The Inverse Squared law is omnipresent in both gravitational equations and magnetism (note: in an earlier post, I hypothesise that both are a variation of the same thing): the closer one measures to a given particle, the higher its gravitational pull, in a proportionately constant way. Concerning gravitation, Newton states:
"I ſay that a corpuſcle placed without the ſphærical ſuperficies is attracted towards the centre of the ſphere with a force reciprocally proportional to the ſquare of its diſtance from that centre."Or, 'translated' into modern equation form:
- Issac Newton,
$F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ $
For much of modern physics, this 'law' holds true until we reach a hard-to-observe (-and-never-observed) sub-atomic level, but 'goes west' when immersed in the sea of mathematical hypotheticae beyond. I'd like to maintain that Newton's observation holds true all the way down, but to do so I must explain my ideas on the dynamics that lead to this.
Every Particle: a Point Divided.
For the purpose of this article, 'particle' designates any non-construct manifestation of energy, that is to say any single photon, quark, electron, etc., (without considering later dynamics that will be explained later).Where there is a particle, there is gravity. Every particle, isolated, is in a 'stable' state, an energy maintaining a constant 'resistance' against that gravitational force, in an action that could almost be considered an orbit. Gravity is considered to be a 'weak' force (not to be confused with the actual 'weak force' physics concept), as the gravity emanating from a single particle is almost immeasurable, and only combined (into a mass) does it begin to gain discernibility, but we think that because we can only approach and observe said particle outside a certain distance.
And it's that concept of 'distance' that has to change: it's only recently that we've begun to understand that it is quite possible, and quite normal, to observe and manipulate physics phenomena below the level of human observation; in the present day, we seem to have paused at the sub-atomic level, but, as a camera zooming in from a view of the entire earth to a single electron, the plunge can go far, far, beyond the latter point.
We seem to apply the 'inverse square' observation without considering what may happen at that extreme depth (of observation). Already we know that if we take the idea of a hydrogen atom and 'blow up' its proton to the size of a pea, one would need a football stadium to contain the orbit of the electron around it. And already the 'binding strength' (that physics does not consider as gravity) is quite strong. So should we retain the distance-attraction-strength aspects of the above model (because the 'has mass' atom model itself is not what we're looking at, here), we see that, at that level, the electron (particle) is still quite 'far away' from the point attracting it. But what if we were to take this dynamic to an even deeper level, even closer to any given point of attraction, within a particle itself?
Before we go there, I'd like to return to the 'particle stability' dynamic. As it has already been observed, different particles have different energy levels: I'd like to propose that that energy level is directly proportional to the distance from the 'centre point' it is bound to, that is to say, the source of the gravitational force. The basic rule (here) is: to maintain particle stability, the closer an energy is to its source of gravity, the higher it has to be. In fact, if we can measure accurately the energy level of any given particle, using the inverse-square observation, we should be able to calculate that energy's distance from the centre of gravitational pull attracting it. So if we were to consider the gravity from the 'weak bind' hydrogen atom model, and increase that inverse-squared down to the level of a single particle, the gravitational pull there must be enormous indeed... thus so must be the energy levels required to maintain that state at that level, also.
Side-note: Light (EMR) is a particle; everything above (in energy level) is two halves of one.
To avoid referring readers to earlier posts, I'd like to resume these briefly here: there I posit that any ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) 'boosted' above a gamma-level energy level will split into two 'halves', and that their 'forward' light-speed-constant (in relation to their respective points of origin) will be no more. These two 'halves' will have what modern physics calls 'charge', and they will be opposite, that is to say, positive and negative. Consider a waveform with a line down the centre of its path: everything above will be 'positive', and everything below 'negative'. Yet, although separate, those two halves are still one unique entity. This should not be confused with Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' because, although the effects of this phenomena would be the same, his hypothesis (rather, his reflections on someone else's work) about the creation of that condition is quite different.I suppose that I should also outline what might happen after that split: here I posit that the halves of a 'split fermion', since they are halves of a unique 'thing', will not be attracted to each other, and cannot annihilate each other, but opposing halves of two different particles can, or at least they'll try. Since the respective particle energies are close enough to their respective gravitational centres to allow another opposing particle half to get close enough to be captured by the enormous gravitational draw at that proximity, the two will attempt to bind, in a dynamic modern physics calls 'the strong force'. I won't get into the dynamics of 'particle(-half) binding' here, but the only 'stable' particle-half combination seems to be a trio, or two positives and one negative, or vice versa, locked in an eternal inter-annihilation struggle, and, depending on the polarity, the result is an either proton or neutron hadron... and this brings us back up to the atomic-level physics we know.
