We observe the gravitational forces of visible bodies and infer an attractive force from what is called dark matter.  My most recent idea on this is as follows. Photons, as we know them, have an oscillating electric field and and oscillating magnetic field.

Let us imagine a dhoton - that is a dark matter photon.  A dhoton may be missing one of the two fields - I would suggest the electric field is the missing one (as it is the one which most readily interacts with biological material) which would mean that the dhoton consist of an oscillating magnetic field and the gravitational field component rides along with it as I have defined it here.

David L Evans Ph D 30th August 2017

Matter is nothing but condensed form of energy. So in the universe there are only two things that exists. Energy and consciousness (Spirit). The gravity exists not only between masses but also energy. This is why light deflects near a source of gravity. Light has no mass. The Spirit and energy, eventhough appear to be different are in reality only one. Spirit is perfectly motionless, infinite all pervasive and indivisible. When it begins to move, it creates waves and becomes energy. Energy is experienced by the human mind through senses which themselves are made up of energy. But when the human mind is able to look at its own Spirit, it finds out the infinitude and indivisibility of the Spirit. The energy disappears. So in reality there is only one thing that exists which is Spirit. This indivisibility of Spirit shows up in physics as wave particle duality, entanglement, quark confinement and so on. When the particle anti particle pair are born, because of this indivisibility there develops a stress within the fundamental substance of the universe which is Spirit. General relativity describes this stress in terms of stress energy tensor. So this underlying field of Spirit stores this gravitational energy in the form of stress. General relativity calls this space-time membrane or space-time fabric. More details in following article.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262494186_Consciousness_and_energy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266618399_Unified_field_of_consciousness

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Big-Bang-Assumptions-Problems/dp/1613245777/ref=sr_1_5?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333360764&sr=1-5

Chapter Consciousness and energy

Article Unified field of consciousness

It is the stress-energy tensor which is the source both for matter and for other forms such as EM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

First of all, I want to thank to all the persons that spent some of their precious time reading my thoughts and questions, and providing me some answers.

To David Evans I would like to comment as follows:

In answering to my question: "What is the property of the matter that is responsible for the gravitational field?", I see that you focus on dark matter and dhotons. I understand that you go to dark matter, since gravitational field seems to be the dominant field that keeps matter tied together inside a black hole. You mention that electric field is off (in dhotons) remaining magnetic and gravitational fields only. I have some difficulty in separating electric and magnetic field since they complement each other. (Maxwell´s equations acknowledge this). As you know, Electric field is associated with the electric radiation and magnetic field is associated with the movement of electric charges under the influence of an electric field.

In my opinion, the dominant presence of gravitational field associated with black holes, comes from the fact, that black hole temperature is close to 0º K. Electric energy radiation depends on T4 (Boltzman). So if T tends to 0º K, then almost no electric energy radiation exists  and as a consequence, almost no electric field exists inside the black hole. And I would say almost no magnetic field exists also.

We could think that a static magnetic field could exist if magnetic properties of some materials maintain. However, probably, at T close to 0ºK the electric properties of the matter vanish, and the differences among the different atomic materials almost disappear forming an electrically neutral “black point” of almost infinite density. As a consequence, everything reaching the horizon of the black hole is pulled into the black hole.

If this is the case inside the black hole, the gravitational field is almost the only existing. Yet, this does not answer my question: “What is the property of the matter that is responsible for the gravitational field?”

 To Vikram Zaveri I would like to comment as follows:

I can´t understand your claim that “in reality there is only one thing that exists which is Spirit” … “this underlying field of Spirit stores this gravitational energy in the form of stress”.

In order to understand your statements, I really need to know your concept of “Spirit”. As you very well know, there are spirit and spirit. For instance, we talk about “the spirit of the law…”, we say that “a person is in good spirit or in bad spirit”. There is the spirit of this world, that influences everybody to adopt the same behavior (e.g., see the widespread social networks), etc. There is also the spiritual nature of the human being, that is, the aspects of our nature that makes us to love music, art, a sunset, etc. And there is also the spirit, spoken by Jesus Christ when he said “blessed are the poor in spirit” (King James version). Spirit appears also, in the, probably most controversial statement already made: “in the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth…. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (King James version). In any of the above references, spirit is always associated with a “dominant force”.

Can you provide us with a clear, scientific definition of what is, for you, the Spirit you refer in your comments? I thank you in advance.

To George Dishman I would like to comment as follows:

As I understand, a tensor is a mathematical tool, an abstraction, that allows us to represent under certain circumstances, a given reality. That is, a tensor is a powerful MODEL.

However, as far as we understand, matter is a reality, in our Universe. Models can accurately describe the properties and the behavior of a given reality, within the model’s domain of validity.

Nevertheless, you say, answering to my question: “It is the stress-energy tensor which is the source both for matter and for other forms such as EM.”

Do you mean that a model of some reality is the source of the reality it models?

Please forgive me my doubt, but I need to understand the underlying reality, the “hardware” behind a model, before formalizing it.

Clarifying (I hope) what I say -  for instance, when we say that a digital bit may assume one out of two values, 0 or 1, this is a mathematical abstraction. In reality, a bit represents, in a higher abstraction level, the output voltage of a physical device, e.g., a transistor, that is biased in such a way that it will assume only two voltage levels. We deal with this in formal way, by assigning one level to 0 and the other to 1. Yet, we can hardly say that the bit is the source of the transistor.

So, I hope you will forgive me, If I am not happy with your answer to my question “What is the property of the matter that is responsible for the gravitational field?”, and I would appreciate very much that you, please clarify this cause-effect dilemma? Thanks in advance.

ICT: Do you mean that a model of some reality is the source of the reality it models?

No, what I mean is that you can look at the components of the stress-energy tensor to see what is the source of gravity. You asked: "What is the property of the matter that is responsible for the gravitational field?" and the tensor lists those properties for you. Most people think first of mass, but that is just one form of energy, and energy density is the 00 component of the tensor. There are are also components for pressure, momentum density and momentum flux. All of those together are the source of gravity.

In your question, you also mentioned electromagnetic fields and the EM stress-energy tensor tells you what aspects of the EM field do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

Most human beings operate with their mind. When a person says "I", he usually means his body and mind. He cannot go any deeper than that. If he finds out the origin of his "I", he would know the foundation of the world. This "I" exists in every person and also other creatures. This same I supports all the material elements of science. When Moses asked God, "who are you?" Then the God said, "I am what I am." This is my definition of Spirit.

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” In this statement Spirit God and water are one and the same, which is "I'. The water represents the Spirit in motion which are the waves of quantum mechanics representing energy. This statement "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” should be

interpreted to mean "The motionless Spirit began to move by its own Will." So the Spirit is the fundamental substance of the universe. Old testament was written some 3400 years ago. And in those days with limited knowledge of men to whom it was preached, the creation could not have been explained in better way then "And the Spirit of God

moved upon the face of the waters.”

But the creation was explained in a little different way to people of India some 5000 years ago. In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna the incarnation of God, says, "I am the source of all, everything is produced out of Me, knowing thus the wise worship Me with devotion. (BG: 10.8). I shall tell you that which has to be known, knowing which one attains immortality; it is the beginningless, supreme Brahman (Spirit or all pervasive Sri Krishna Himself or the Father in heaven), which is said to be neither being nor non-being. (BG:13.12). With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and faces everywhere, with ears everywhere, It rests pervading everything in this world.(BG:13.13). It is manifest in the functions of the various sense organs, yet bereft of all sense-organs, unattached, yet sustaining everything. Without attributes, yet the

protector of the qualities. (BG:13.14). It is witout and within all beings, It is moving and unmoving, being subtle, It is incomprehensible, It is far, yet near.(BG:13.15). It is undivided in beings and yet remains as if divided; that knowable is the sustainer of beings as also the destroyer and creator. (BG:13.16). It is the Light of lights and is said to be beyond all darkness. It is knowledge, the knowable and accessible through knowledge, and is implanted in the heart of all beings. (BG:13.17)

Dear George

Thanks for your prompt reply. I need to reflect on what you say. I will give your answer my deep thoughts. thanks again.

Dear Vikram

I think that we are sliding to the religious territory. I would not like to enter in such discussion. At least in this forum.

Moreover, they are starting points in your exposition that I do not share with you. For instance, taking your words: "Old testament was written some 3400 years ago. And in those days with limited knowledge of men to whom it was preached, the creation could not have been explained in better way then "And the Spirit of God

moved upon the face of the waters.”

You suggest that such people was not able to understand more extensive explanation of the origin of the universe. I found that difficult to accept. As you know, Genesis has been written by Moses, a man raised up as a prince of Egypt. The Bible says he has acquired all the knowledge of Egypt.

As you Know,  Egyptians are the guys that advanced in geometry, that identify the PI. On the other hand, they built up the pyramids, and other overwhelming buildings. Without none of the present technology.

Israeli people, the ones to whom those words have been primarily written, lived in Egypt for more than 400 year. They were among (as far as I know) the few peoples that could read and write. Even women, that should teach their children. So, I really don´t think they have understanding limitations.

Even, now, there are many "readings" of that book. We are just two of us, and I have a very different "reading".

Anyway, thank you very much for taking the trouble to read my thoughts and answering me.

Dear I.C. Teixeira:

You are welcome.

Hi Mr Teixeira

You might want to read "On the Forces Of Nature"

This working paper shows how mass is formed and why it causes gravity, electric charge, etc.

Article On the Forces of Nature - Working paper, in progress

thanks. I will do that.

Dear I.C,

You write:

"Electromagnetic fields results from the electric nature of the matter constituting blocks. They carry electric charge. Gravitational fields are closed associated with mass. Electromagnetic forces are formally described by the values of charges in presence. Gravitational forces are formally described by the values of the masses in presence."

Since electrons have both charge and mass, and that you perceive that charge is closely relate to electromagnetism, and that mass is closely related to gravitation, doesn't this tell you something?

 Since that from your own reasoning the electron is thus related to both electromagnetism and gravitation, doesn't this give you a hint that maybe gravitation may be related to electromagnetism?

There is an old logic principle stating that if two quantities are equal to a third, they can only be mutually equal.

This was Einstein's conclusion shortly before he passed away.

Dear André

Thanks for your answer.

You say:

"Since electrons have both charge and mass, and that you perceive that charge is closely relate to electromagnetism, and that mass is closely related to gravitation, doesn't this tell you something? Since that from your own reasoning the electron is thus related to both electromagnetism and gravitation, doesn't this give you a hint that maybe gravitation may be related to electromagnetism?"

My answer is: No, it does not tell me what I would like to know with my question.

What I know, is the fact that, what we call "mass" is used to describe, for instance, the gravitational force. It does not tell me, what, "inside" the mass, gives origin to an attractive force, which is the aim of my question and what  I would like to understand.

The same with electric charge, that has been used to describe the various effects of electromagnetic fields, for instance, energy transmission,  and information transmission.

Electromagnetic and gravitational effects are interconnected? Or, with other words: are what we call mass and what we call charge interconnected? That, I also, would like very much to know. As far as I understand, this is still a question on the road, for which there is not an universally accepted answer.

you say also: "There is an old logic principle stating that if two quantities are equal to a third, they can only be mutually equal."

I agree with you. more, I wouldn't call it a "principal". I would call it a fact.

But in the case under discussion, what are the three things that you refer as equal?

Dear I.C,

You write:

" What I know, is the fact that, what we call "mass" is used to describe, for instance, the gravitational force. It does not tell me, what, "inside" the mass, gives origin to an attractive force, which is the aim of my question and what  I would like to understand."

You have a very good point indeed. I will address only this point for now.

The fact that at our macroscopic level, in classical as well as in relativistic mechanics, all bodies are treated as if they had no internal structure, is a major impediment to relating mass with electric charges and then with electromagnetism.

I could try to explain what I understand.

We must take into consideration that the conclusion that a gravitational force function of the inverse square of the distance between "masses" was conceived of by Newton before it was known that macroscopic masses were made of accumulation of individual massive atoms and that electrons possessed electric charges. So it was impossible for him to take this into account.

Now, even now that we know this, classical mechanics and relativistic mechanics still deals with macroscopic masses as if they had no internal structure.

Since electrons have mass, the classical definition of mass has been carried on unchanged to describe electrons from the viewpoint of classical and relativistic mechanics, which is no help in understanding its internal structure.

On the other hand, the unit charge of the electron was experimentally measured with the highest precision by Millikan in the 1920's. It is a measured quantity, not one derived from any theory. In other words, it is a fact of life. If you look up Millikan's work, you will get the details.

As to the internal structure of the electron mass, we know conclusively that it is made of electromagnetic energy because it was discovered by Blackett and Occhialini, beginning of the 1930's, that massless electromagnetic photons of 1.022 MeV or more can be destabilized into converting to massive electron-positron pairs and that the mass of a pair of electron and positron metastabilizing into positronium configuration will reconvert back to massless electromagnetic photon state as the final stage of the positronium decay process, which was also initially confirmed by Blackett and Occhialini in the same period. If you look up the work of these researchers, you will get the whole story.

Now,  as Maxwell was in the process of synthesizing in the mid 1850's the equations established by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere from experimental data on electricity and magnetism, he discovered that electromagnetic energy can exist only if its electric and magnetic fields mutually induce each other.

This means that the internal structure of the mass of an electron can only be a self-sustaining quantum of mutually inducing electric and magnetic energy.

It is known also that the Coulomb force, which can be derived from Gauss's equation for the electric field, is the only known force that can induce kinetic energy in charged particles, and that it also operates as a function of the inverse square of the distance between charged particles.

We thus know the internal electromagnetic structure of the mass of electrons, and that the electromagnetic Coulomb force which is the only force that was found to be acting on the unit charge of the electron obeys the same law as the inverse square "gravitation law" that Newton discovered.

It is even possible to mathematical prove the identity of both.

Thus the relation that I drew, and that I think Einstein also drew at the end of his life is that

unit-charge is equivalent to unit-electron-mass and inverse-square-Coulomb-force is equivalent to inverse-square-gravitational-force

So, looks like mass vs gravitational force perspective can only be a more general description of the totally precise charge vs Coulomb force, which comes from electromagnetism.

That's what I understand.

Dear André

thanks

you say: "So, looks like mass vs gravitational force perspective can only be a more general description of the totally precise charge vs Coulomb force, which comes from electromagnetism".

how does "mass vs gravitational force perspective" which is unidirectional, answer for the bidirectional (attractive/repulsive) character of charge driven forces?

Dear I.C,

You write:

"how does "mass vs gravitational force perspective" which is unidirectional, answer for the bidirectional (attractive/repulsive) character of charge driven forces?"

Here also, there was a carry on from the definition of the concept of "force" that was the only possible definition before charges were discovered.

When the existence of opposite charges were experimentally discovered at the macroscopic level by Coulomb, the Coulomb force was defined as an attractive/repulsive force as a function of the inverse square of the distance between oppositely charged macroscopic bodies (containing ionized atoms), some overloaded with electrons and others deprived of some electrons.

Close analysis shows that in reality, the so-called Coulomb "force" does not attract or repel as such, but only induces kinetic energy in charged particles, and that it is this kinetic energy that vectorially unidirectionally orients itself to propel like sign charged electrons away from each other and to cause opposite sign charges electron and positron to move towards each other.

So there is no real action at a distance. From the electromagnetic perspective, there is only local induction of vectorially oriented momentum related unidirectional kinetic energy in each charged particle.

The "attraction/ repulsion" is only "apparent". The actual moving is done by the kinetic energy adiabatically induced in all charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distances separating them.

The "Coulomb force" needs to be redefined accordingly to correctly account for the fact that it adiabatically induces vectorially oriented kinetic energy, and does not "repels and attracts".

Hi I. C and Andre

you may both find this working paper interesting.

It shows the creation of mass and charge, as well as the gravitational field, for the electron.

Article On the Forces of Nature - Working paper, in progress

Dear Chip,

Thank you for sharing, Looks well explained with consistent math.

I will print it out for reading at leasure.

Thank you Andre. I appreciate your interest.

Dear Chip,

I am quite impressed with your paper.

You seem to have developed a coherent model of the photon and the electron within 3D space, which is something that I thought was not really possible.

I also developed a model for the photon and the electron, but in an expanded space geometry, in which the transverse angular momentum of you model is replaced by a transverse reciprocating electromagnetic swing between electric state and magnetic state, and magnetic spin is a spherical 180 deg swing between two directions of spherical motion  of the particle's energy.

I don't really see at first glance how both models can be correlated but I conclude that we are looking at the same thing simply from different angles. Since we both use the same type of simple mathematical notation, you certainly could easily navigate my model and maybe see how they can connect.

If interested, you could see the structure of the photon in the trispatial geometry in the first paper, and that of the electron in the second paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Article The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model

Thank you Andre

I will read your paper with great interest.  It is remarkable how two people with totally different perspectives often arrive at models which correlate, even if the methods of explanation are quite different.

Indeed, nobody knows what is really out there at the submicroscopic level.

We each explore from the data that we have become privy to.

The keyword is "convergence".

Objective description will have been reached when the systhesis of the correct sub-conclusions of each individual subjective model provides a model that leaves nothing unexplained.

This is why all individual subjective models are important until this synthesis can be achieved.

yes André.

I completely agree with you. and I think that if we can combine the insight of maths with the physics reasoning I think we will be closer, and yet far away. I believe that the complexity of what surrounds us, will probably, lead (always?) us  to the point where we say like Socrates... I only know that I know nothing... At the point where we are, I fell that the more we learn, the more we WOW with what is beyond. at least for me.

For instance, thinking in BH, and in Boltzmann temperature effects on EM radiation,  could we simply include the temperature effects on gravitational forces, to justify, forces inside the BH?

Or, in another perspective:

For instance, thinking in BH, and in Boltzmann temperature effects on EM radiation, could we simply neglect EM forces and only the "good old gravitational forces" remain as the force inside the BH?

Dear I.C.,

Well, it is true that as individuals, we all start with a blank slate as far as knowledge goes when just born, but quite a bit of knowledge has been gathered by humanity over time about the submicroscopic level.

The issue of knowledge acquisition is many-faceted.

The first issue is accessibility.

Is all available data accessible to all? The answer is no.

Top tier peer-reviewed formal journals actually prevent universal accessibility of important results because the research papers that they publish can be accessed only via payment, or astronomical yearly fees, such as the Royal Society, for example.

Very detrimental to research, because this causes a majority of researchers to become informed only by chance of critically important information, since they would have to pay a fortune that they simply don't have, just to scan through the backlog of past papers, most of which do not contain info that they need.

For example, I know of one bit of critically important research that most physicists just don't know about simply because it is lost in a sea of have-to-pay-for papers, that I chanced upon only because I purchased a centennial issue edition (unrelated to the Royal Society) that contained many papers I needed on elementary particles scattering experiments.

It concerns the observation by John Blewett that individual high energy electrons stabilized on perfectly circular orbits inside the GE Betatron constantly lost energy without radiating it. The Betatron was decommissioned in 1945, and this 2nd principle of thermodynamics related case was left unexplained and un-researched to this day.

However, so little has been discovered during the past decades that most important issues have leaked here and there in the more easily available literature, so that the really critical info required to address gravitation can now rather easily be gotten at. But no one knows what important tidbits could still be lost in this heap of must-pay-for archives.

The second issue, is what of the should-know-data, in the available pool, will each individual get at.

Very variable and typically incomplete, which directly relates to Socrates' "I only know that I know nothing".

This remark is two-pronged however.

It may relate to not having access to all should-know-data already gathered on one hand for the reason mentioned, and not having yet access to should-know-data not yet gathered about physical reality at the submicroscopic level.

The first case can be addressed over time if an individual keeps on digging until he has gotten hold of sufficient data in the acquired pool to draw realistic conclusions.

The second case is open to speculation.

I observed that in the should-know-data, we know through experimental scattering since the second half of the 1960's, the only 3 scatterable, stable and charged elementary electromagnetic particles that are required to address the gravitation issue from the electromagnetic perspective.

They are the key because they are the only existing elementary charged and massive building blocs of all atoms in existence, of which all macroscopic bodies are made.

They are the electron, the up quark and the down quark. All other particles in the standard model are partons obtained by means of destructive scattering either not elementary, or unstable that degrade practically instantly, leaving behind only stable forms, such as electron, positron, proton and neutron and free moving photons and neutrinos. Of the whole set, only the first 3 can be found through non-destructive scattering inside atoms and nucleons.

With regard to temperature, and the Boltzmann constant,  this is a macroscopic measuring means. It does not take into account the adiabatic energy that remains induced in atoms even at zero Kelvin. For example, even when all extra energy is removed from an hydrogen atom, so it is stabilized at 0 Kelvin, an adiabatic amount of 27.2 eV still remains induced in the electron captive in the ground state resonance orbital, so EM forces cannot be neglected even at 0 Kelvin.

Could you clarify what you mean by BH?