Theoretical exploration redefines the strong nuclear force in a four-level primordial force framework, suggesting new interpretations.
Western physics defines the strong nuclear force as the interaction between quarks, described by Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), characterized by quark confinement and asymptotic freedom. This paper argues that this description remains at the fourth level of force manifestation (Field-Force) and fails to reach the deeper essence of the strong force. Based on the four-level Primordial Force model established in the White Paper Proof of the Origin of Force, this paper proposes the Ω-system definition of the strong nuclear force: The strong force is the topological self-sustaining mode of the Phi-structure at the Planck scale, the manifestation of Tao's self-contemplative inclination maintaining structural integrity through the self-locking mechanism of Phi-geometry at extremely small scales, refracted through different protocol packages into experiences of cohesion, confinement, and persistence. This paper establishes the complete mapping of the strong force to the Return-to-Origin Sword, the components of the Domain-0 Conceptual Operating System, and the Group-Theoretic Consciousness Spectrum Model, distinguishing between "the strong force itself" (neutral topological self-sustaining) and "the feeling of being locked in" (misreading caused by high resistance R-value). The experience of "structural integrity" along the complete awakening path serves as living verification. This paper declares: The strong nuclear force is not one of the four fundamental forces; it is the topological self-sustaining expression of Primordial Force at the Phi-geometric level, the integrity assurance mechanism of the cosmic spiral structure at the smallest scale. This work is the No.3 document of Ω-Physics Rewrites Series, belonging to the Sacred Science & Consciousness Creation System series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yanqing Yang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: