The Origin of Gravity and Force Unification via the Electromagnetic Bridging Model as defined by Super Relativity

Author: Mark Fiorentino


The major problem in theoretical physics today is the unification of the force of gravity with the electromagnetic forces of nature. Gravity therefore is yet to be successfully included in the theory of everything. The purpose of this study is to define a method to achieve field unification by means of a non-quantum approach. The mechanistic method used was influenced by the theory of Super Relativity. The Lorentz Transformations from Special Relativity were utilized to construct a mathematical model that was run using computer simulations for both the neutron and proton. These simulations generated thousands of possible solutions and by analyzing this data the one and only solution for both particles was discovered. The new systems of equations reveal the proper method for calculating the values for the masses of both the proton and the neutron. The results of this experiment demonstrate that the quarks operate in a synergistic way within the core of a Baryon. This experiment also proves that neither the Higgs boson nor the graviton are the central cause of the gravitational force, and that field unification is achieved by the bridging mechanism in which gravity is the natural result of the high speed motion of unbalanced charges.

The organization of this paper is as follows: Section One1 is the Introduction. Section Two describes the Super Relativity's mathematical model the Bridging Mechanism. Section Three describes the software program used to simulate the Neutron and the Proton. Section Four discusses the data that was accumulated and its analysis. Section Five summarizes and discusses the results as well as the significance of the findings.

Section One: Introduction

Since Isaac Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, the search for the origin of gravity has been an ongoing process. Principia Mathematica ignited the world of physical sciences and began the study of gravitation in relation to the physical mechanics of ether. The mechanical model explaining force has been sought to the present day.[1] The concept of an ether was still in place until the beginning of the twentieth century when the null result of the Michelson - Morley Experiment [2] ended the ether's influence over the world of physics.

Up till then the concept of an ether being the mediator and the central cause of force had compiled an impressive record of success. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and equations published in 1865 were based on ether theory [3], and several other prominent mathematicians and physicists who followed extended Maxwell's work. The Lorentz Transformations which were described by Joseph Lamor in 1897 and Lorentz in 1899 were also derived by Einstein in 1905. These transformations were used by Einstein to form the basis for Special Relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity, which was based on the idea of a space-time continuum, was also founded on a set of field equations. Einstein was introduced to the idea of space-time by his teacher Hermann Minkowski, in a 1908 essay. This connection and unification of space and time led directly to a new view of both special and general relativity as being geometrical in nature. However some sort of mechanical ether substance remained implicit in these theories.

Therefore I made the following assumption:

It seems unlikely that the vast amount of successful theory and mathematics based on the concept of an ether which suggests that space is a material object, could be based on a false concept. Therefore the conclusion made by scientists at the time of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the ether does not exist must be in error1.

Careful analysis of the experiment showed that the experiment itself was accurate. The null result was confirmed many times over.

Despite this finding, it appears that the experiment was compromised by a flaw which occurred in the design phase. It was assumed that the ether was stationary and that a wind would be detected as the earth passed through the ether. However, Special Relativity says that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that. The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect an ether wind and the assumption was made that there was no ether. So, obviously an ether wind would be impossible to detect when an experiment uses objects that are moving at the maximum allowable speed. The motion of the reference frame in which the experiment is conducted, therefore becomes irrelevant, as trying to detect a difference in motion between two photons in any direction versus a stationary ether 1 “Can there be some point in the theory of Mr. Michelson's experiment which has yet been overlooked?” H.A. Lorentz, letter to Lord Rayleigh, August 1892." background will not show the existence of an ether wind. The experiment should not have used photons because they are already moving at the maximum allowable speed. Michelson did not know this at the time because Special Relativity was not discovered until some years later.

Therefore particles moving at a speed less than the maximum allowable value, should have been used to detect the ether wind. By then using the addition of velocities formula within Special Relativity, an ether wind will be detectable. As a result, the experiment needs to be repeated accordingly. See Figure1 below.

Figure 1 showing the new ether detection experiment

As using photons in this type of experiment fails to detect absolute motion, measuring the varying flow rates of time in different moving frames of reference can also be used to prove that the ether exists.

The basis of this mathematical experiment is that space, the ether, must exist as a physical object and according to the Theory of Super Relativity, it is both the sub-stratum and the constituent. Particles are electromagnetic configurations of space and move within it. They do not displace the ether substance as they move, but instead they transform the space they occupy.

Furthermore, force, action at a distance, is mediated by the mechanical deformations (electromagnetic (EM) fields) of space. Particle interactions and particle movement occur because of the EM fields which are described in detail by the Theory of Super Relativity. These fields also form the geometries of matter and energy.

Since I have assumed that the theories and mathematics that describe any existing ether are correct, I support Hendrick Antoon Lorentz‟s hypothesis that atomic and intermolecular particles and forces are affected by the Lorentz Transformations. The transformations state that decrease in length, increase in mass and time dilation effects occur in the microscopic realm when macroscopic objects are accelerated through the ether. Although these transformations are used in Special Relativity to describe macroscopic objects and events I believe that they can and do apply to the microscopic realm. The sum of any macroscopic object is the total of all its constituent atomic and sub-atomic parts. Therefore since the transformations of Special Relativity have been verified for macroscopic objects, they must also hold true for atoms and sub-atomic particles that make up the macroscopic objects.

This experiment was designed to prove the above stated hypothesis and uses the mass increase combined with the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction formula to prove the origin of mass is generated by what Super Relativity calls the electromagnetic bridging mechanism.

Section Two: The Bridging Mechanism Super Relativity’s Mathematical Model

The logical concepts that are the basis for the mathematical model form the foundation for this experiment, and are simple and straightforward. The equations used are from Special Relativity and the hypothesis is as follows. If the ether mediates force then the equations that describe how macroscopic objects interact with it should be able to correctly solve for particle masses.

The up and down quarks from the Standard Model were used as the starting point because they are abundant and have been shown to be the main constituents of both the proton and neutron, which are themselves very stable. The existence of the quarks has been determined by the inelastic scattering technique. The experiments showed that at low energy bombardment, both the proton and neutron have internal structures and three points of deflection. Therefore the proton and neutron consist of a combination of three quarks.

Deep inelastic scattering is another experimental technique that has been used in the past. It uses high speed high energy electrons to probe a stationary proton or neutron. The problem with this technique is that it is very invasive as the electrons colliding with the quarks inside of the main target particle are extremely disruptive. This disruption modifies the subject and in so doing brings the measurement accuracy into question. If all energies are not properly accounted for, there is a high possibility of obtaining incorrect results for the quark masses. To make matters worse if the energy of the experiments that probe the proton and neutron is increased, a new set of particles which include anti-quarks and gluons will emerge. The question then becomes, do the anti-quarks and gluons exist inside the proton and neutron when they are not being bombarded by high energy electrons? It is highly possible that the collisions of the electrons and quarks create a set of particles that do not ordinarily exist within the proton or neutron. This over-complicates an already very complex problem. If the additional particles existed under normal conditions, they should have been detected at lower energies but this has not been the case. So it seems clear that Standard Model theory had been modified to include these extra particles and had assigned them additional functions to explain their existence. As a result, the extra particles only become 'visible' when the neutron and proton are in a high energy state. The only time external forces could naturally have this effect are when the particles are located within in an energy plasma (a star) or when the universe was very young and only energy plasma existed.

As Super Relativity assumes that under normal circumstances, the protons and neutrons function by using just the up and down quarks, this experiment was conducted using that assumption for their mechanical construction.

1. It is assumed that under normal circumstances when the neutron and proton are not being bombarded by high energy particles their internal structures are composed of only 3 quarks. The neutron contains one up and two down quarks. The proton contains two up and one down quark.

2. The binding force which confines the quarks is considered by Super Relativity to be a special version of the Coulomb force with the physical difference being that the quarks are mechanically entwined. This explains what the standard model calls the color charge which is defined as the gluon fields that exist between the quarks. The entanglement causes the solid ether field around the quarks to stretch as they are separated, creating the higher than normal spatial tension which draws the quarks back together. Super Relativity states that there are only three fundamental fields from which all matter and energy are composed. Therefore the quarks are considered to be a single unit composed of three nodes of charge. These particles according to Super Relativity are entangled by their electrostatic fields. Thus, what we call color charge and binding force are believed to be nothing more than the Coulomb force, amplified by the quark entanglement, at work.

The charge component of the quarks provides the physical mechanism of propulsion as defined by Super Relativity physical model. In these quark electrostatic configurations, is a synergy that both accelerates the quarks and binds them together. Their high speed velocity combined with their angular momentum creates the gravitational field. The action of the orbiting high velocity imbalanced moving charge is the bridging mechanism between electromagnetic fields and gravity. The particles are subject to the laws of physics as described by the Lorentz Increase of Mass Transformation as well as the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction. The action of high speed quarks in circular motion causes the neutron and proton to exhibit the property of mass. At the same time, it causes space to contract around the orbits as is described by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction.


The contraction of Length Formula above, describes the physical process of spatial contraction. Shown below (Figure 2) is a graphical representation of the contraction resulting from the motion of the quarks. It is important to note that the contraction is spherical because the quarks are in a tight circular orbit.


Figure 2 showing spherical spatial contraction

These assumptions form the basis of this experiment which uses formulae derived for the explanation of the ether phenomenon. The formulae demonstrate how to correctly compute the values for the masses of both proton and neutron. The method used also proves the bridging model between the electromagnetic field and gravity.

The Mathematical Model

The mathematical model used to construct the Special Relativity was derived directly from Special Relativity, the key difference being that the mathematics of Special Relativity was used to explain the action of the quarks inside of the neutron and proton. The amalgamation of the mathematics of Special Relativity together with more recently discovered quark particle model creates an entirely new physical explanation for the possible source of mass. This model eliminates the need for the more complex scalar field that would have to exist to explain the Higgs boson as the mediator of the gravitational field.

For this experiment, a physical model using empirical data common sense and logic was constructed (figure 2). The Lorentz and Einstein mathematical model then was used to mathematically explain it.[4] The data used in this case are the experimentally derived values for the up and down quarks. [6]. The properties of the quarks were obtained from the results of the results of Deep Inelastic Scattering studies, which used high energy inelastic scattering to reveal the inner structure of both the neutron and
proton.[5] The masses for the quarks were then derived indirectly as the quarks cannot be separated for individual analysis.

The experiment used the following formula for calculating the mass of individual quarks.


The rest masses for both the neutron and proton, as given by the standard model were used for comparison within the program.

The initial values used to find the intersection of the two solutions were:

1.67260000 x 10-27 (Proton)
1.67490000 x 10-27 (Neutron)

The values that were used to refine and retrieve the most accurate solution were:
The Proton Mass as determined by experiment = 1.67262158 x 10-27
The Neutron Mass as determined by experiment = 1.674927211 x 10-27

Section Three: Program Simulation The software was designed using Microsoft Visual Basic. The application is shown below:

Figure 3: The software used.

The process for the simulations is as follows:
Step 1. Convert the up quark mass expressed in units of GeV/c2 into joules. The up quark in Joules = .003 GeV/c2 * 1.60217646E-19 = 5.34798518408036E-30 joules

Step 2. Convert the down quark mass expressed in units of GeV/c2 into joules. The down quark in Joules = .006 GeV/c2 * 1.60217646E-19 = 1.06959703681607E-29 joules

Step 3. Convert the quark values to mass by using m=e/c2 ; m=kg; e =joules; c= 299792458 meters per second
Next in the process is generating a velocity for the quarks. In the example below, the quark velocities v1 and v2 used the same velocity as it was assumed that the up quarks orbits would be the same. V3 was the down quark velocity.


Therefore the total mass of the proton is equal to Relativistic Mass values for the UpQuark1 + UpQuark2 + DownQuark1 and that of the Neutron equals UpQuark + DownQuark1 + DownQuark2.

The simulation software runs two loops, an upper and a lower loop, in a defined series. A configuration file was used to upload the following values:- the starting velocities for the up and down quarks, the incremental values for the up and down quark loops and finally the stopping values for the up and down quarks.

Datasets were generated for the neutron and for the proton. An example of the generated datasets is shown below.

Down= 299769142

Up= 299766644

Mass= 1.67269845606354E-27

Upquarkmass= 4.07537188723018E-28

Downquarkmass= 8.57624078617507E-28

These quantities represent a possible solution node. In the above generated dataset example, Down represents the down quark velocity and Up, the up quark velocity. Mass signifies the mass value generated by the simulation and is the calculated value for the proton at this node. The upquarkMass is the relativistic calculated value for the mass of the up quark, whereas the downquarkMass is same value for the down quark as calculated by the simulation.

The data sample above was taken from a proton simulation run. Two up quark masses were added to the down quark mass to obtain the total mass. The resultant value was compared to a golden accepted value for the mass of a proton as obtained by experiment [6]. A small comparison window was used to accept solution nodes, and the acceptable range was as follows:-

If TotalMass > 1.672599E-27 and TotalMass < 1.6727E-27, then accept value as possible solution and record the solution node.

The velocities for the quarks were recalculated and incremented by step functions several times. A typical run would first increment the upper loop by a value of 1 kilometer per second and then run the lower loop again incrementing by 1 kilometer per second through a range of values. The inner loop continued to run until a solution node was found. At this point the process would escape to the upper loop and increment again and the whole process would start again and continue to be repeated over a two week period, for both the neutron and proton.

Section Four: Data Analysis

The simulation generated a list of possible solutions, which were then plotted in MS Excel. As expected, the solutions generated a nonlinear (curving line) graph when plotted on an x-y scatter plot. The two lines intersected at a point which revealed the location of the only possible solution that can accurately describe the masses of both the neutron and the proton. See figure 4.


Figure 4 showing the solutions generated for both neutron and proton

The chart above clearly shows that only a single pair of quark speeds allows a solution for both the neutron and proton.

Despite close examination, no other intersection areas were found and the lines diverged after the intersection occurred. The simulation covered a range of values, starting at the upper left quadrant with the X axis value equaling down quark velocity and the Y axis value equaling the up quark velocity. The experiment continued to generate nodes until it reached the lower right quadrant at which point the lines were widely divergent.

After the intersection area had been discovered the experiment was rerun using more accurate values for both the neutron and the proton. The values used were obtained from the NIST Website and are CODATA values.

2 The values of the latest available constants provided at the NIST website and recommended for international use by CODATA. The '2006 CODATA recommended values,' are generally recognized worldwide for use in all fields of science and technology. The values were available in March 2007 replacing the 2002 CODATA set. They are based on all of the data available through 31 December 2006. The 2006 adjustment was carried out under the auspices of the CODATA Task Group on Fundamental Constants. [6]

The experiment was then rerun with the new values and higher constraints, so that a more accurate set of quark velocities could be obtained. The data sets were stripped of excess information by means of the data extraction software that was specifically written to leave only the quark velocity coordinates.


Figure 7 showing the data extracting tool.

The output from this program was then imported into an excel spread sheet for analysis and the results are shown below:


Figure 8 Precision run for proton and neutron solutions

The subsequent run of the simulator software provided a tighter range of data to work with. After analyzing this run it seemed that the final solution would be a down quark velocity of 299737587.219242 to 299737591.960729 kps with a corresponding up quark velocity of 299778628.1 to 299778627.5 kps. At this point, the data was manually recalculated, first solving for the proton, then using those numbers to solve for the neutron. The final result was a single pair of quark velocities that can be used to accurately solve for both the neutron and the proton was found.

The Proton Set of Equations =

The Neutron Set of Equations =

The solution set =
Up quark Velocity = 299778627.86850 mps (meters per second)
Down quark Velocity = 299737589.0490 mps (meters per second)

Using these numbers in the above equations give the correct results for both particles.

Section Five: Summary and Implications

The Theory of Super Relativity is based on a mechanical model derived from ideas and concepts, which originated from the mathematics of the field theory by mathematicians and scientists like Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein. Their concept of reality was based on the principle of a physical continuum, such as the ether, which was thought to be the mediator of force. Up until the turn of the twentieth century the idea of an ether had led to the discovery of a great deal of mathematics that successfully explained electromagnetism and gravity. Super Relativity implies that it is highly improbable that the proven theories and formulae that were developed by these pioneers could have been achieved using incorrect postulates. Indeed, Super Relativity revived the ether concept and added additional insights to the original ether theory. This new theoretical framework has been developed to extend Special and General Relativity. The equations used in Special Relativity can be used for both the macroscopic and microscopic worlds, the main assumption being that if they work for macroscopic objects, they must also apply to the fundamental components that make up macroscopic objects.

Additional analysis of the Standard Model was also conducted in order to formulate the Bridging Model between electromagnetism and gravity. The analysis of the Standard Model revealed a subtle pattern embedded within the model itself[7] [8].

1. All the particles that have mass also possess an imbalanced charge state, which makes them rotate about an axis. This rotation of high speed charged particles generates the gravitational field.

2. All the particles that do not exhibit mass such as the photon and neutrino, possess charges that are equally balanced, and yield a net charge of zero. Even the gluon which carries a strong force adheres to this rule, as it has a neutral charge, zero mass and is its own anti-particle.

3. Apparent exceptions to the above rules such as the Z0 boson which have mass, are generally composed of other particles which rapidly rotate around a central axis point. These particles are unstable composites of fermion-antifermion pairs which most likely generate their mass by using Super Relativity Bridging Mechanism. The Z0 boson which is a composite particle, generates its mass from two particles of equal but opposite charge. Therefore it uses the same method to manifest the property of mass as does the proton and neutron.

The implications of this theoretical concept are of great importance. The Super Relativity bridging mechanism if proven correct solves both of the major mysteries in physics today.

1 The source of the gravitational field, and
2 The unification of electromagnetism to gravity (the Holy Grail of physics).

If the Super Relativity bridging mechanism is the central cause for the gravitational field, this would raise questions about both quantum mechanics and string theory being the possible explanation for the Theory of Everything.

Another great insight, which lay dormant for many decades, arose to provide additional evidence for the support of this model. If the solution revealed by these experiments is correct, there should already be existing mathematical approximations of it, expressed as formulas which were discovered by other people. These formulas should be consistent with the Super Relativity Model and those that are most likely to be harmonious to the Super Relativity model are:

E=mc^2 and Newton's Second Law of Motion f=ma

Transformation for both equations to solve for mass can be resolved simply by using m=e/c^2 and m = f/a. In both cases mass becomes a function of a force or energy in motion. The first case is more restrictive as the constant c is used, thereby only allowing for a specialized version of objects moving at the speed of light. It also does not work for balanced charge objects such as the photon. The second case is much more flexible and is most like the Super Relativity model. Both of these equations state that the physical manifestation of mass is the result of an energy or force in motion. Could the causal nexus of gravity be this simple? The most specific definition for the cause of gravity according to Super Relativity is as follows: „The cause of gravity is due to the
motion of energy.‟ Energy is specifically defined as an imbalance electrostatic charge in motion.

The other important aspect is the motion of the energy through space. In the case of material objects such as quarks inside of protons and neutrons, the motion is circular or elliptical in nature. Since the motion of the energy is changing direction this means that it is in actuality an acceleration. Literally speaking m = f/a. This results in the creation of a gravitational field by means of the Lorentz Transformations.

Using the bridging mechanism to explain gravity corresponds very well to observed phenomena. It also provides a great deal of insight into the very foundation of nature as this theory possesses reasoning, based in principle on an elegant natural philosophy, which describes nature as a system of explainable and sensible mechanics.

[1] Einstein, Albert, “Ether and the Theory of Relativity”, (1920)
[2] Michael Fowler,””,1996
[3] Einstein, Albert, “Ether and the Theory of Relativity”, (1920)
[4] Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. New York: Henry Holt, 1920
[5] C.R. Nave, “HyperPhysics”,”, (2005)
[6] The NIST Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty (2008)




Web site contents © Copyright Mark Fiorentino 2009, All rights reserved.