On General Reality of Gravity, as Well as Other Forces in Nature and Creations of Mass Particles and Force Fields in the Universe
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | On General Reality of Gravity, as Well as Other Forces in Nature and Creations of Mass Particles and Force Fields in the Universe |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Peter Sujak |
| Keywords | Planck constant, Einstein gravitational constant, Newton gravitational constant, Coulomb force, Compton wavelength, de Broglie wavelength |
| Published | 2013 |
| No. of pages | 14 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
In this paper the relationship between the Plancks constant and Einsteins gravitational constant is derived. The relationship between the Plancks constant and Newtons gravitational constant is derived. The relationship between the Plancks constant and the electric force of 1 Coulomb and magnetic force of 1 Henry is derived. It is shown that the Planck constant is the density of the momentum of the empty space of the universe. It is shown, that the force of gravity has its opposite strength counterpoint in the internal momentum of atomic particles of bodies. It is shown, that nature does not know two quantities of matter the mass and electric charge and does not know several forces like gravitational, electric, magnetic forces introduced by man. It is shown, that in nature, there is only one kind of force what is the force balance of inertial forces between internal momentum of particles oriented opposite with the power of its own force field around particles. In this paper it is claimed, that the essence of the composition of all atomic particles of bodies as well as of all force fields in the universe is the same and it is compressions of density of momentum of the empty space of the universe.
Overview
Peter Šujak's fourteen-page paper is a programmatic attempt to reduce every force recognised by physics — gravitational, electric, magnetic, inertial, strong and weak — to a single mechanism: the balance between the internal momentum of a material particle and the oppositely directed momentum of the particle's own field in the surrounding void space. The paper's central physical claim is that Planck's constant is not a quantum of action but a density of momentum of void space, and that both matter and fields are local compressions of that density. On this reading the aether is not an optional extra but the substance from which particles are made.
The paper departs from the mainstream account at almost every point. Šujak rejects E = mc2 in favour of E2 = m2c4 − mo2c4-type relations, arguing that mc2, mvc and hν are momenta multiplied by c rather than energies; he rejects the de Broglie relation λ = h/mv as inconsistent with pair creation; he denies that mass and electric charge are two distinct quantities; he treats inertial forces, which textbooks call fictitious, as the only real forces there are; and he holds that gravitational waves in the general-relativistic sense do not exist. Where action and reaction is a bookkeeping rule in classical mechanics, here it is the whole of physics.
The argument
Planck's constant as a momentum density of space
Šujak begins from the Compton relation λo = h/moc, giving 2.43 × 10−12 m for the electron and about 1.32 × 10−15 m for the proton. He notes that Anderson's 1932 discovery of pair creation fixes these as the minimum photon wavelengths at which the corresponding particles can be made, and takes this as evidence that the photon's wavelength is simultaneously the localisation dimension of the particle created from it. Combining the relativistic increase of mass with the contraction of length, he argues that the product moλo = mλ is invariant and equals h/c ≈ 2.21 × 10−42 kg m. Multiplying by c gives h itself, which he then interprets as "the dynamic momentum of the amount of matter in a unit of the volume of space in the universe". He identifies this quantity with the corrected Einstein gravitational constant 8πG/c4, quoting values of 2.07 and 2.13 alongside his own 2.21, and remarks that Einstein's original figure 8πG/c2 was "1016 times larger". The same constant, he says, is the cosmological constant of a stationary universe, and the physical content behind vacuum polarisation, dark energy and the classical aether alike.
Gravity as the reverse of internal momentum
Stopping a photon of wavelength 10−15 m produces a proton of mass ~10−27 kg carrying an internal momentum p = h/λo ≈ 5.02 × 10−19 kg m/s and zero external momentum. Šujak's key move is to insist that this internal momentum has an exact, oppositely directed counterpart in the gravitational field the particle creates at its own surface. Gravity is therefore not a property added to matter; it is the outward half of the same compression whose inward half is the particle. He then argues that the field cannot fall as 1/r2 per body, since assigning that gradient to both charges in Coulomb's law would give a mutual 1/r4; adopting instead what he takes to be Newton's own linear-decrease convention, he obtains a number of order 10−38 which he identifies with the measured gravitational constant scaled to a single proton.
Charge, the Faraday constant and π
The paper's most concrete numerical claim concerns the proton charge. Šujak observes that the internal momentum 5.02 × 10−19 divided by π gives 1.60 × 10−19 C, the elementary charge, and reads the factor π as the distribution of the particle's internal force over its surface. He supports this with the ratio of Avogadro's number to the number of elementary charges in a coulomb, 6.022 × 1023 against 6.2415 × 1018, recovering the Faraday constant 0.96485 × 108 C/kg and the proton's specific charge 0.957876 × 108 C/kg. These, he argues, are all the same constant, which shows that "mass" and "charge" are two measurements of one thing under different geometric and kinetic conditions.
Magnetism, inertia and the unification
Magnetic force is treated as the mirror image of inertial force. In inertia the particle moves against its own field; in magnetism a compressed field moves past the particle, compressing it and increasing its surrounding field. From the nucleon magnetic moment μN = eħ/2mp he argues that the increment of magnetic moment must be equivalent to the increment of mass under 1 m/s2 acceleration. Because magnetic force can change a particle's field, he concludes that rest mass cannot be invariant: the relativistic factors are, in his reading, real changes of a particle's volume and internal pressure rather than kinematic changes of length and time.
Discussion
The closing sections attack the equivalence principle directly. Šujak argues that Einstein's falling roofer feels nothing only because he has no receptor for atomic-level force, not because no force acts, and points to the tidal disruption of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 into 21 fragments as proof that a gravitational field is a real force field. Since curvature, on his account, would have to begin at the surface of each atomic particle rather than at the surface of the body, gravitational waves emitted by a whole compact object cannot exist; what will be detected is electromagnetic radiation from accelerated particles. He also holds that the Michelson–Morley null result was misread, because the Earth's motion is compound rather than the single 30 km/s orbital drift assumed, and that the quark model survives only as a device for parcelling out charge in thirds.
Assessment
What is genuinely attractive here is the ambition of the accounting. Šujak is not merely asserting that an aether exists; he is trying to make one number — a momentum density of space — do the work of h, of 8πG/c4, of the elementary charge and of the magnetic constant, and he is willing to publish the arithmetic so that it can be checked. The insistence that inertial reaction is a real interaction of a body with its own field, rather than a fictitious bookkeeping term, places the paper in a long dissident tradition running through Ernst Mach, and his observation that pair-creation thresholds tie a photon wavelength to a particle's localisation scale is a legitimate physical intuition rather than numerology.
The difficulties are nonetheless substantial. The central identification moλo = h/c is not a derivation but a restatement of the definition of the Compton wavelength; nothing new has been discovered by rearranging it. The proposed equality of h/c with 8πG/c4 is dimensionally unsound — the former has units of kg m, the latter s2/(kg m) — and the paper quotes three different values (2.07, 2.13, 2.21) without reconciling them or stating an error budget. The recovery of Newton's constant depends on abandoning the inverse-square law for a "linear decrease" attributed to Newton, a step asserted rather than argued; the objection that assigning 1/r2 to each charge would yield 1/r4 misreads Coulomb's law, in which the single 1/r2 is the geometric dilution of one source's field sampled by the other. The factor of π relating internal momentum to elementary charge is fitted after the fact, with a surface-distribution rationale supplied afterwards, and the paper openly concedes that the 1 esu-to-coulomb conversion "actually" gives 3 N while proceeding with 1 N "for purpose of general thinking" — an unquantified factor of three at the foundation of the charge argument.
Against measurement, the paper is in trouble on two counts it does not address. Rest mass being velocity-dependent in the way described should show up in accelerator kinematics, where the invariant-mass reconstruction of decay products works to parts in 104; and the flat denial of gravitational waves as a general-relativistic phenomenon must be set against the orbital decay of the Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, which tracks the quadrupole prediction to better than a percent over decades. Šujak's alternative — that the signals are gamma radiation from accelerated particles in binary stars — makes no quantitative contact with that decay rate. Finally, the paper's rejection of de Broglie's relation is asserted from a single substitution rather than confronted with electron and neutron diffraction, where λ = h/mv is measured directly. The programme is coherent in outline and honest about its own commitments, but it is an interpretive re-description at this stage rather than a theory with independently testable consequences.