RESHUFFLING THE HIERARCHY PROBLEM: Why is gravity so weak regarding the other forces?

v. 5 n. 36

NOTICE

1. the addition of "accelerated expanding" in the sentence "Consider accelerated expanding space (ambient gravitational field) with only two particles. Will these particles move toward or away from one another? [5]"
2. the addition of "expanding [space]" in the cover image. The particle is embedded in this accelerated expanding space, indicating locality for particles and the ambient gravitational field coincident with space.
3. text with the sidebar has been edited.

"In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the problem concerning the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity.[1] There is no scientific consensus on why, for example, the weak force is 10^24 times stronger than gravity." -- Hierarchy problem - Wikipedia

The Strong, electromagnetic and Weak forces are in a category by themselves regarding strength in comparison with that of gravity. Yet, it was shown that the other forces may be dependent on gravity. [1] [2]

According to general relativity, space and the gravitational field are inseparable. [3] From there, the other forces exist in space, which is indistinguishable from the gravitational field. Then, the other forces are within the purview of gravity.

A quantum theorist would say that this is just from the standpoint of relativity -- what about from my standpoint? From the bottom up, instead of from the top down. The Universe ostensibly started small -- infinitesimally or from nothing -- and then with a Bang, a Big one. No space to start with. No gravitational field. No gravity. No derivation from gravity.

On comparing paragraphs two and three above, the latter is somewhat fanciful from the standpoint of physics. There is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Where did the energy come from for any bangs, small or big? From the "inflation" scenario? [Note 1] [Note 2]

The implication in Note1 is that the question is sidestepped to later considerations, but the introduction of gravitational repulsion is interesting, in Note 2 as well.

The inflation scenario is based on gravitational repulsion. But specifically, how did the repulsive gravity that would ostensibly initiate the Universe become attractive gravity by consensus? If inflation is the consensus view, attractive gravity must be explained by those adhering to it. Newton's gravity is phenomenological as commonly interpreted, unquestionably suitable only at the Solar system scale.

(By the way, that statement in Note 1 about general relativity allowing for repulsion is not strictly correct; the effect was not part of the original logic of the theory, rather added subsequently to make the theory conform to observation of stasis or accelerated expansion. General relativity, and any attractiveness within, is rooted in Newton's phenomenology; this could be why an accelerated expanding Universe was not predicted.)

The chain of inflation, coasting and dark energy was compared with exclusive repulsive gravity in the previous Letter. [4]

Conventionally, gravity is considered an attractive effect when particles are present. But this is prejudiced by a historic and pedestrian viewpoint, not from the viewpoint of the Universe at large. Consider accelerated expanding space (ambient gravitational field) with only two particles. Will these particles move toward or away from one another? [5]

The closing paragraph of Reference 5 reads: "In this scene, the direction of acceleration of the Universe and gravity -- whether gravity appears attractive or repulsive -- depends on scale. As originally conceived, neither Newtonian gravity nor general relativity accounted for scale and the inertia of space."

The strength of the other forces is with respect to particles. For the strong force, between quarks, or between nucleons. For the electromagnetic force, between charged particles. For the weak force, between a quark and itself -- converting from a down to an up quark and emitting other particles. Particles among particles. But with gravity the relationship is different. The relationship is proposed to be between the particle and space. There is seen to be no gravitational relationship between particles, unlike the other three forces. This is a difference in kind between gravity and the other forces. This is why gravity could be markedly different in strength than the other three forces to raise the hierarchy problem.

[1] (1) Gravitational basis of quanta? | LinkedIn

[2] (3) The hierarchy problem: Why is gravity such a weak force? | LinkedIn

[3] A. Einstein, Relativity, Crown, N.Y., 1961, p. 155

[4] (2) Cosmic inflation, coasting, dark energy; or gravity from the start? | LinkedIn

[5] (1) The inertia of space | LinkedIn

[Note 1] Microsoft copilot was asked: " In Alan Guth's inflation scenario, how is the energy necessary for creation of the Universe from nothing explained?"

Copilot:

"Cosmic Inflation: ... Shortly after the universe’s birth (less than a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second), an exotic form of matter existed.

This material exerted a counterintuitive force: gravitational repulsion. Despite our usual perception of gravity as attractive, Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows for such a force. ...

What Was There Before Inflation? Guth has been pondering this question. His current idea is that the universe might be eternal, existing at all times without a distinct beginning. ..."

[Note 2] GRAVITATIONAL REPULSION: "Inflation may provide this initial impulse. According to the Friedmann equations that describe the dynamics of an expanding universe, a fluid with sufficiently negative pressure exerts gravitational repulsion in the cosmological context. ..." -- Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia