In electromagnetism the Coulomb force F=q1q2/r^2, the Lorentz force F=q(E+νxB), are computed treating spacetime as flat, and we are measuring what is actually a macroscopic phenomenon, not at the microscopic level. But this does not mean that the principle fails completely at the microscopic level.
Consider particles with mass such as electrons, which should have both electromagnetic and gravitational forces (we cannot rule out the validity of GR at tiny masses). Looking at an electron from the outside, it expresses electric field, magnetic moment, and mass. The Stern-Gerlach experiment fully expressed these covariates [1]. The electron involves only 4 factors, time t, space x, electric field E, and magnetic field H. We express the electron in the set e={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, where the elements are all variables. This then implies that the external electromagnetic force, gravitational force, and mass, should all be able to be described by these components, since we can only act on the electron through these components.
Mass then could be exclusively electromagnetic mass [2][3], me={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, regardless of the mechanism by which it is produced [4]. The electric field force can likewise be expressed only in terms of Fe=α{Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, and the gravitational force in terms of the set Fg=G{Δt, Δx}. Obviously, this is their simplest expression.
We need not consider what the electron is. It can be inferred from the set that its electric and gravitational forces overlap, since they share the same part of spacetime expression. This can also be seen by comparing Coulomb's law with Newton's law of gravity. As for neutral massive particles, they can be regarded as cancelling out the electromagnetic field [5] leaving only the Fg = G{Δt, Δx} part. In this way, the gravitational force is naturally unified to the electromagnetic force, and they are coupled together by the spacetime {Δt, Δx}, and automatically incorporated into the gauge field theory; the 'graviton' can be regarded as the spacetime product of the 'photon'. As for gravitational waves, they can be regarded as a part of space-time detached from accelerated motion, like electromagnetic waves radiated by accelerated electrons. This is exactly what Poincaré envisaged [6].
"After Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, in which a dynamical role was given to geometry, Herman Weyl conjectured that perhaps the scale of length would also be dynamical. He imagined a theory in which the scale of length, indeed the scale of all dimensional quantities, would vary from point to point in space and in time. His motivation was to unify gravity and electromagnetism, to find a geometrical origin for electrodynamics. [7, 8]" Wouldn't Weyl have been right if, instead of searching for a geometrical origin of electromagnetism, he had searched for an electromagnetic origin of gravity? Wouldn't electromagnetism be equally geometrical if one considered that the electromagnetic force Fe = α{Δt, Δx, E, H} is essentially the same as that resulting from variations of {Δt, Δx} therein?
-------------------------------
References
[1] Schmidt-Böcking, H., Schmidt, L., Lüdde, H. J., Trageser, W., Templeton, A., & Sauer, T. (2016). The Stern-Gerlach experiment revisited. The European Physical Journal H, 41(4), 327-364. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2016-70053-2
[2] Thomson, J. J. (1881). XXXIII. On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 11(68), 229-249.
[3] What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO45_What_is_Mass_Must_the_Hierarchy_of_Mass_be_Determined_Simultaneously_by_the_Origin_of_Mass
[4] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.
[5] The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (2) - Is the Meaning of Zero Unified in Different Situations in Physics? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO26The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_2-Is_the_Meaning_of_Zero_Unified_in_Different_Situations_in_Physics
[6] H. Poincaré
[7] Straub, W. O. (2009). Weyl's 1918 Theory Revisited. Pasadena, California. Disponível em: http://www. weylmann. com/revisited. pdf.
[8] Gross, D. J. (1992). Gauge theory-past, present, and future? Chinese Journal of Physics, 30(7), 955-972.
The argument suggests that gravity and electromagnetism could be unified by recognizing their shared dependence on spacetime variables Δt,Δx, proposing that mass may be an emergent property derived from electromagnetic factors. By expressing an electron's properties as a set e={Δt,Δx,ΔE,ΔH}, it posits that both electric and gravitational forces are manifestations of interactions within this framework. Coulomb’s law and Newton’s law of gravity share structural similarities, implying a potential overlap in their spacetime expressions. Neutral massive particles could cancel electromagnetic contributions, leaving only gravitational effects, while gravitational and electromagnetic waves might both emerge as spacetime distortions linked to accelerated motion. This perspective aligns with Weyl’s ideas on unification through geometry but reverses the approach, suggesting gravity might stem from electromagnetic phenomena. This view reframes the graviton as a spacetime analog of the photon, hinting at an intrinsic connection within gauge field theory.
Dear Chian Fan ,
to answer the question of this discussion, I will have to repeat myself, which I do not like very much. But to remain silent - I do not like it even more.
So, the first thing I have to do is to agree with your words: "Looking at an electron from the outside, it expresses electric field, magnetic moment, and mass. The Stern-Gerlach experiment fully expressed these covariates ." And to repeat what was said in the previous discussion, that the influence on the surrounding space from the electric charge and from the mass (also a charge in a sense) are two different and independent influences. From these words it follows that there can be no unification of gravity and electromagnetism. My regrets.(
The fact is that an electric charge e, although fixed on a particle with mass, can not only distort the surrounding space due to the associated ring of magnetic flux μ: h=e·μ (see discussion NO.52 and earlier), but also excite discrete elements of this space in the form of photons. I also wrote about this in previous discussions, as well as about the fact that electromagnetic space is fundamentally discrete, Finslerian in essence, and its elements are quanta of action h. Therefore, four-dimensional space-time is a classical idea of space on large scales and with a large number of small elements. This is a dead end, in which there can be no talk of any unification with quantum representations. Alas.(
The mass of a particle, which is a discrete element of another space - nuclear, can only distort the discrete elements of electromagnetic space, but not excite them. This occurs due to the fact that the mass m of elementary particles, by analogy with the electric charge, is surrounded by a ring flow of curvature X: h = m·X. Unfortunately, this is only my hypothesis, and the scientific community hardly knows anything about it. It follows from this that there can be no "gravitons" like photons in nature. Again - alas.(
Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.
To answer the thread question
“【NO.53】Unification Issues (2) - Why can't gravity be considered the spacetime part of the electromagnetic force?”
- it is evidently before to define scientifically what are “spacetime”, “gravity”, and “electromagnetic force”,
- what is fundamentally impossible in mainstream physics, since in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”,
– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational.
The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;
- and more concretely at application to the Set’s element “Mater” in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics
So, say, from the scientific definitions of “Space” and “Time” rigorously scientifically it follows that any concrete actualizations of “Space” in concrete informational pattern/system, including the “Matter”, as concrete the pattern’s/system’s N-dimensional “space”, is nothing else than the absolutely necessary logical possibility to place the pattern/system in “space” and to change its state, while N is number of degreases of freedom at the state changes; and
“Time” is actualized as absolutely universal for all elements in the Set, including Matter, fundamentally unique, “time dimension”.
I.e. in every concrete case the space and time really are only some “empty container”, where a concrete pattern/system exists and changes.
Correspondingly any concrete space fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t interact with anything in the pattern/system, and can be changed only provided that the pattern/system is changed so, that some new degreases of freedom appear.
As that rigorously scientifically rationally shown, basing on really outstanding von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings in the Planck scale model above,
- Matter is based on a binary reversible logics, and so the Matter’s ultimate base is (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with space metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,),
- and everything in Matter is/are only some disturbances in the lattice that exist and interact in this space, while in parallel at every change everything moves on some time interval in the time ct-dimension.
So any impact on the space above is possible only at some FLE change, what is fundamentally impossible, while any impact on the time dimension is impossible absolutely.
Including fundamentally nothing happens with Matter’s space/time/spacetime when fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces act at interactions of the disturbances – particles, atoms, stars, etc., etc., etc.
The post is rather long, so nownow
Cheers
Dear Mikhail N Dulin
Thank you very much for your interest and reply! I like your style, cautious, rational, and some worries.
I'm happy to hear that others have the same opinion, because I may be right, and I'm happy to hear that others have a different opinion, because I have an additional reference against which to judge my own opinion.
I think it's very good that you emphasise the nature and role of h, and whatever h actually is; at least at the microscopic level, there is agreement among many. h exists everywhere, except in gravity. How can h be missing from gravity when it is included in energy-momentum? It is the consensus of physicists that the quantum state appears to be unaffected by gravity. We usually say it is too weak. But, in the quantum range, the energy density isn't small. Have we considered that gravity is reflected by the spacetime parameter, which can be absorbed into the wave function? My point is that the gravitational effect is already in the wave function and cannot be distinguished. So it looks like quantum field theory is correct even without considering quantum gravity.
‘The fact is that an electric charge e, although fixed on a particle with mass ....’ We need to note that charge and mass are not independent if the mass is electromagnetic mass. We may have different views on the properties of particles. This is not surprising, because physics doesn't have a view either. We think of the electron as a ‘black box’. If we have access to all its behavioural patterns through e={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, then charge, mass, electromagnetic force, gravitational force, do not need to, and should not, go beyond this set. Is this view reasonable?
Best Regards, Chian Fan
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts