【NO.54】Unification Issues (3) - How is the electromagnetic force transferred to the strong force when moving a proton?

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

“I am very sorry, but your statement is wrong. It is wrong both in that the electromagnetic interaction is provided by the exchange of photons, and in that the quarks are united by means of gluons.”

Thank you very much for being so explicit in your criticism.

You may have noticed that I listed references in every brief discussion I had. This is to show that the questions I ask are well-founded and serious, not arbitrary.

The aforementioned reference [1] says, ‘ a real photon can exert the same force to e.g. an electron as a virtual photon does. Both carry over energy and momentum from one charged particle to another.’ ’Gluons are the particles that keep quarks together in e.g. a proton. They are responsible for the strong force.’

Whether or not there is a bias in my understanding is one of the purposes of my posting the questions in anticipation of professional correction.

For each question I posed, I usually did not clearly state my point of view, but I also did not hide the logical point of the question. For example, in the case of the above question, my view is that there is no ‘strong force’ independent of the ‘electromagnetic force’. The more likely alternative is that the ‘strong force’ is the inner-nuclear form of the electromagnetic force, otherwise they could not interact with each other through charge or mass transfer.

Any correction is expected.

Best Regards, Chian

Mikhail N Dulin

Dear Chian Fan ,

Your questions would have been quite appropriate and serious at the end of the last century. But now fundamental physics is at "complete dead end" and fresh references mean little now.

By demonstrating my view of the world here, I do not want to offend you or belittle the significance of your hard work. I just want to show some of my ideas about discrete physics, which, in my opinion, could lead us all out of the current dead end (with ideas of continuity). I do not have the developed mathematical ideas - only confidence in where to go. And this is normal. So far, no change in key ideas in physics has begun with theoretical models. These models always appeared later.

I don't see any point in correcting the existing provisions. They can no longer be corrected, they need to be broken and new ones built. For example, it is completely wrong to consider all interactions in physics in the same space. Although this is exactly what everyone does. It is necessary, at least, to consider two basic spaces. One is electromagnetic, in which we live and study various phenomena, and the second is nuclear, which is not available to us for direct observation and which we can judge only indirectly, observing elementary and not so elementary particles flying out of the nucleus.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Chian Fan

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

The content of fresh references here is not actually new, and it may not mean much to professional physicists like you, but it still means something to me, although I don't exactly accept it either.

I agree with you about the current state of physics, ‘fundamental physics is at “complete dead end”’. However, it may not be ‘need to be broken and new ones built’.

We may also differ in our understanding of interacting forces, but I do appreciate the new ideas you bring to the table, after all, we are all on a quest. I look forward to hearing more of your ideas.