Jump to content

Gravity - Why not from EM?


ukgazzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

In nature we see magnets attracting each other even though they`re neutrally charged,we see neutral atoms combining exothermically to from ionic lattices and covalently bound molecules,diamagnetism,paramegnetism..All this points to a conclusion that substances will tend to align themselves so that they will attract each another.It might be a minute effect in comparison with the electromagnetic force,but when considering large numbers of particles,we get something quite substantial as the effect doesn`t cancel out.Is this conclusion correct?

In the everyday world where the particles are comparatively static we can see dipoles in common molecules like water and magnetism in iron,but what about the subatomic world?Here everything is moving so there are no obvious dipoles but shouldn`t there be transitory ones?If it is fair to assume that at any one instant the subatomic world will follow the same behavior as the one we`re more familiar with-like a single frame in a movie- then won`t there be more attractions than repulsions going on at any particular instant?Is it right to conclude that the microscopic world will behave similarly to our macroscopic world in this respect?

If this logic is sound can`t we take it a step further?If a particle was influenced by its surroundings would this also affect the speed with which it could react to events in its immediate vicinity?Taking this influence to an extreme,couldn`t processes slow to a stop as particles would become fixed in certain patterns due to the influence of their neighbours?Wouldn`t time,in effect,slow to a stop from the particles perspective?

For a large number of particles,if an EM field is applied,won`t they take time to react to it simply because the speed of light dictates that not only will individual particles get the message at different times,but that it will also take time to adjust to the reactions of their neighbors.Also surely this delay will only increase the more particles are considered?In effect shouldn`t it take time to move from a stationary state to one in motion even in a universe where electromagnetism and the speed of light are the only considerations?

Have I not just described the behavior of gravity?Is all this totally contrived? I do know that some theorists have been trying to formulate equations to explain gravity in terms of dynamic processes without success but how can they not be right?

(This was another thing that made me study chemistry at university.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In nature we see magnets attracting each other even though they`re neutrally charged,we see neutral atoms combining exothermically to from ionic lattices and covalently bound molecules,diamagnetism,paramegnetism..All this points to a conclusion that substances will tend to align themselves so that they will attract each another.It might be a minute effect in comparison with the electromagnetic force,but when considering large numbers of particles,we get something quite substantial as the effect doesn`t cancel out.Is this conclusion correct?

Aside: A sentence ends with one period, not two. Commas between words and the period at the end of a sentence are followed by a space.

 

To answer your question, your conclusion is incorrect. You can't get gravitation from magnetism. Magnetism is a 1/r3 force. Gravitation is a 1/r2 force. Another reason is that gravitational force depends only on mass; it is independent of what constitutes that mass. That is not the case for magnetism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electromagnetism is an 1/r2 force. Dipole interactions are higher powers but I only mention them here as an illustration of the fact that in our macroscopic world, neutral substances often have separable centers of charge. Whether the effects I describe would have a range of 1/r2 or even 1/r6 is irrelevant - For a large amount of material the effects would still be seen. If it was something like 1/r15 then maybe I`m barking up the wrong tree but I can`t see this being the case. If such phenomena are present and they are, and are attributed to gravity then in equations they must have a 1/r2 range. I`m not a mathematician and this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative argument but to ignore logic because you can`t find the right equation to give a mathematical explanation for it is folly. Should we really put maths ahead of logical reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electromagnetism is an 1/r2 force.

 

Only for monopoles. but if everything was a magnetic monopole then we'd know about it. The behaviour of the solar wind around the earth would be VERY strange for one.

 

Dipole interactions are higher powers but I only mention them here as an illustration of the fact that in our macroscopic world, neutral substances often have separable centers of charge. Whether the effects I describe would have a range of 1/r2 or even 1/r6 is irrelevant

 

Actually, it is very relevant. Any theory trying to chuck gravity out MUST explain the data gravity does. Gravity shows a 1/r^2 behaviour so anything else trying to explain it must also. as we don't have magnetic monopoles, all magnetic sources must be dipoles and follow 1/r^3 which is both qualitatively and quantitatively different.

 

If it was something like 1/r15 then maybe I`m barking up the wrong tree but I can`t see this being the case.

 

any major deviation from reality hints at barking up the wrong tree. 1/r^3 is a major deviation from reality.

 

I`m not a mathematician and this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative argument but to ignore logic because you can`t find the right equation to give a mathematical explanation for it is folly. Should we really put maths ahead of logical reasoning?

 

maths IS logic.

 

Anyway, even if we ignore all that and forget the maths and everything.

 

If gravity was an electromagnetic phenomenon it would be trivial to shield an object from its influence. a simple matter of a faraday cage or even just wrapping it in foil should have a noticable impact (much like how your mobile phone is rendered useless by being similarly wrapped).

 

As we have not seen drastic variations in weight caused by electro magnetic shielding (which is in most electronic devices that include some form of microcontroller.) then we can rule out electromagnetism as the cause of the phenomenon of gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we really put maths ahead of logical reasoning?

 

If they contradict each other, one is wrong. Any theory has to agree with measurement — if it disagrees, you modify or discard it (depending on the nature of the disagreement). Gravity and electromagnetism disagree, overall (i.e. despite a few similarities), on how they behave. Thus, the hypothesis is falsified. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured out that dipole dipole interactions will follow a 1/r4 relationship but for the real world that is simplistic. The real world isn`t composed of 4 charges. This is I admit pure speculation but I would imagine that surrounding charges would oppose the deflection of any single charge by another and that this effect would increase with increasing deflections- Would this have any effect on a perceived 1/r4 relationship ? Could it in fact be reduced down to a 1/r2 relationship? I do not have sufficient knowledge of maths to express this as an equation.

Nobody has found magnetic monopoles but it doesn`t mean that they don`t exist.It is tempting for successful theorists to get up on platforms and proclaim that they have finally solved the mysteries of science - history is littered with them - but will it ever be possible to say for certain that we have found the centre of the onion? Won`t there always be the possibility of other layers further down,and magnetic monopoles must be very elusive entities by their very nature.

Faraday cages and electromagnetic shielding are themselves composed of matter and have mass and I doubt would have much effect on transient deflections in charges for elementary subatomic particles.

Should we be in a situation in modern physics where reality is explained by two currently incompatible and inconsistent schools of thought, one of which explains things by modifying geometry and the other by using uncertainty and neither of which is suitable for explaining the whole thing even though both explain their areas of reality effectively? As an outsider I believe that there should be consistent logical reasoning behind the math. It's apples and oranges and currently, if somebody comes along and accurately predicts the properties of the Higgs boson to 10 decimal places in terms of bananas I have a nasty feeling that everybody will embrace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured out that dipole dipole interactions will follow a 1/r4 relationship but for the real world that is simplistic.

 

It's 1/r^3 for dipoles 1/r^4 is different yet again.

 

The real world isn`t composed of 4 charges.

 

no, but what has this got to do with anything?

 

This is I admit pure speculation but I would imagine that surrounding charges would oppose the deflection of any single charge by another and that this effect would increase with increasing deflections- Would this have any effect on a perceived 1/r4 relationship ? Could it in fact be reduced down to a 1/r2 relationship?

 

no, I'm not sure you understand what we mean by 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 relationships. When we say something has a 1/r^2 relationship we mean the force at distance r is proportional to 1/r^2 so

 

If the force at r=1 is 1 then at r=2 the force will be 1/4 and at r=3 it will be 1/9 and so on

 

For 1/r^3 relationships it is different r=1 is still 1 but at r=2 the force is already 1/8 and at r=3 its down to 1/27

 

Do you see why these are so obviously different? a change in the distance from a source has a much larger effect with a 1/r^3 force than a 1/r^2 force.

 

Nobody has found magnetic monopoles but it doesn`t mean that they don`t exist.

 

You're right it doesn't. BUT they'd be ridiculously easy to identify if we actually came across them. We have a wide gamut of instrumentation for detecting magnetic fields and even have some detectors built specifically for finding monopoles. If we were to come across a source of magnetism that was large enough to cause the effects of gravity and was a monopole we'd know already.

 

It is tempting for successful theorists to get up on platforms and proclaim that they have finally solved the mysteries of science - history is littered with them - but will it ever be possible to say for certain that we have found the centre of the onion? Won`t there always be the possibility of other layers further down,and magnetic monopoles must be very elusive entities by their very nature.

 

Yes, but the thing you are saying we are missing is a truly massive and fundamental difference in the way the universe works. You are saying that not only does gravity not exist but electromagnetism has this whole other lobe of effects where it doesn't behave anything like magnetism at all. And in a way that would be startlingly easy to detect in things such as the earths magnetic field (which is under constant observation).

 

Faraday cages and electromagnetic shielding are themselves composed of matter and have mass and I doubt would have much effect on transient deflections in charges for elementary subatomic particles.

 

no, but its not meant to shield against subatomic particles. It's meant to shield against electromagnetism. (which when you get down to it is photons). and it does a very very good job. you can get some very very high signal reductions inside a good faraday cage. If gravity were electromagnetic in nature then why wouldn't it be affected by a device that is effective at shielding against electromagnetism?

 

Should we be in a situation in modern physics where reality is explained by two currently incompatible and inconsistent schools of thought, one of which explains things by modifying geometry and the other by using uncertainty and neither of which is suitable for explaining the whole thing even though both explain their areas of reality effectively? As an outsider I believe that there should be consistent logical reasoning behind the math. It's apples and oranges and currently, if somebody comes along and accurately predicts the properties of the Higgs boson to 10 decimal places in terms of bananas I have a nasty feeling that everybody will embrace it.

 

We know that quantum physics and General relativity are wrong. This has been known since Einstein (who spent his final years trying to resolve the conflict, unfortunately by trying to delete quantum mechanics). He was not successful. Equally great minds have also tackled the problem and not been successful.

 

There are a number of candidate hypotheses that solve the issue but we have a problem with most of them, it is impossible to test them at this time(not because of theoretical limitations, just technological). You speak derisively about predicting the properties of the Higgs boson but fail to grasp the importance of what that would mean.

 

A scientific theory should match reality. It should also make specific testable predictions about things. Such as the mass of the higgs boson. As we now have evidence of the higgs bosons existance, we can investigate its properties and rule out all of the wrong hypotheses and focus only on those that got it right because they better represent reality. This is what will lead us to a unified theory. More data. not pretending gravity doesn't exist and its actually electromagnetism wearing a fake mustache. we've already tried tugging at the mustache and it didn't come off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i/ The relationship between dipoles is a 1/r4 one. The effect on a dipole in a field is 1/r3 one. And anyway I repeat I didn`t say the effect had anything (or much) to do with dipoles-Its just an illustration of neutral substances having separable centres of charge.

ii/ 2 dipoles interacting we can approximate mathematically as 4 charges-2 in each dipole. The observations I outline have to involve substantially more particles at a subatomic level and directly comparing the effect with a 1/r3 or 1/r4 relationship exhibited with dipoles would be incorrect.

iii/ If this was gravity the equations would have to produce a 1/r2 result. I`m not sure if they would but on the other hand I can`t imagine the effects not being noticeable and if the reasoning is sound and they mimic gravity, they must be gravity so must be 1/r2 even if I can`t do the math. (Unless somebody can actually genuinely seriously give me a convincing argument why any of this is impossible-like somebody doing the math and proving this is wrong.)

iv/ I wonder,with even the best equipment, whether people would see magnetic monopoles in isolation? Even conventional wisdom predicts them but nobody can find them - Isolated charges like that would surely not say isolated for very long.

v/ how am I saying electromagnetism doesn`t behave like electromagnetism? I`m trying to find an explanation for gravity in terms of conventional EM effects that I believe must occur that mimic gravity.

vi/ Faraday cages would have to shield against gravity and we would have to have a complete understanding of how they accomplished this for this argument to be relevant.

vii/ I know that predicting the properties of the Higgs Boson would be a very great accomplishment but if it results in reasoning that is wrong - like (perhaps) General Relativity and quantum mechanics - and we were faced with the possibility of waiting many years to clear up the mess, it wouldn`t in my mind be as great an achievement as I would`ve hoped for.

viii/ A scientific theory should match reality - both quantitatively and qualitatively. If it fails the first then it is invalid. If it fails the second - is inconsistent with other established theories - then either it or the other theories are at least partially invalid- Isn`t that or shouldn`t that be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i/ The relationship between dipoles is a 1/r4 one. The effect on a dipole in a field is 1/r3 one. And anyway I repeat I didn`t say the effect had anything (or much) to do with dipoles-Its just an illustration of neutral substances having separable centres of charge.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=356781 seems to indicate i have remembered correctly. but its moot. the point is it is a different relationship from 1/r^2 which is what gravity works under. dipole came up because we have not detected any monopolar behaviour in magnetism. ever.

 

ii/ 2 dipoles interacting we can approximate mathematically as 4 charges-2 in each dipole. The observations I outline have to involve substantially more particles at a subatomic level and directly comparing the effect with a 1/r3 or 1/r4 relationship exhibited with dipoles would be incorrect.

 

depends on the dipole if it has 4 charges. if its a magnetic dipole then there does not have to be any charges. why is the 1/r^3 relationship wrong? we are dealing with dipoles and that is the defining characteristic of force at distance for dipoles.

 

iii/ If this was gravity the equations would have to produce a 1/r2 result. I`m not sure if they would but on the other hand I can`t imagine the effects not being noticeable and if the reasoning is sound and they mimic gravity, they must be gravity so must be 1/r2 even if I can`t do the math. (Unless somebody can actually genuinely seriously give me a convincing argument why any of this is impossible-like somebody doing the math and proving this is wrong.)

 

we've already told you, magnetic interactions go by 1/r^3 this is different from 1/r^2 therefore your idea is wrong. there is no need to go any further than that.

 

iv/ I wonder,with even the best equipment, whether people would see magnetic monopoles in isolation? Even conventional wisdom predicts them but nobody can find them - Isolated charges like that would surely not say isolated for very long.

 

conventional wisdom need not apply to the universe. just look at the uncertainty principle.

 

you might not see them in isolation but to have an electromagnetic gravity you would almost certainly need them to be in isolation.

 

v/ how am I saying electromagnetism doesn`t behave like electromagnetism? I`m trying to find an explanation for gravity in terms of conventional EM effects that I believe must occur that mimic gravity.

 

well, you are saying electromagnetism IS gravity. but they are demonstratively different. Therefore you are saying electromagnetism is acting in a way that isn't electromagnetism. not really sure how else you think that's going.

 

vi/ Faraday cages would have to shield against gravity and we would have to have a complete understanding of how they accomplished this for this argument to be relevant.

 

no, faraday cages don't shield against gravity. but again, you are saying that electromagnetism IS gravity. and faraday cages DO shield against electromagnetism. Are you noticing the big problem here? IF gravity is an electromagnetic effect then it should be trivial to shield against it. As we cannot create zero-g rooms, we can't have figured out how to shield against gravity. Why would we have zero-g rooms? because it'd be as cool as anything thats why. people would pay money for it.

 

vii/ I know that predicting the properties of the Higgs Boson would be a very great accomplishment but if it results in reasoning that is wrong - like (perhaps) General Relativity and quantum mechanics - and we were faced with the possibility of waiting many years to clear up the mess, it wouldn`t in my mind be as great an achievement as I would`ve hoped for.

 

If the n+1 th theory is wrong then it will be replaced by the n+2th theory. Knowledge is an iterative process. We cannot arrive at total knowledge without going through the intervening steps. If we were to follow your ideals there then we would never progress as there would always be some sticking point where the theory does not apply. You can apply this to any given theory.

 

Also, if QM and relativity are completely useless, give up your computer, mobile phone, GPS device, CRTs, LEDs, transistors and so on. I think you'll find QM played a major part in them all. not bad for wrong reasoning.

 

You should know that there are different levels of wrong. Every new theory science creates has one purpose. To be less wrong than the previous theory. To go only by absolutes is to go backwards because we certainly won't stumble across an absolutely correct theory.

 

viii/ A scientific theory should match reality - both quantitatively and qualitatively. If it fails the first then it is invalid. If it fails the second - is inconsistent with other established theories - then either it or the other theories are at least partially invalid- Isn`t that or shouldn`t that be the case?

 

yep, GR and QM are partially invalid. There areas where they are known not to work, Wrongness is not an absolute its a relative. GR and QM are less wrong than the preceding theories. The theory that replaces GR and QM will be less wrong than GR and QM but it'll still have areas where it is invalid.

 

We cannot just jump to absolutely correct theories. Just like we don't have 100% efficient anythings. we just go through continual cycles of improvement.

 

If we were to go with 'gravity is electromagnetism' then we'd be taking a BIG step back. gravity has very few of the properties of electromagnetism.

 

It's a bit like comparing diesel and petrol engines. Sure, they look a bit similar at first glance, but when you get down the details they are quite different in operation. petrol will not make diesel engine run and diesel will not make a petrol engine run.

Edited by insane_alien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i/ I know that dipole - dipole interactions are 1/r4 - I actually did the maths for this many years ago and this is what textbooks say. A single dipoles field goes like 1/r3 and this is what my maths says and what your webpage says- this is intuitively logical.

ii I`m not explaining my effect in terms of dipoles. The gist of my grievances is that if EM can act over measurable timeframes on static systems why can`t it act from instant to instant on dynamic ones? The world is full of examples of charge displacements in neutral substances caused by external influences- how can this not happen from instant to instant on fast moving particles?

iii/ as i said in 2 and before I`m not describing this force simply in terms of dipoles-it`s just an illustration of the kind of behavior I`d expect to see from moment to moment at the subatomic level.

iv/ Established theories predict magnetic monopoles-you can`t say that they`re all wrong(!)

v/ I`m saying that the properties of electromagnetism should be consistent over any period of time not just a measurable amount of time sufficient to say,polarize a material.

vi/ Faraday cages might shield against EM or they may only shield against most EM phenomena. A Faraday cage relies on the behavior of electrons in atoms to function,not on anything more fundamentally sub atomic. I can`t see how a materials conductivity would have an effect on swiftly changing fields caused by the motion of subatomic particles.

vii/ I did not say QM and GR are useless.I said the interpretations of their perfect equations are contradictory and less than helpful-The equations are useful and have contributed to many technological advances.

viii/ I haven't read the physics manual from cover to cover and studied chemistry at university because I thought that some of physics was wrong even 20 years ago. Apparently even the experts are starting to think so now too.

 

gravity is about 10^34 times weaker than EM but I`m talking about very small effects and the strength of gravity is entirely consistent with the probable magnitude of these effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gravity is about 10^34 times weaker than EM but I`m talking about very small effects and the strength of gravity is entirely consistent with the probable magnitude of these effects.

 

You've made a mathematical statement here. Care to derive the gravitational coupling constant then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i/ I know that dipole - dipole interactions are 1/r4 - I actually did the maths for this many years ago and this is what textbooks say. A single dipoles field goes like 1/r3 and this is what my maths says and what your webpage says- this is intuitively logical.

 

It has been a while since i've had to deal with magnetic dipole interactions so you may be right (i'm sure somebody more versed in this branch of physics will settle it) so for the sake of moving off this topic i'll agree with you on the provisio that you agree that 1/r^3 and 1/r^4 are noticably different from 1/r^2.

 

ii I`m not explaining my effect in terms of dipoles. The gist of my grievances is that if EM can act over measurable timeframes on static systems why can`t it act from instant to instant on dynamic ones? The world is full of examples of charge displacements in neutral substances caused by external influences- how can this not happen from instant to instant on fast moving particles?

 

I'm not sure i fully understand what you're trying to say here. Can you please expand and clarify?

 

All i'm going to say is that if you want a static field effect (as gravity is) then its going to have a static electric field, a static magnetic field of both a static electric and a static magnetic field. Both these have been measured and they are insufficient to produce an attractive effect.

 

more to the point, this would only work on dissimilarly charged objects (in the electrical case) and a select few types of magnetic materials (in the magnetic case). Either way, there should be a bunch of objects that experience "anti-gravity" humans are paramagnetic so we should be repelled from earth if the nature is magnetic and transmission lines should be bouncing up and down if were electric.

 

iv/ Established theories predict magnetic monopoles-you can`t say that they`re all wrong(!)

 

They don't PREDICT. They ALLOW for magnetic monopoles. Nothing is saying they HAVE to be there, they're just not ruled out. Again, if they were present in normal matter, we'd have detected them in particle colliders so at best monopoles are more elusive than the higgs as they don't even show up in theory

 

Note: the only theories I could find that predict monopoles are string theories and GUT's which have not yet been proven to be correct.

 

v/ I`m saying that the properties of electromagnetism should be consistent over any period of time not just a measurable amount of time sufficient to say,polarize a material.

 

Not sure where this came from. We have not noticed any behavioural differences in electromagnetism for billions of years (Thanks to long range telescopes)

 

vi/ Faraday cages might shield against EM or they may only shield against most EM phenomena. A Faraday cage relies on the behavior of electrons in atoms to function,not on anything more fundamentally sub atomic. I can`t see how a materials conductivity would have an effect on swiftly changing fields caused by the motion of subatomic particles.

 

So your saying that gravity is caused by photons operating at wavelengths smaller than and atom? because those are high energy and easily detectable. they're called X-rays. Why don't X-ray machines suck you towards them then? but we can also block X-ray and Gamma with lead and other high-Z nuclei. Again, why no zero-g rooms?

 

vii/ I did not say QM and GR are useless.I said the interpretations of their perfect equations are contradictory and less than helpful-The equations are useful and have contributed to many technological advances.

viii/ I haven't read the physics manual from cover to cover and studied chemistry at university because I thought that some of physics was wrong even 20 years ago. Apparently even the experts are starting to think so now too.

 

Again, we've known since Einsteins time that GR and QM are not the final word in physics. They were never intended to be and nobody ever claimed they were perfect equations. Even the next 100 theories to replace them will not be perfect.

 

gravity is about 10^34 times weaker than EM but I`m talking about very small effects and the strength of gravity is entirely consistent with the probable magnitude of these effects.

 

how did you work out those probabilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying.

ii/ I`m saying that EM should cause effects from moment to moment- tugging and budging fast moving particles etc- not just over longer periods of time.Reality must be considered a sequence of moments. All this tugging and budging will result in a net attraction as objects will naturally move towards attracting objects- increasing the attraction -and move away from repelling ones.

iv/ OK-I`ve read at sometime a concern over the failure to discover monopoles.

v/ The effects of EM should be consistent over all timescales. Without momentary tugging and budging we will not get pushing and pulling and EM would have no measurable effects.

vi/ gravity is acting on us from every direction and it is very very weak in comparison to EM. Cosmologists talk about gravity waves. We`re talking about very small effects. (We`re also talking about a topic I brought up earlier on - Maybe more crazy logic but it`s consistent with this!)

ix/ The probable magnitude of these effects can only be surmised from EM effects that we are familiar with. Magnetic effects we are familiar with are very small when compared to the EM field around a hypothetical monopole. As I said,I need help with the maths to express the precise range and magnitude of these effects as it is complicated-It involves many particles -The uncertainty principle and relativistic effects have to be considered - This maths is beyond me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may find the work contained in "Gravity & Electromagnetic Waves" (which can be found www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books) interesting. There they discuss how EM waves and gravity could be unified and under what conditions gravity would be observed. I found the information it contained very interesting and well worth the read.

 

 

Anyway, if you do give it a read then I would be interested in your thoughts.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may find the work contained in "Gravity & Electromagnetic Waves" (which can be found www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books) interesting. There they discuss how EM waves and gravity could be unified and under what conditions gravity would be observed. I found the information it contained very interesting and well worth the read.

I'm not a fan of this dishonest approach to promoting your own book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukgazzer

 

 

 

I have read your attempt to suggest that gravity could result from the actions of an electromagnetic field. I have also read the replies. And although I commend you for your effort, your concept is incorrect for the reasons given by those whom replied. However, you should not be disheartened because there is a famous and highly respected statement relegating our concept of gravity to that of an illusion. Even so, you got close for the reason that I believe that the correct fundamental dynamic concept of gravity is the reverse of your idea. Due to the manner or its creation, an electron’s electromagnetic field is the direct results of its gravitating field. This last statement could evoke scorn and contempt due to present ignorance of the fundamental dynamic phenomena that constitutes an electron. The magnitude of the magnetic field of an electron is conditional to, and only originates due to the electron’s velocity.

 

 

 

With regards to the above statements, my paper posted at The General Science Journal runs to 160 A5 pages on Matter and Associated Mysteries – A proposed foundation for physics. Along with other phenomena, the paper attempts to explain the fundamental dynamic physical attributes of an electron; including the instant by instant explanation of the controversial statement above.

 

 

 

Ukgazzer. If you have an ability of logical thought and the patience to read such a comprehensive paper, it can be downloaded free from the journal referred to above.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for not getting back sooner but life interfered as it does. that and laziness.

 

Thanks for replying.

ii/ I`m saying that EM should cause effects from moment to moment- tugging and budging fast moving particles etc- not just over longer periods of time.Reality must be considered a sequence of moments. All this tugging and budging will result in a net attraction as objects will naturally move towards attracting objects- increasing the attraction -and move away from repelling ones.

 

why should it cause this? why should it have a net effect of attraction? why don't objects experience different levels of gravity based on their electrical and magnetic properties?

 

iv/ OK-I`ve read at sometime a concern over the failure to discover monopoles.

 

yes, there is concern mainly because they are a vital part of some theories attempting to be a grand unified theory. That and they are not explicitly ruled out by any known law of physics so far.

 

v/ The effects of EM should be consistent over all timescales. Without momentary tugging and budging we will not get pushing and pulling and EM would have no measurable effects.

 

how to 'tugging and budging' differ from 'pushing and pulling' surely they are different terms for the same thing. Also, if EM has no measurable effects then how can it cause gravity which is a measurable effect?

 

vi/ gravity is acting on us from every direction and it is very very weak in comparison to EM. Cosmologists talk about gravity waves. We`re talking about very small effects. (We`re also talking about a topic I brought up earlier on - Maybe more crazy logic but it`s consistent with this!)

 

yes cosmologists do talk about gravity waves but they're very different in nature to electromagnetic waves.

 

ix/ The probable magnitude of these effects can only be surmised from EM effects that we are familiar with. Magnetic effects we are familiar with are very small when compared to the EM field around a hypothetical monopole. As I said,I need help with the maths to express the precise range and magnitude of these effects as it is complicated-It involves many particles -The uncertainty principle and relativistic effects have to be considered - This maths is beyond me!

 

right, so you arrived at the number by picking the number based on a gut feel. okay.

 

I feel like we're getting into a bit of a rut here, so, new question:

 

If gravity is electromagnetic in nature, then why do photons have an infinite range?

 

To further explain, photons are affected by gravity (blackholes as an example) now, if gravity is electromagnetic in nature, then that means the photons interact with themselves. and the other forces that do that(strong nuclear) have limited range because of this self interaction. How do you explain this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All electrically neutral substances nonetheless always exhibit EM phenomena to a certain extent,although the magnitude of these effects vary on the composition. If it`s good enough for the electrons,protons in atoms then it should be good enough for more fundamental particles(if they exist)-What effects would they produce?I`m inclined to think that they would be attractive because most EM phenomena are,and attractive configurations are the lowest potential energy states-Simply speaking things prefer going downhill than uphill.

Electrical and magnetic properties are irrelevant-What causes an objects mass? An objects mass has nothing to do with its electrical and magnetic properties- The cause of mass is from something further inside atoms. There is no equation that I`m aware of that says that we`ve seen the most elementary particles. There could be 3 levels or 100 further levels of complexity inside the atom- It is an equally probable scenario - Unless there is an equation somewhere that says this is false. If somebody came out with an equation that perfectly described the universe in terms of a few more levels of reality,I can`t see any reason to object - It`s better than adding more dimensions! It is not a total impossibility that gravity and EM come from the same couple of elementary particles inside every particle that has mass (I think that this is a popular (crackpot) belief- so I worry about saying it) The difference with gravity is that it could be caused by these constantly moving particles - fixed EM fields would have an effect but that effect might only reflect the distribution of groups of particles (atomic structures) and might only manifest itself as diamagnetism,paramagnetism etc.

I didn`t say EM has no measurable effects- If it is truly a fundamental force then it must be acting at every level of reality on even the fastest moving particles inside atoms.Question:If bodies are moving in perfect ellipses are they being affected by photons/gravitons with infinite wavelengths because they would have to be arriving at every instant to effect the change-otherwise wouldn't we have hexagonal orbits etc? And if particles have infinite wavelength,can we consider them particles?

How are gravity waves different from EM waves? If gravity came from electromagnetism then massive bodies would alter EM fields just like EM induction- Light emitted from massive bodies is weakened-The field is weakened-This is consistent with the bodies countering the field-Electromagnetic Induction. Frame dragging - Electromagnetic induction. All light phenomena attributed to gravitational effects could be attributed to EM induction.

Mentioning photons is leading to another discussion I started about wave-particle duality. My logic in that is consistent with the logic in this. I`m not aware of a phenomenon whereby photons interact with themselves. Photons are very nice at explaining the photoelectric effect-but I think that describing light as a particle might`ve been a convenient shortcut. If you can describe a phenomenon where photons interact with themselves,I will have to find a way out of it though!

(This all sounds very arrogant and I do get shaky when questioning Einstein!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again Ukgazzer.

 

 

 

I see you have not availed yourself of the offer in my reply to your idea that gravity could result from electromagnetic energy.

 

In your reply to Insane alien directly above, you state that an object’s mass has nothing to do with its electrical and magnetic abilities. If you reduce that statement down to a particle object, you should find that the magnitude of its electrical ability if detectible, is conditioned by its mass.

 

I would remind that in all experience, gravity always has an attracting effect.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I-try.Nowadays I find that I hardly have time to read 10 pages but I`m sure that everyone here would like to see a summary if you`ve got the time.

I haven`t heard any convincing arguments why my interpretation is wrong-Although somebody will probably find one soon. At the moment we seem to be at the chicken-and-egg stage of the debate and maybe my powers of rational thought

are`nt particularly good because I can`t see why everybody is convinced that I`m wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.