Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

In the vicinity of where our machines have been, we know that electric current will flow in any designated direction and is not particular to the direction of the highest flux density of gravitons.

For various reasons, we cannot have protons and electrons continuously flipping, – the Stern-Gerlach experiment proves that they do not. There must be internal processes of the proton and electron which produce isotropic electric fields. Some of this was previously addressed in two blog entries:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/12/09/field-line-curvature/

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/06/15/muonic-states/

It is possible that not all conjugate wave gravitons pass straight through a proton or electron, or that even with a free proton or electron that the gravitons leaving have just entered. Some may make a horseshoe pattern and come out near the same point entered. They may be able to come back out at any angle. As compressed as the gravitons become inside a particle, almost any shape can occur. Gravitational pressure dictates a consistent size of a free proton or electron.

With the flux density coming out of the face of the earth, we seem to have a conundrum with the idea of gravitational pressure, one side having much greater pressure than the other. Why do gravitons not burst out the top, resulting in particle collapse? It also begs the question as to why electrons are perfectly round, and not teardrop shaped:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2011/05/28/free-electrons-perfectly-round-3/

Possibly, branes form at the top of an electron and reform in a spin flip.  These branes would be linked inside the particle so that they do not bust out, and may deflect some exiting gravitons at various angles. These branes may also help keep the electron round. Here we are designating “top” as away from the highest flux density of gravitons.

As far as isotropic fields, at this point we must say that it is designed internal to the proton or electron and is of consistent pattern.  The open field starts just outside the particle, so it is maintained that electric and magnetic fields transmit openly by “phase shift and chirality” or “phase shift and parity”.  The Coulomb force is considered instantaneous at reasonable distances:

http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2014/05/30/quantum-entanglement/

It appears as though this is necessary, because then the speed that free gravitons travel at, the speed of light in a vacuum, does not effect the electric and magnetic fields generated.

Inside a proton or electron, events may approach the Planck length.  The frequency of the waves would not change from that of a free space graviton, though wavelength and amplitude do change.

Waves inside a particle may make loops in certain circumstances, not necessarily around the perimeter, though internally, and required because of all the traffic.

Certainly, the ways these vibrations set up in a proton or electron determines whether we have a positive or negative charge.  If we did not have any loops and curves, the versatility needed would be hard to set up.  It is somewhat like a Hilbert space with wrapped up dimensions.

Put another way: “A string vibrating in one particular pattern might have the properties of an electron, while a string vibrating in a different pattern might have the properties of an up-quark, a down-quark, or any of the other particle species in Table 12.1.  It is not that an “electron string” makes up an electron …Instead the single species of string can account for a great variety of particles …” *

If you peruse this website, you will find other areas of unification.

* Greene, Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos, c. 2004 Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., p. 346-347

We can see from the calculation of the diameter of a free electron that as the density of the gravitational field goes down, the diameter increases.  This would be because of less gravitational pressure on the outside of the electron.

As gravitons enter a proton, electron, neutron, or nucleus, as conjugate waves or to take residence, the buildup takes on a fuzzy look that makes them look larger.  If we take a core diameter of 1.3335 x 10^-15 m, the part that produces the fundamental charge, and add one graviton wavelength, we arrive at 5.30 x 10^-15 m diameter, which is close to the classical diameter of the electron, 5.64 x 10^-15 m *.  One graviton wavelength is used because one-half wavelength is on one side of the electron and one-half wavelength of a different graviton is on the other side.

We may call these outer layer gravitons tentacles or strings.  When nuclear fission occurs, the de Broglie wavelength of a neutron can come in at an angle where the strings on each entity hook and help pull the neutron into the nucleus. The cross section for this process is larger for slow neutrons vs fast neutrons in part because of the longer de Broglie wavelength.

* Jackson, J. D., Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, c. 1999 John David Jackson, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 695

One would guess that the particle physicists and quantum field theorists may like a 1.3335 x 10^-15 m diameter of a free electron, because it is closer to a point particle than many estimates of the diameter.  It is possible that 1.3335 x 10^-15 m is also the limit inferior of the sequence S₁₃₇ to S_n in an atomic orbital.

The maximum diameter, on the other hand, will depend on the element and on the orbital.  At a spin flip, electrons in all orbitals may reduce to 1.3335 x 10^-15 m, before taking off on a new trajectory and increasing in diameter again.  We cannot speak of a limit superior of the sequence of diameters of the electron in an atomic orbital nevertheless.  That will depend on the direction of electron travel, and on whether the atom is at the surface of the earth, or at some other planet.  For the latter, it depends on the density of the gravitational field.

We may also ask whether 1.3335 x 10^-15 m is the greatest lower bound at all locations in the universe.  This raises the question of whether the fine structure constant is a universal constant, or whether or not the Coulomb gauge is the same everywhere.

It has been surmised that with conjugate wave gravitons, the number of gravitons in a free electron in the earth’s locale may be the reciprocal of the fine structure constant.  We may then use this number to determine a possible diameter of the electron.

First, start with the energy:

(5.011 x 10^-11 J) x 137 = 6.8651 x 10^-9 J

Then use the electron’s spin angular momentum:

ħ/2 = (½) mvr = (½) mr²ω

Rearranging:

ω = ħ / (mr²)

Considering rotational kinetic energy, we have:

E_k = (½) [Iω²] = (½) [ (½) mr² ] ω² = 6.8651 x 10^-9 J

Substituting ω from above:

E_k = (½) [ (½) mr² ] [ħ / (mr²]² = (½) (½) [ħ² / (mr²)]

1/r² = [(4) (6.8651 x 10^-9 J) (9.1095 x 10^-31 kg)] / ħ²

r = 6.6676 x 10^-16 m

D = 2r = 1.3335 x 10^-15 m

ω = ħ / (mr²) = 2.6040 x 10²⁶ rad/sec

This angular velocity is fictitious, though it can be used in calculations due to Green’s Theorem (see April 2007 paper).

Of course the number of gravitons in an electron in an atomic orbital varies, and thus the electron diameter would vary also.

Going back to the April 2007 paper once again: “… and the same Coulomb force being the final mediator of the gravitational force as proposed, the mass energy of the proton appears to be integral to gravitational field action.”, we can go further back in history to examine the path of how we arrived at this place.

In the scientific community, the cause of gravity is by many still considered as unknown.  As Hughes-Hallett et al. puts it in relation to the gravitational force: “How does acceleration come about?  How does the velocity change?  Through the action of forces.  Newton placed a new emphasis on the importance of forces.  Newton’s laws of motion do not say what a force is, they say how it acts.” ¹

Newton himself says in The Principia: “…considering in this treatise not the species of forces and their physical qualities but their quantities and mathematical proportions, as I have explained in the definitions.” ²  In Definition 8 Newton says: “This concept is purely mathematical, for I am not now considering the physical causes and sites of forces.” ³

Roger Cotes, Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University wrote in his Editor’s Preface to the Second Edition of The Principia: “But will gravity be called an occult cause and be cast out of natural philosophy on the grounds that the cause of gravity itself is occult and not yet found?” ⁴  Electromagnetic waves were not yet discovered in 1713 when Cotes wrote this, so it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have discovered the cause of gravity back then.

¹  Hughes-Hallet, Gleason, McCallum et al., Calculus, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005, p.304

²  Cohen, Whitman, Isaac Newton, The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, University of California Press, 1999, p. 588

³  Ibid., p. 407

⁴  Ibid,. p. 392

Fifteen years ago today I started an attempt to calculate gravity, after coming up with the concept on August 10^th of the same year.  With a web search of “diameter of the electron”, reference number 3 of my April 2007 paper was found.  The link does not come in anymore, though there would be other places where Ernest Rutherford’s 1914 publication “The Structure of the Atom” can be found.

Starting with the diameter of the electron as the wavelength of a photon, I used hc/λ to produce an energy in Joules.  In the April 2007 paper it says: “Noticing that this number is on the order of the gravitational constant, it becomes worthwhile to proceed …”.

Sometime in 2007 or 2008 I sent a copy of the paper to Professor Converse Blanchard, with a note in the front thanking him for teaching me physics.  He sent the paper back to me with a cordial note in the front and a few markups throughout the paper.

One marking, at the spot noted above, was: “The grav constant is not an energy, and so this coincidence is without meaning.”  My answer to this is that a number is a number, – it has no units.  It is as Wilfred Kaplan states in Advanced Calculus on page 6: “We stress that det A is a number, …”  Otherwise, in the case of hc/λ we would speak of an “energy” and not a “number”.

It is worth noting that most of Professor Blanchard’s comments were constructive.  Later in the paper, relating to the quark coincidence, he wrote: “amusing!”.

My studies lately have been mostly in mathematics.  I have four books that are specifically on the topic of Advanced Calculus as well as several other math books.  Once in a while, I go back to a physics book and things come back quickly with my old markings and tabs sometimes leading the way.  Can do the same with engineering books, such as that Tds = du + Pdv.

Nineteen days after October 24, 2005, the calculation was made complete with
G = 4hf/3 m³ kg^-1 s^-2.  As can be seen in the diagram at the top of the blog, the units on the constant 4/3 are m/kg².

The students are asking “Why have they sent us here?”, due to quarantines and not being able to attend classes. What the students really need to ask is something like: ‘Why have they sent us here if the university is not going to teach us how gravity really works?’

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54292728

At quarantined Sellery Hall there are several signs in the windows such as “HELP”, “HELP US”, “SOS”, and “FREE US”. This really tugs on the heart, and all they need is for physicists to wake up and announce quantum gravity. With this post I am TRYING to help them.

This June 2020 article on the Fermi Bubbles of the Milky Way Galaxy concerns mapping the bubbles in the visible light spectrum: https://phys.org/news/2020-06-optical-milky-fermi-probe.html

The bubbles were originally found in the gamma ray spectrum. Previous entries are here: http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/11/25/light-lensing-and-the-gamma-ray-bubbles/, and here: http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/11/29/lensing-answer/

As far as their purpose, they may help stabilize the plane of the Milky Way by emitting gamma rays in a narrow Gaussian centered on 7.562 x 10^22 Hz. I have read that researchers have found that the same type of bubbles exist at other galaxies as well.