# A system of equations linking electromagnetism and gravity

## Recommended Posts

This system of equations is written on the hypothesis of Jamie Farnes, according to which the space of the universe is filled with electric dipoles with negative mass. Gravity from positively charged matter attracts negative mass, so in areas of space where gravity is stronger, the permittivity will be higher. Based on this, the curvature of space by gravity can be replaced by a change in the dielectric constant of the vacuum, and electromagnetic waves will move in this space along curved trajectories in accordance with the law of refraction of light.
It also tackles the question of whether gravity has mass. On the one hand, the gravitational field has energy, so it must have mass, but if you give it a positive mass, it will inevitably pull itself to a point. But if we remember that in physics textbooks gravitational energy is written with a minus sign, it is logical to recognize the mass of the gravitational field as negative. This also solves the issue with the balance of divergences in the dif.the equation for the gravitational field.
More detailed
https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/negativemass.aspx
http://www.yuniverse.org/eng/curvespase.aspx
https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/unifield.aspx
the system of equations is as follows

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

This system of equations is written on the hypothesis of Jamie Farnes, according to which the space of the universe is filled with electric dipoles with negative mass. Gravity from positively charged matter attracts negative mass, so in areas of space where gravity is stronger, the permittivity will be higher. Based on this, the curvature of space by gravity can be replaced by a change in the dielectric constant of the vacuum, and electromagnetic waves will move in this space along curved trajectories in accordance with the law of refraction of light.
It also tackles the question of whether gravity has mass. On the one hand, the gravitational field has energy, so it must have mass, but if you give it a positive mass, it will inevitably pull itself to a point. But if we remember that in physics textbooks gravitational energy is written with a minus sign, it is logical to recognize the mass of the gravitational field as negative. This also solves the issue with the balance of divergences in the dif.the equation for the gravitational field.
More detailed
https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/negativemass.aspx
http://www.yuniverse.org/eng/curvespase.aspx
https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/unifield.aspx
the system of equations is as follows

but how to explain curvated trajectory of particles that are not charged and not photons like the Z boson..

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Nor can these equations explain a quadrupole wave characteristic as the EM field is Dipolar.  This involves the spin characteristics of a given field spin 1 for EM. Spin two for spacetime/gravity.

Secondly the use of the minus sign in textbooks is a method to denote a central potential force Ie through the usage of $f=\frac{GMm}{r^2}$.

In GR positive curvature ie gravity isn't negative nor is it considered as negative mass as it has positive energy density and the e=mc^2 relation would result in positive mass. Under GR negative mass is impossible.

##### Share on other sites

Under GR negative mass is impossible.

And how then to understand Hawking's phrase about the fact that the universe is an island of positive energy in a pit of negative energy of the vacuum? After all, this means that the vacuum has a negative mass according to E=mc^2.

##### Share on other sites

When you compare fields you cam describe one being negative to the other. Ie when comparing a lower energy density to a higher energy density.

That still doesn't mean that either energy density is negative.

With vacuum your talking pressure and pressure under GR has a vector quantity. In terms of the stress energy momentum tensor. One can arbitrarily assign gravity as exerting positive pressure which makes sense as it leads to contraction while negative vacuum leads to expansion. That involves vector quantities of the evolution of a given equations of motion however does not imply negative mass.

The cosmological constant in fact has positive mass however it results in expansion with an equation of state w=-1 which under thermodynamics describes in uncompressable fluid.

Equations of state describe the pressure to energy density relations via

$w=\frac{p}{\rho}$

Take the physics definition for mass.

Mass=resistance to inertia change.

How can negative mass apply to that standardized physics definition ? (All physics theories, classical, QFT, String, QM, etc etc etc) applies that definition for mass . The mass term resistance arises from the various coupling constants of the standard model of particles of which there are 18 of them. (Under MSSM) roughly 114 coupling constants depending on SUSY variations.

By the way you should really revisit Maxwell equations. There is several differences between their symmetry relations to gravity. You might want to start with the detail that the magnetic field is 90 degree phase shifted from the electric field. Then identify how that is shown in the Maxwell equations.

You should then compare the differences between the two stress tensors ie the electromagnetic stress tensor and the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations. You should immediately see some distinctive symmetry differences.

Here is a hint

$S^i$ which is the stress component

$S=\frac{1}{4\pi}E×B$ where × is the cross product between the E and B fields the B field has positive stress perdindicular to the field lines while the E field has negative stress parallel to the field lines. I will leave it to you to examine that but if you'd like I can post an example using the $T^{11}$ component.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

Under GR negative mass is impossible.

Is White Holes possible under GR ?????

##### Share on other sites

Yes they are a viable solution under GR however we have never discovered one. Keep in mind a white hole still doesn't imply negative mass or a different charge.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Under GR negative mass is impossible.

GR does not constitute the whole of Physics.

Explanations of certain processes successfully employ the concept of effective mass, which can be negative.

##### Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

GR does not constitute the whole of Physics.

Explanations of certain processes successfully employ the concept of effective mass, which can be negative.

Effective mass has usages in simplification in semiconductors however it is in effect a simplification that relies on the band structures in solid state physics.

I'm not aware of any theories outside solid state physics that applied effective mass. Lol though I have seen attempts to apply negative mass they never got very far.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Effective mass has usages in simplification in semiconductors however it is in effect a simplification that relies on the band structures in solid state physics.

I'm not aware of any theories outside solid state physics that applied effective mass. Lol though I have seen attempts to apply negative mass they never got very far.

Are you referring to Fermi energy uF

${u_F} = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{2{m^*}}}{\left( {\frac{{3N}}{{8\pi V}}} \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}}$

where m* is the effecitve mass of an electron in a metallic crystal and is positive and N/V is the density of valence electrons.

or the Hall effect where m* can be negative for anomalous materials?

I'm sorry I still haven't found an easy way to increase the size of my MATHML lines.
The bl___y input editor keeps resizing downwards whatever I do.

A much simpler example comes from fluid mechanics and Stokes' formula for the effective mass of a bubble rising in a fluid.
This is inertial and based on Newtonian mechanics, replacing the mass in Newton's second law with an effecitve (inertial) mass so that.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

Yes the above is correct but it looks like you still had details to add by the last sentence in the above post.

One detail to realize is that under GR the Einstein vacuum is devoid of all energy or mass so it represents a true zero mass condition. Theories which typically involve the negative mass term are in actuality describing an above zero (actual) energy density baseline. A good example could be applying negative mass to the negative side of the average energy density  of zero point energy. Which isn't a true zero energy condition.

Ie one potential compared to another.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

Kaluzu Klien attempts to unifies the EM field to GRs field equations however treats gravity in the same manner as described by GR. The OPs original proposal attempted to describe gravity in the same manner as EM which is incorrect.

Today we have effectively unified the weak strong and EM fields however gravity still remains problematic even under Kaluzu Klien or Glamshaw etc due to renormalization problems.

SO(10) MSM (minimal standard model) is represents a unified field theory as described above. The lessons from Kaluzu Klien provided the technique that led to the development of SO(10)

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

Assume that the gravitational field has a positive mass, and density g/c^2, then the differential equation for the point mass field will be as follows

where b=2Gm, a=1/4*Pi*c^2,  x=r,   y(x)=g(r)

his decision will be

a positive exponent in the third term means that at some point the field strength will begin to increase with increasing distance

Conclusion. Either the mass of the gravitational field is negative or it is equal to zero. The second Varian means that the formula E=MC^2 cannot be applied to the energy of gravity.

##### Share on other sites

Considering how well tested gravity is in terms of the rate of falloff of gravitational strength being r^2 which is tested by orbital bodies at various distance scales as well as in galaxy rotations then the above post should tell you that your equations do not match observational evidence.

22 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

a positive exponent in the third term means that at some point the field strength will begin to increase with increasing distance

Evidence says otherwise.

##### Share on other sites

It turns out that gravity has no mass at all and the formula E=mc^2 does not apply to the energy of gravity.??

##### Share on other sites

Energy doesn't exist on its own

##### Share on other sites

You should really start with $F=\frac{GM_1m_2}{r^2}$ if you cannot match the results of that formula for two gravitational bodies then your approach is in error. That formula is incredibly well tested. Please note the usage of force.

Energy is a property that describes the ability to perform work. It isn't something that exists on its own as noted in my previous post.

9 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

It turns out that gravity has no mass at all and the formula E=mc^2 does not apply to the energy of gravity.??

What we call gravity is spacetime curvature under GR.

##### Share on other sites

Yes, I jumped to conclusions. I did not pay attention to the fact that x in the exponent is in the denominator. To these formulas it is still necessary to apply the normalization condition, calculate the coefficient c1 so that the field strength equals zero at infinity, and then compare Newton's law of gravity. And so, from them it is impossible to draw a conclusion, positive or negative mass at a gravitational field.

And the gravitational field must have mass because there are gravitational waves. Waves are an oscillatory process, oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

And the gravitational field must have mass because there are gravitational waves. Waves are an oscillatory process, oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.

Can you elaborate why that is a requirement? As far as I know there are successful wave models where invariant mass is zero. I'm thinking for instance of photons having zero invariant mass while light can be modeled as a wave.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Can you elaborate why that is a requirement? As far as I know there are successful wave models where invariant mass is zero. I'm thinking for instance of photons having zero invariant mass while light can be modeled as a wave.

Natural oscillations in the system arise due to the fact that the system due to INERTIA does not stop in equilibrium. The photon has no rest mass, and the relativistic mass it has is hf/c^2

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.

It would be more accurate to state mass is the resistance to inertia change however +1.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account