaviors without a field - the field is extraneous.
The rest of the framework is built on top of that idea. It may not be the simplest framework which can accommodate that consideration, but it is the one I have this far come up with, and it looks compatible with what information I have on particle behaviors.
There are experiments that might test this; I have considered them, and posted a couple. And if anybody has performed such tests, I'm unaware of them - which wouldn't be surprising.
No comments:
Post a Comment