Mickey’s Big TOE

Really? A Theory of Everything?

As most physicists know, a theory of everything (TOE), is about uniting the mechanics of the cosmos with the mechanics of particle physics. And that’s essentially everything; at least it’s everything that constitutes mass and energy. Well, how about all that esoteric stuff, like: life, love, beauty, relationships, sports, religion, politics, and comedy?

Believe me, we wouldn’t have any of that stuff if we didn’t have mass and energy. And if mass and energy didn’t have each other to kick around—nothing would ever happen. Then where would we be? So by that definition we really are talking about a theory of everything. It’s just not everything you want to know about everything.

When it comes to understanding the ingredients of the cosmos and particle physics, most of the heavy lifting has been done for us by all the mental giants who worked together so well from the Stone Age through the Twentieth Century. Today we’re fairly certain that the matter making up the cosmosphere is just bigger chunks of the stuff that makes up the microsphere.

We’re mostly bewildered by how electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force move and bind all the little stuff while the weaker force of gravity is hardly even noticeable down at that level. Yet this ultra-weak gravity easily gathers and juggles all of the big stuff in the universe. Gravity is what motivates us to hang on to the hammer when we’re holding it over our head. How does gravity relate to those more powerful atomic forces?

We now know that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are just different strengths of the same stuff. It’s also suspected, but not yet proven, that the strong nuclear force is an extra strong form of electromagnetism, as well. If that’s the case, then building a theory of everything would boil down to finding the common denominator between gravity and electromagnetism. In scientific terms the physical mating of gravity with the other forces amounts to merging Einstein’s Relativity theory with quantum theory to produce a theory of everything. Some refer to this merger as a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). If we have to choose one term, my sense is that toes are much sexier than guts.

Merging those two theories is like breeding elephants with ants. While my work on that connection is by no means complete, I believe we’re really in hot pursuit of a suspect and that others more knowledgeable might find it worthwhile to join the posse. Some of the evidence is sketchy, but I believe it’s all tangible and measurable forces and not about hypothetical gravity particles that glue everything together.

Revisiting an Electromagnetic Gravity

Albert Einstein never did received a Nobel Prize for either his Special Relativity or his General Relativity theories. He was, however, awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 1905 theory on the photo electric effect1. That work was instrumental in the foundation of quantum theory. He concluded his 1922 acceptance speech for that prize by saying his new passion was to unify general relativity with electromagnetism and possibly even with quantum mechanics2. My hypothesis posits that Einstein was much closer to achieving his objective than he realized. He tried to solve it mathematically, but I believe his existing math was already adequate and that the real problem was just a misperception.

Einstein—like most everyone—perceived gravity as a force that emanates from matter in proportion to its mass. It’s true that gravity’s force is directly proportional to the masses of the objects involved. Perhaps, though, the one misperception he inherited from others was where gravity comes from.

Within our well-lit universe, all matter resides in a relatively steady electromagnetic field that seems to be quite capable of inducing gravity’s characteristics. This induced magnetic gravity may be all that’s needed to provide the unification Einstein sought. It would appear that his field equations regarding gravity would all remain valid, including his spacetime calculations.

The argument that gravity seems vastly weaker than electromagnetism is a simple enough issue to deal with. For when we induce an electromagnetic force into non-magnetized materials, the resulting attractive force within that matter is proportional to the force that induced it, and the electromagnetic field that induces gravity is extremely weak. It’s so weak that the heat radiating from stars and remnant heat from the big bang can be enough to overcome the attractive gravity among small bits of matter. Hot clouds of gas and dust need to cool down in order for gravity’s attractive force to overcome the repulsive force of the heat radiation and start to form stars and planets.

When we sprinkle non-magnetic iron filings near a magnet, its field aligns the electron rotations of the filings and makes them mutually attractive. This is a scalable phenomenon; so if we sprinkle ball bearings in a larger and stronger field we get similar results. The field draws the orbits of electrons into coherent alignments. It would appear that if galaxies were sprinkled in a huge magnetic field they, too, would feel an induced magnetism and behave like powdered iron’s clusters and strings. Electric current flow is immense among strings of galaxies and is one mechanism that might provide a magnetically driven gravity that’s always attractive. But it could be repulsive beyond galactic scales, such as between strings of galaxies, if the current is flowing in opposite directions in those galactic strings3.

Ampère’s, Faraday’s, and Lorentz’s force laws tell us that when electrical current flows in the same direction through parallel conductors, the conductors become attracted to one another. It would appear that any conductive matter in a unidirectional current would be mutually attractive under these laws. Unidirectional currents flowing through rivers of galaxies would provide attractive forces to all of the embedded bodies, with no repulsive component within any given river, and thus draw the galaxies and clusters toward one another. The same is true for smaller bodies within galactic strings. On the other hand, gravity may remain attractive even beyond the bounds of galactic strings. It remains to be seen if the great voids between galactic streams represent areas of gravitational repulsion between the streams. Clearly, there is more than one mechanism to investigate in our search for the source(s) of an induced gravity.

The stars, planets, molecules, atoms, and quarks are all imbedded in cosmic radiation and are mutually attracted. Having everything immersed in a single global field would give it the particle alignment biases that make it all mutually attractive. Such global alignments might account for the asymmetry problems that stymie quantum physicists in their lab experiments.

The challenge

If one is to attract serious physicists to pursue the possibility of an induced gravity, one needs to provide evidence that links this emerging model with the models of Newton and Einstein. To satisfy Newton’s law of gravity it may be sufficient to relate how mass, alone, would have a direct correlation with an induced gravitational force, but to satisfy Einstein’s General Relativity we’ll need to address the intricacies of spacetime curvature.

Gravity’s force is proportional to mass and most mass is found in atomic nuclei. It’s conceivable that these nuclei have their own attractive polar alignment biases, independent of electron spin directions. Electrons are 1,836 times lighter than protons. They orbit at relatively great distances from their nuclei and their orbital alignments are more influenced by other electrons and photons than by their own nucleons. It would appear that the free-floating nuclei might tend to align themselves with all other nuclei in their region of space. This would give atoms a mutual attractive force based on their masses and the strength of the global magnetic field. The chaotic field alignments of electrons would not be sufficient to overcome the coherent gravitational alignments of atomic nuclei. The great distances between the nuclei would account for gravity’s weakness out beyond the nuclei. There’s much to explore here.

Einstein’s space-time curvature is verified by observing solar eclipses and measuring how much the light of background stars bends as it flows past the sun’s edge4. This bending of light around galaxies and other massive objects is also used for the gravitational lensing of more distant objects5. The bending electromagnetic rays focus and concentrate around cosmic bodies in proportion to their masses. This effect is often portrayed as a bowling-ball-like sun bending the trampoline-like mat of space-time. The real picture is more complex, with light emanating from every direction and pinching-in toward heavy masses. These concentrated masses behave like low-resistance conductors for cosmic currents.

Molecules and atoms are mostly empty space; so the stars, planets, and people composed of this fluffy matter would feel the weakest aspect of the induced force. Quarks are closer together, so Newton’s inverse square law gives nucleons a strong binding force, while their attraction to distant orbiting electrons and other atoms is far weaker.

Physicists say electromagnetism exhibits 1038 to 1040 times more force than gravity6,7. That doesn’t hold up when we consider that the gravitational force of black holes is not only greater than the strong nuclear force, it has enough force to crush nucleons into nothing but cold mass.

The forces of gravity and electromagnetism both approach infinity as the distance between attracted masses approaches zero; and an induced gravity’s force limit easily extends to that of the strong nuclear force, when the distance between quarks goes to zero. If gravity seems 1038 times weaker on earth than the attractive force between quarks, then I’d venture that the earth’s atoms are 1019 times farther apart than their quarks are. Our perspectives change when we view the strong and weak forces as being induced by the universe’s pervasive electromagnetic field.


Digressing for a moment, to my Big Bash hypothesis; the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) of the ancient pre-big bang universe would be cooler than our big bang’s CMBR and still have a stable electromagnetic field. There would have been many backgrounds before the advent of our big bang and the one we see now is an amalgamation of the old and new. So if background radiation creates gravity, what would that say about the constancy of gravity?

In regard to CMBR, NASA says, “The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand8!” Scientists continue their quest to measure Newton’s big G to ever greater precision9. It’s been an embarrassment that we can’t improve the accuracy of this fundamental reference beyond 4 decimal places. Well, if CMBR temperature varies by a few parts in 10,000 and this radiation generates gravity, it suggests G may not be uniform beyond 4 significant digits.

Big bash singularities act as entropy’s rechargeable batteries. Calculations of this entropy is more complex than it would be in a self-contained big bang, as what we see in our steady state universe is the homogenization of many such systems. If massive singularities contain no heat, then it looks as though mass and energy are completely separable.

Einstein said, “The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter10.” Here’s my simple analysis of how mass and energy might each be separate entities and still be accurately portrayed by Einstein’s mass and energy formula.

Black hole singularities are the most concentrated of masses and their temperatures rest at absolute zero. Light can’t escape a black hole, so in a black hole the speed of light is zero. Thus, a black hole’s rest energy is E=mc2=0.

For mathematical simplicity assume our two colliding singularities are of equal mass with rest energies of zero. As magnetically induced gravity draws the singularities together, their kinetic energies are each expressed as: E=½ mv2 (half their mass times their velocity squared). Summing their two energies yields: E=mv2. And as they reach their speed of collision, the speed of light, substituting c for v yields a total system kinetic energy of E=mc2.

Einstein’s equation very conveniently describes the kinetic energy of two pure masses being accelerated by an electromagnetic gravity, bashing at the speed of light, and transforming all this kinetic energy into the big bang’s total system energy. Therefore it was a pure electromagnetic force that induced the kinetic energy and transformed all the energy of the singularity masses from E=0 to the big bang’s total potential and kinetic energy of E=mc2. That tells us that the pure electromagnetic energy of the universe is responsible for generating all the friction, pressure, and heat necessary to produce the charges and all the other binding forces of quantum mechanics.

If this hypothesis is accurate, then electromagnetism is the single fundamental force of the universe and matter is a separate entity that is not just another manifestation of energy.


While their cold masses are devoid of energy; singularities are surrounded by Schwarzschild radii that focus vast spheres of background radiation on them. It would appear that such concentrated fields could crush all incoming matter and induce extreme gravitational forces, like the Z-Pinch forces that fusion energy teams are developing11.

The purpose of Z-Pinch devices is to magnetically implode a 1 to 6mm metallic sphere or cylinder filled with deuterium and/or tritium fusion candidates. The implosions fuse the enclosed nucleons to form helium and generate heat, in the hope they’ll eventually produce more energy than the process consumes12. One Z-Pinch model uses ten radially and symmetrically arranged lasers to shine 1014 watts of power on the capsule being imploded13. The principle here is that the lasers’ radiation creates magnetohydrodynamic waves that crush the fuel pellet. In black holes we also have externally sourced light waves that are concentrated and focused on a central mass.

Observers of active galactic nuclei report that gas falling inward toward central black holes piles up in accretion disks, compresses, and heats up14. “Near the inner edge of the disk, on the threshold of the black hole’s event horizon … some of the material becomes accelerated and races outward as a pair of jets flowing in opposite directions along the black hole’s spin axis.” It would appear that these jets are part of the mechanism that black holes use to squeeze out and vent all their heat.

When streams of charged particles race around a black hole, much of the mass falls into the black hole while most of the energy exits at the poles as x-rays and gamma rays. I envision a spherical or toroidal electric field with a perpendicular magnetic field directed inward toward the black hole. High energy particles surrounding the Schwarzschild radius create an enormous Z-Pinch that crushes any in-falling matter into a dense singularity. The squeezed-out heat gets radiated away via the axial jets. Background radiation is omnidirectional, like a Z-Pinch, and impinges on objects from all directions. Moreover, it encompasses the full frequency spectrum, including powerful x-rays and gamma rays.

It also seems logical that the earth’s gravity might be but a very weak manifestation of this same Z-pinch process. Internally the force is compressive; externally it would be attractive.

As Einstein said in a 1921 lecture, “As far as we are able to judge at present, the general theory of relativity can be conceived only as a field theory15.” I’ll point out that his theory seems to intermix electromagnetic fields and gravity fields in areas that describe time dilation. He says, “An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of an atom situated on the surface of a heavenly body will be somewhat less than the frequency of an atom of the same element which is situated in free space (or on the surface of a smaller celestial body).”

Atoms absorb light from electromagnetic fields and those fields are more concentrated around bodies of greater mass. Einstein said denser fields shift the frequencies toward the red, meaning the atoms are slowed by the stronger fields. Therefore, increasing the electromagnetic viscosity slows the atoms, which translate to slower metabolisms, slower clocks, and the slowing of time. Einstein’s own description of field behaviors seems to make no distinction between gravity and electromagnetic fields.

How might an induced gravity connect relativity to quantum mechanics?

The separability of mass and energy at cosmic levels means it’s also separable at particle levels. Therefore, charged particle masses should be separable from both their electric charges and their strong and weak internal forces. This suggests the fundamental forces binding particle masses together are also caused by an externally induced electromagnetism.

Paul Dirac’s 1962 paper, “An extensible model of the electron”, submits that electrons may have a spherical bubble membrane16. Quarks had not yet been discovered and he never updated this paper to include them. Dirac may have been correct, and perhaps all electrically charged particles have membranes. While Dirac’s model places charges outside the membranes, it seems reasonable enclose them within. This variance is based on the observation that quark charges don’t neutralize one another on contact when neutron stars squeeze them together under extreme pressure. And when electrons collide with protons they neither annihilate nor neutralize one another; they just exchange a short wavelength photon and bounce17. Strong elastic membranes would both isolate charges and impart mass to particles. When neutron stars get massive enough to become black holes; particle membranes would burst, neutralizing their charges and the inert membrane residue becomes the cold dense mass of singularities.

Gerard ’t Hooft described strong force bonds by saying, “The quarks in a hadron therefore act somewhat as if they were connected by rubber bands at very close range: where the bands are slack, the quarks move almost independently, but at a greater distance, where the bands are stretched taught, the quarks are tightly bound18.” If the elastic quark membranes are bound together by the strong force—an induced electromagnetic force—the stretch of the membranes would exhibit such behavior. We can model this by placing a small strong magnet in each of two small balloons, partially inflating them, then bringing the two magnets together. Pulling the two balloons apart would simulate the force behavior ‘t Hooft described.

Induced magnetism would act as both the strong and weak forces. Gravity’s attractive force between quarks is limited only by distance. When externally magnetized quark membranes get squeezed together in stars, Z-Pinches, or particle colliders; the elastic contact areas enlarge and makes the magnetic holding force adequate to overcome the repulsion of excess positive charges. This increased magnetic contact area compensates for the distances between quark centers not going to zero. Trapped coulomb charges are isolated by membranes, so their spacing can’t go to zero either. Their repulsive force is limited by membrane thickness and its dielectric nature.

It’s conceivable that neutrinos are exploded bits of membrane matter. If neutrinos are scraps of membranes, with high area to mass ratios, they’d mimic solar sails whose velocities might be sustainable by photon streams. They may gather and dissipate charges as they flow past charged particles. An infinite universe would have plenty of black holes for regathering neutrino dust.

Physicists should investigate nuclear forces as though they are induced forces that are not native to particles. This may also shed more light on radioactive decay.

Radioactive Decay

If particle charges are enclosed in elastic membranes, that would provide a model for explaining the mechanics of radioactive decay.

When supernovas explode they create implosive pressures on atoms in their central cores and more nucleons get forced into their atomic nuclei than atoms can retain under normal pressures. The pressure would super-cool the quarks in the same manner black holes squeeze out their heat. Once the pressure subsides, most unsustainable nucleons quickly fall away from their overloaded nuclei, but many are temporarily retained. The supersaturated nucleons have created radioactive elements. The pressure has squeezed the quark membranes into compressed and distended oblate spheroids, increasing their magnetic contact surfaces and allowing them to bind more nucleons than they can retain under normal temperatures and pressures.

As distorted membranes absorb radiation, their internal pressures build and they become more nearly spherical, thus allowing supersaturated nuclei to shed their excess nucleons and exhibit radioactive decay. Different radioactive elements have differently shaped nuclei and less stable shapes have shorter half-lives.

An experiment that may substantiate this model would be to cautiously expose radioactive elements to a spectrum of high energy radiation to see if it accelerates their half-lives. If such should be the case, it suggests we may be able to extend the short half-lives of heavy manmade elements by quickly routing them to ultra-cold chambers to curtail their decay.

In this membrane model the strong nuclear force and electroweak force are the same force. The strong force is manifest when atomic nuclei are not stressed by up-quark overload or high internal temperatures and therefore are difficult to pull apart. The weak force becomes pronounced when induced magnetism is marginally adequate to bind the nucleons of radioactive elements and those pressure-chilled nucleons are in the process of absorbing external heat.

Particle colliders have detected a family of force carriers referred to as gauge bosons. Most common among these massless particles are the gluons, photons, W bosons, and Z bosons, which are viewed as energy fields7. In reference to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), Richard Feynman said, “It’s very clear that the photon and the three W’s are interconnected somehow, but at the present level of understanding, the connection is difficult to see clearly—you can still see the ‘seams’ in the theories; they have not yet been smoothed out so that the connection becomes more beautiful and, therefore, probably more correct.”

If nuclear bonds are indeed the results of an externally induced electromagnetic field; then pulling those bonds apart would generate the sort of electromagnetic flux transitions that are defined as gauge bosons. One might expect similar field transitions to be induced when two electromagnets are pulled apart.

While this gravity bridge between relativity and quantum physics may seem a bit far-fetched, it does provide a plausible placeholder that matches many of the observations. It would be great, however, if those more knowledgeable in quantum mechanics could either enhance or replace this membrane particle model.


There is much more for physicists to explore in 3D space. The pervasive omnidirectional electromagnetic field comes to mind—as every mass is immersed in it. If one were to pursue the commonality between gravity and the other forces, the externally induced electromagnetism of the universe would be my nomination for the common denominator. It seems that the constant expansion and contraction of magnetic fields would be an efficient means for powering a perpetual motion universe.

There is far more to learn about the entire electromagnetic spectrum. When we contemplate how virtually every frequency streams to us simultaneously from every direction and delivers a degree of signal fidelity from every galaxy, star, cell phone, radio and TV station, etc., we can appreciate what an amazing fabric this ethereal background is made of. Some frequencies may have the task of vibrating atomic nuclei, to make their electrons elliptically orbit like hula hoops. And it must be some sort of magnetic hysteresis that makes electrons toggle between specific orbits when hit by a burst of energy.



We have difficulty attributing gravity to electromagnetism as it seems that electromagnetic fields would have two polarities and exhibit more repulsive behaviors than we see in nature. While physicists often hypothesize about magnetic monopoles that would help to explain this mystery, they are still seeking evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist. For the most part they’ve sought monopoles on a micro scale. They’ll need to put down their microscopes and get out their telescopes. Here’s a monopole model they may want to consider:

A big bang’s electromagnetic pulse generates a spherical radiation pattern whose outer extremity exhibits a single magnetic polarity. It would be a continuum of expanding concentric spheres whose perpendicular electric field stretches radially outward from the point of the big bang explosion. The exploding cloud is an electromagnetic plasma. It’s an expanding ball of radially flowing heat and electricity. Negative electrons are lighter than the positive ions, so the electrons move more rapidly than the ions do. This gives the outer extremity of the big bang a negative charge relative to its center. This radiation may provide the continuously stretching and radially polarized electric field that generates gravity, or at least contributes to it. So if magnetic monopoles actually exist then we live in one. The interior of this monopole would be a good place to house a unipolar gravity. Even in a monopole, though, every radial is still a dipole.

Black holes are monopoles of a reversed polarity. In a big bang, heat flows from the center outward while in black holes the heat flows from their exteriors to their ultra-cold centers. Big bangs are scatterers and black holes are gatherers. Heat flows from hot to cold, so the laws of thermodynamics are also the laws of the electrodynamics we’re discussing. Once the black holes have regathered and extinguished the surrounding heat, entropy comes up against her stops and won’t be able to go back to work until the next big bash. When singularities bash and their heat and radiation start to flow outward from the inside, these monopoles begin to turn themselves inside out and reverse their polarities.

It would seem that any object centered on an internal heat source might be viewed as a monopole. A star, for example, has its own thermonuclear engine and bears a semblance to a big bang. And the old cold version of a white dwarf, sometimes called a black dwarf, would be a heat sump with some of the behavior of a black hole. Once it gathers sufficient new mass, though, it will light up and become a heat generator again, reversing its monopole polarity.


  1. Einstein, A. Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light. (1905). at <;
  2. Isaacson, W. Einstein: his life and universe. (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2008).
  3. Kronberg, P. P., Lovelace, R. V. E., Lapenta, G. & Colgate, S. A. Measurement of the Electric Current in a K pc-Scale Jet. (2011). at <;
  4. Gamow, G. One Two Three . . . Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science (Dover Books on Mathematics). (Dover Publications, 2012).
  5. Gonzalez, A. H. et al. IDCS J1426.5+3508: Cosmological implications of a massive, strong lensing cluster at Z = 1.75. Astrophys. J. 753, 163 (2012).
  6. Gamow, G. Gravity: Classic and Modern Views. (Heinemann, 1965).
  7. Feynman, R. P. & Zee, A. QED: the strange theory of light and matter. (2006).
  8. WMAP Big Bang CMB Test. NASA (2014). at <;
  9. Ideas Lab: Measuring ‘Big G’ Challenge (nsf15591) | NSF – National Science Foundation. at <;
  10. Einstein, A., Infeld, L. & Isaacson, W. The evolution of physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta. (Simon and Schuster, 2008).
  11. Hammer, D. A. & Kusse, B. R. Dense Z-pinches 7th International Conference on Dense Z-Pinches, Alexandria, Virginia, 12-21 August 2008. (American Institute of Physics, 2009).
  12. Gibbs, W. W. Triple-threat method sparks hope for fusion. Nature 505, 9–10 (2013).
  13. Kirshner, R. P. The Earth’s Elements. Sci. Am. 271, 65 (1994).
  14. NASA News. Study Reveals a Remarkable Symmetry in Black Hole Jets | NASA. NASA (2012). at <;
  15. Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity: Fifth Edition: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field. (Princeton University Press, 1956).
  16. Dirac, P. A. M. An Extensible Model of the Electron. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Math. Phys. Sci. 268, 57–67 (1962).
  17. Bernauer, J. C. & Pohl, R. The Proton Radius Problem. Scientific American. 310, Number 2, 32–39 (2014).
  18. Hooft, G. ’t. Gauge Theories of the Forces between Elementary Particles. Scientific American (1980).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s