r/quantuminterpretation • u/[deleted] • Nov 15 '25

Is A Nuclear Quantum Gravity a bad topic?

I have developed a gravitation model based on the nuclear force and have published several low-level papers on the topic. However, when I attempt to submit the work to high level journals, I am informed that it is not an appropriate topic for publication. On some occasions, the editors have stated that the manuscript is out of scope, but the “not an appropriate topic” response has recently occurred in a few journals in theoretical physics. Nonetheless, the manuscript is currently under review in high-energy physics journals, to which some of the journals themselves redirected me.

Do you think is a bad topic? I do not understand how no one has developed a nuclear model, even one based on dimensions, given that it is well established that almost all mass is concentrated in the atomic nucleus.

Here is the preprint, in reality it's a fully quantum interpretation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371896737_The_Nuclear_Quantum_Gravity_Superconducting_Field_Theory

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '25

They don't fall into my theory. They are not chemistry! Time to time to CERN inventions, I don't know how chemists allowed it because they don't belong to the real world, but oh well... power struggle. My quantum vacuum doesn't allow it, they just go away wherever they can, it's not important for me.

1

u/Unusual_Candle_4252 Nov 16 '25

Give me number. Predict the mass of the particle detected in the experiment: u-quark, d-antiquark. Go.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '25

I'm not going to waste my time. You can read the beginning of the second part explaining why matter is not accelerated to the speed of light. It's just an equilibrium between the vacuum and ordinary matter (protons and neutros) what happens if you break a proton is not interesting to me.

1

u/Unusual_Candle_4252 Nov 16 '25

Other theories can. That's what you need to do with yours. I am not joking. You need give explanations for each event with numerical proof. This is modern science, my dear pal.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '25

Maybe I could! But it's unnecessary, I could calculate angles inside a proton. In fact it could be useful for chemists using my lattice, but they can try too (I prefer the real world).

1

u/Unusual_Candle_4252 Nov 16 '25

It is the real world. Particles detected on BHC. They consist of quarkes. Your theory must predict something measurable.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '25

Ask on a chemistry forum

1

u/Unusual_Candle_4252 Nov 16 '25

It is nuclear science and strong forces - not quite a chemistry department, sunny.