Since atoms are made of charged particles, why should we exclude the possibility that gravity comes from atomic charges and polarization effects?

There have been efforts to find out if there is a way to link gravity to quantum mechanics for decades, but although some questions have been partially resolved the problem, no experiments have helped lead to a solution. In fact, the recent proof that quantum entanglement exists has so muddied the waters that things are far more complicated than ever before. As a result, whether we or space even exist or are some kind of delusion is now the biggest question of all. (It has almost always been true that we don't even know what we think we know, and that's even truer now than ever before.) So there HAVE been huge mental and mechanical efforts for about 80 years, but all we've learned is that we know even less than we thought we did the best part of a century ago, and it isn't that people haven't tried to solve such problems, but that every effort to solve the question has simply made things more confused than ever. So although I think I'm typing this answer, whether you, I or anything else that we think we know may be just an illusion.

Leila Kalhor

Gravity cannot be explained as a byproduct of atomic charges or polarization effects because: Matter is charge-neutral on large scales. Gravity affects uncharged particles like photons. Gravity is universally attractive. Observations match spacetime curvature, not residual electromagnetism.

Bittu Kumar

Leila Kalhor Madam, can you give me some examples so that I can answer this question? Try giving some other example instead of gravitational lensing.

Bittu Kumar

Courtney Seligman Sir, I agree that for many decades scientists have been trying to relate gravity to quantum mechanics, and the problem has only gotten more complicated rather than reaching a clear solution. But in my research I propose that gravity is not a separate fundamental force – it actually arises from the atomic structure itself, which I have called the nuclear polarization force. This relates gravity directly to quantum mechanics because it arises from the nuclei of atoms, not from spacetime curvature or some hypothetical graviton. The difficulty has been that people have been searching for gravity outside the quantum world, when in fact gravity already exists inside quantum mechanics through nuclear charges and interactions. This is why experiments so far have not yielded clarity. In my model, gravity is not an illusion – it is a measurable electromagnetic effect arising from atomic nuclei, and I have also suggested experiments to verify this. So rather than making the situation more confusing, I believe the confusion is because the true origin of gravity has never been properly identified. By viewing gravity as an electromagnetic phenomenon, intertwined with atoms, we can clear up the confusion and bring practical clarity to the quantum gravity problem.

Bittu Kumar

Kayode Richard Ajulo Sir, in my research I have shown that gravity is not just a simple effect of ordinary electromagnetic polarization, but a new type of electromagnetic interaction at the nuclear level, which I call the nuclear polarization force. This is why previous experiments did not match, because they were testing ordinary charge polarization, not this intense nuclear effect. Neutral objects are not actually without interactions, because their nuclei still have positive charges that can weakly polarize surrounding atoms. This explains why gravity acts even on neutral matter and why its scaling law appears to be different from classical electromagnetism. In my model, the unique behavior of gravity is not separate from electromagnetism, but a special quantum nuclear effect that can unify the two.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

Kindly refer to section 2 of my following paper, you will find it interesting.