Hi Hewa,

some interesting replies here. I also think gravity and the other 'forces' are interactions. Gravity IS linked to quantum theory however, and to GR (read my article for example) which shows the electrostatic interaction is also related. Gravity = GE/c (squared) = [2 x phi (4th) x elementary charge x momentum]/pi (squared), among other expressions. I hope to also show how gravity links with the strong and weak interactions in the near future.

It appears gravity is a property or cost of having mass. Since many of the 'constants' run with the energy scale (e.g. the fine structure constant, gravitational constant, elementary charge) and they are all united via an 'interaction constant', we can have constant change (with energy) in the universe without changing principal ratios. Current 'mainstream' beliefs about masses of galaxies are incorrect, and when suitably modified by running constants, remove the need for ad hoc features like dark energy/matter. [It would actually be more fun, and no less correct to have dark chocolate filling space :)].

Like momentum, gravity is only a 'one-way' deal. You either have it, or not. If you don't, then you don't have mass or wavelength.

Gravity is only a 'weak' interaction in weak energy fields. At large energies (close distances) gravity becomes very strong. It is this aspect that fuels researchers to seek a theory unifying all the 'forces'.

Thank you for asking good questions.

regards,

Terry

If you think that curvature of space time it did not specify to gravity at all . How ever you can use same curvature to explain electrical forces too. Then gravity and electricity can be easy to unify . also electrical forces and quantum have been already unify in standard model.

Thanks for your answer, to my knowledge The Standard Model describes three of the four fundamental forces in nature; only gravity remains unexplained.

Look at Wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model ) further more there are numbers of Unsolved problem in physics:

What gives rise to the Standard Model of particle physics?

Why do particle masses and coupling constants have the values that we measure?

Why are there three generations of particles?

Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?

Where does Dark Matter fit into the model? .....etc

What i mean is if gravity and electric forces unify , then we can have all bunch in unify with standard model.

Because it's not known how to describe superpositions of spacetime geometries.

There is necessarily a theory which will explain all physics. The problem to day is that all theories are superficial and/or wrong. There is no real understanding of the fundamental forces. Just think on the physical constants; if you can not give a detailed explanation to why they have the value they have, then you have not understood the under laying forces.

Gravitation remains a physical interaction very different that the other three. The General Relativity which is the most accepted theory of gravitation has many problems when it is tried to be formulated as a Quantum Field Theory. The most important is that its non renormalization which prevents to find a realiable Quantum Gravitation Theory.

The other three interactions seems to stay quite well into the Standard Model and In 1968 S. Glashow, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg developed an electroweak theory that united electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. In 1979 they received the Nobel Prize by it. The prediction of the mass of the Z boson fits quite well the predicted theoretical mass in SU(2) x U(1) where the mass of W and the coupling constants e (electric charge), GF (Fermi constant).

The unification with the strong interaction is a good hypothesis for the moment because it was not confirmed experimentally and there several compiting models to explain it. The most important problem is that its highest energy needed to reach it, around 10^16 GeV.

In summary, the gravitational interaction is not possible even to be quantized and the other three interactions only the electroweak has some experimental support for the moment although the strong interaction seems to converge to unification at very high energies.

Hewa Mustafa

Gravity is not a force of attraction between masses as wrongly and incorrectly interpreted by Newton. Instead, as correctly described by Albert Einstein, gravity, even when weak, manifests itself beyond locality as metrical curvature of spacetime where geometry becomes physical through gravity and vice versa. Locally, there is no gravity thanks to Einstein equivalence principle. Thus gravity is non-local similarly to non-locality in quantum field theory whether of first or second quantization, since all events in a scale less than Planck distance are unobservable, thus quantumly do not exist. More details can be found in the attached file worked by Professor Xavier Calmet, who is an expert professor in quantum gravity and black holes at Department of Physics and Astronomy at University of Sussex, United Kingdom https://indico.cern.ch/event/402465/contributions/1846156/attachments/1180856/1710203/Non-locality_in_QFT_NExT_Nov_2015.pdf

Since the mathematical structure of general relativity is geometrically pseudo-Riemannian, general relativity heals itself by itself, resulting in successful quantization of gravity as an effective field theory by means of the well-established perturbation theory yielding a quantum gravity theory physically constructed by Einstein's linearized gravity and to which is added a second-order Hermitian perturbation since gravity interacts by itself due to its non-linearity thus there is no repulsion between opposite charges and linearity, which is the case of electromagnetism, but instead pure attraction, even though both electromagnetism and gravity are long range interactions. Quantum field theory and gravity are surely compatible, unlike the old-fashioned days where it was thought that they were not, and non-renormalization is not an issue for an effective perturbative theory, thus quantum general relativity is an excellent perturbative theory and can be renormalized perturbatively. Additional details in the attached file "General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory" by worldwide high expertise in quantum gravity distinguished Professor John Donoghue at University of Massachusetts Amherst https://blogs.umass.edu/donoghue/files/2009/06/Zuoz-3.pdf

Feynman' quantum gravity, done in 1960's, up to all order Hermitian perturbation is classically Einstein's general relativity, which was derived as field equations by Feynman himself, and to second order perturbation is quantized linearized gravity.

Daniel Baldomir: Yes, renormalization is the problem. Whether renormalization is the ultimate correct technique is still an unanswered question; it works like magic in many situations, but perhaps it is only magic!!!

Dear Ramzi,

When one theory has physical quantities given infinities or not determined quantities, obviously that is good form to see that it isn't right. In the case of Gravity the theory is not renormalizable (the calculations do not converge as more higher order Feynman diagrams are included) and the order of the vertices is indefinite (… many more diagrams to evaluate), Thus it is almost impossible to put it in same context as the other quantum three interactions joined in the Standard Model.

Gravitational field does not exchange energy-momentum with matter points and matter fields, hence it does not carry energy-momentum, it is not a force field, and gravity is not a natural fore. For the proof, please see

Commun. Theor. Phys. 65 (2016) 716-730,

Gravitational Energy-Momentum and Conservation of Energy-Momentum in General Relativity

Zhaoyan Wu

See the attached file.

The answer is simple.

Nobody in the community has studied Maxwell's equations, so nobody understands them, which is why nobody understands gravitation.

Gauss's equation for the electric field in particular should be paid attention to:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Dear Hewa,

I see that you ask many sub-questions below your main question.

You wrote: "Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem"

The gravity force is not weak. It is the same as the Coulomb force, as can easily be demonstrated:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2256

You wrote: "Why the gravity is always attractive force?"

The explanation is that the "force" does not directly attract or repel. It simply locally induces momentum energy in the charged particles of which all masses are made, and that it is this momentum energy that causes the masses to move towards each other.

The force acting between two same sign charges induces momentum energy vectorially oriented away from the other charge, while when acting between two opposite signs charges, it induces momentum energy vectorially oriented towards the other charge. In this latter case, since this causes the charges to move closer to each other, yet more momentum energy yet will be induced as a function of the shortening distance, which will produce acceleration, as explained in Section "The Coulomb force" of the paper referred in my previous message.

You wrote: " Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory."

Chromodynamics is not a successful theory. As reported in the Scientific American magazine, no one has been able to formulate the equations of QCD with sufficient precision to correctly describe a nucleon:

Rith K & Schäfer A (1999). The Mystery of Nucleon Spin, Scientific American, July 1999, page 60

So Chromodynamics is a failed theory, just like the Weak Theory, because they are in disagreement with the equations of electromagnetism, which are successful, as demonstrated by the so numerous practical applications that they allowed successfully developing and that we all benefit from, contrary to chromodynamics and weak theory, that begot only endless discussions and no practical useful applications.

Best Regards

André

"Why the Gravity is not unified with other fundamental interactions?"

The main reason is because it has not yet been logically reconciled with the standard model of particle physics and its forces.

Another reason is because Einstein GR proposed that gravity was not a force but instead a reaction to the condition of warped space.

For a long time Einstein tried to unify Gravity with Magnetism in what he called a grand unified theory.

Einstein and others, have questioned all forces as being fundamental pulling forces, meaning that all could be a reaction to conditions other than being a force.

"Why the gravity is extremely weak? (Hierarchy Problem)"

If gravity is a reaction to the warping of space surrounding matter, or a somewhat similar explanation, then its force would relate to the gravitational constant G, involving an omnipresent force within a background field of some kind. The other so-called forces relate to the quantum environment which is very different.

"Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter."

If gravity is not a force but a conditional reaction, then it would not only not be a force in the traditional sense, as Einstein believed, there would be no attraction involved. From a omnipresent background field having a point force of

G, gravity would then involve pushing forces rather than pulling or attraction.

"Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory."

True, but all of the so called forces also may not be real forces at all, not pulling forces at a distance; this idea has been distasteful to many theorists for decades

For instance, the strong and weak forces could be mechanical connections within nuclei which become stronger as distances increase, like a spring, until this connection physically break beyond observationally determined distances.

Electro-magnetism also could be a directional reaction to background field conditions of a physical omnipresent medium (background field) as proposed by Maxwell. If so, this could provide a similar explanation for gravity.

Dear Forrest,

You wrote: " The main reason is because it has not yet been logically reconciled with the standard model of particle physics and its forces."

Gravity is easy to reconcile with the other forces of the standard model, as shown in Sub section C. The standard Model of Section IV. Electrostatic Force Interaction between Charged Particles, starting on page 13 of this paper titled "Inside Planets and Stars Masses":

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Einstein's GR has been repeatedly shown as being invalid for many observed processes such as its inability to provide correct calculation for the escape trajectories of both Pioneer 10 and 11 and of the so-called "anomalous" flybys of all spacecrafts.

Just like SR, it is unable to account for the adiabatic increase in energy and mass with shortening distances between the charged elementary particles that make up macroscopic masses.

Consequently, it is incompatible with Maxwell's first equation, that is Gauss's equation for the electric field.

It simply is a failed theory that has been wasting everybody's time for the past hundred years, just like SR.

Best Regards

André

Gravity science is an approximation while other fundamental interactions are essentially complete. Albert Einstein truncated the terms higher than second order to preserve covariance in the functions and methods that were recommended to him. It is found in his technical writings on several pages preceding the field equations.

The gravity approximation is very good in most situations. When infinities become involved, the lost terms become important for normalization. This is the same as the extreme high energy cases where a number of researchers have agreed in other threads that GR will not be accurate.

Many researchers have worked on this problem, and with considerably different approaches. One theory TGD is about 40 years old and avoids the truncation by using different math functions. In TGD a 4D space time can fold into layers and sheets of a higher dimensional system for the extreme energy cases, otherwise TGD predicts the same as GR, but allows unification.

I was aware of TGD about ten years before finding a use for it. The case of extreme high speed in deep space transport had one too many variables for the conventional set of equations. TGD provided the additional equation required for a solution of equations.

I guess gravity has been unified with the other fundamental interactions, but the main stream of research has not accepted it.

Dear André,

Yes, some versions of the standard model include gravity as stemming from an all-inclusive combined over-all force, and other versions look for gravitons or a theory of quantum gravity. But other versions excludes gravity as Einstein did, as not being a force in the Standard Model.

Yes, I agree with you that GR does not explain the Pioneer anomaly that is believed to be otherwise explained by the crafts own non-symetrical thermal radiation. Gravity whip calculations using GR are also not accurate. The reason why GR fails in this respect was explained to me by Micheal Minovich, the inventor of our present gravity whip system. I agree this in also likely to be the result that GR is wrong in its detail, at this scale.

The biggest "no-show" for GR though, IMO, is in spiral galaxies where 5-20 times more matter is needed to even result in a poor estimate of observations, whereby a new hypothetical entity (dark matter) is required to even poorly approximate GR with the observed spiral disc rotation velocities. From my research and related papers dark matter is not real, and a simpler explanation, not requiring a change in gravitational formulations can explain observations, which we describe in our research. Another similar problem exists with dark energy, concerning the applications of Special Relativity to derive the Hubble redshift-distance formula, which our studies have also shown to be wrong -- wrongly requiring the place-holder of dark energy. Yes, IMO, SR will also have to yield to Lorenz Transforms once all is realized.

Article An Alternative Universe-Scale Analytic Metrology and Related...

But at the scale of the solar system, merging stars, etc., the calculations of GR have not been surpassed according to the mainstream view.

Yes, IMO GR has its failings, but compared to Quantum Theory, it would win the horse race every time based upon logic. This is because the totally of quantum theory IMO is ridiculous. Quantum Mechanics are the very functional equations of quantum physics derived over many decades of observation. But the dozens of well-intended Quantum theories trying to explain its equations, IMO, collectively are as valuable and useless as tits on a boar, as the saying goes.

Complicated theory, concerning its logic, IMO, should always be suspect according to O'camm's Razor and the principle of parsimony.

Dear Forrest,

Actually, Quantum Mechanics can be harmonized with electromagnetism, which is not the case with GR:

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear Forrest,

You are absolutely right about dark energy and all other non-verifiables stemming from SR and GR.

But when you write: "But at the scale of the solar system, merging stars, etc., the calculations of GR have not been surpassed according to the mainstream view."

I have to disagree on this one. I have learned from Peter Jackson that it is as much off target as plain non relativistic Newton in ascertaining "any" spacecraft trajectory. AI is now the standard means to constantly correct live in-flight trajectories.

So GR is no better, because it doesn't take into account the adiabatic induction of momentum energy and mass with increasing proximity between charges any better than non-relativistic Newton.

Like Einstein did almost 70 years ago without anybody heading his advice, I seriously suggest to "mainstream" to start studying electromagnetism in earnest without delay if they don't want to be left behind by the upcoming generation.

Contrary to the mid 1950's, adiabatic momentum energy and mass induction in charged massive elementary particles as a function of distance due to the Coulomb interaction revealed by Gauss's equation for the electric field (Maxwell's first equation) is now understood, and it won't be long before the new crop of physicists understands that gravity simply is the pressure applied by this adiabatically induced momentum energy between macroscopic bodies when it can't be expressed as velocity.

Best Regards

André

Hi Hewa,

some interesting replies here. I also think gravity and the other 'forces' are interactions. Gravity IS linked to quantum theory however, and to GR (read my article for example) which shows the electrostatic interaction is also related. Gravity = GE/c (squared) = [2 x phi (4th) x elementary charge x momentum]/pi (squared), among other expressions. I hope to also show how gravity links with the strong and weak interactions in the near future.

It appears gravity is a property or cost of having mass. Since many of the 'constants' run with the energy scale (e.g. the fine structure constant, gravitational constant, elementary charge) and they are all united via an 'interaction constant', we can have constant change (with energy) in the universe without changing principal ratios. Current 'mainstream' beliefs about masses of galaxies are incorrect, and when suitably modified by running constants, remove the need for ad hoc features like dark energy/matter. [It would actually be more fun, and no less correct to have dark chocolate filling space :)].

Like momentum, gravity is only a 'one-way' deal. You either have it, or not. If you don't, then you don't have mass or wavelength.

Gravity is only a 'weak' interaction in weak energy fields. At large energies (close distances) gravity becomes very strong. It is this aspect that fuels researchers to seek a theory unifying all the 'forces'.

Thank you for asking good questions.

regards,

Terry

Dear André, as everyone can clearly see in your equation (13) in your reference paper "Unifying All Classical Force Equations", you fabricate a so-called G constant for the atom, by using the period T from the electromagnetic equation based upon Bohr, then you recalculate the force as if it were Newton's gravity equation, and then you claim triumphantly "That gives us exactly the same value as the Coulomb equation!"

In scientific terms, this is a circular reasoning.

So, stating : "The gravity force is not weak. It is the same as the Coulomb force, as can easily be demonstrated" is nonsense.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

to avoid the truncated terms higher than second order I have used sistribution theory.

Dear Thierry,

You wrote: " So, stating : "The gravity force is not weak. It is the same as the Coulomb force, as can easily be demonstrated" is nonsense."

Then how do you explain that this allows to derive F=ma from all known classical force equations?

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Since you have fabricated a G and a Newtonian "gravity" where in fact it doesn't exist, but instead it is electromagnetism, and since moreover you used a circular reasoning to prove what you assumed, I must confess that I didn't look further.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

You wrote: " Since you have fabricated a G and a Newtonian "gravity" where in fact it doesn't exist, but instead it is electromagnetism, and since moreover you used a circular reasoning to prove what you assumed, I must confess that I didn't look further."

It is entirely your option. Others will, trying to find "real inconsistencies" in the mathematical reasoning to object with, not simple opinions such as "this is wrong" or "this doesn't exist" with no supporting argument, or more simply, just trying to understand

They won't find any inconsistency. So they will understand the derivation and they will move on.

It is for them that I wrote this paper.

Best Regards

André

Dear Hewa Mustafa

Many years known that the Gravity is unified with other fundamental interactions

The same sign for all gravitational interactions may be explained as gravitation is the second (quadratic) order of interaction for the same natural oscillatory system (NOS) which realizes EM phenomena. Figuratively, EM interactions are results of "linear displacement" and "twisting" of the NOS while gravitation ones are outcomes of NOS "flexure." The direction of "flexure" is not matter for the interaction -- only the curvature does. Mathematically, this is expressed as only squares of the NOS wavenumber components are placed at the main diagonal of the NOS stress-energy density tensor...

Dear Hewa Mustafa,

“…Modern Physics describes four fundamental interactions naming: Strong Nuclear Interaction, Weak Nuclear Interaction, Electromagnetic Interaction and Gravitational Interaction.…”

That isn’t completely so. In the standard mainstream physics there are only 3 “indeed” fundamental Nature forces, i.e. Strong, Weak, and EM forces, which take part in “usual” interaction of particles/bodies, i.e. form corresponding forces’ fields and exchange at interactions by corresponding forces mediators [special particles].

Gravity interactions, as that the standard GR theory postulates, aren’t caused by some “indeed force”, this interaction, say, of a two bodies, is caused by two rather strange effects/forces: (i) - a mass by using some unknown force and by unknown way “curves/bends” Matter’s [mathematically] imaginary pseudo Riemannian space, and (ii) - further this curved space, again by using some unknown force and by unknown way forces other mass to move “along a geodesics”, for example forces Earth to rotate around Sun.

The GR contains no any explanations – by what reason these GR postulates indeed are adequate to the objective reality, moreover, it doesn’t contain some seems evidently obligatory in this case definitions – what are the main the theory’s phenomena “Space” and “Time”; what seems as rather strange again

However for anybody who understands what these phenomena above are [that is possible and is done only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904] it is evident also that the GR postulates are some ad hoc premises that have rather indirect relation to the objective reality; including Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container, where Matter exists and constantly [because of the energy conservation law] changes/evolves. When Gravity is really simply the next “indeed” fundamental Nature force that compose the gravitational field, has the charge, i.e. “gravitational mass”, and the mediator “graviton”.

Correspondingly

“…the three major questions about gravity remained open….Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory….”

The “GR gravity” principally cannot be unified with “indeed forces” by the reasons above;

“…Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem

Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter.….”

There is no some “Hierarchy Problem” in Matter. Matter is a rather simple logical system, which is based on a rather small set of primary fundamental logical rules/links/constants; and this set allows to build Matter be as it is: that there are particles, nuclei, atoms, planets, etc., etc., etc. Why that is so – that is another question, but that is as it is. Correspondingly to make such system and practically infinite diversity of material objects the fundamental forces act in Matter, every force responds on concrete forces in concrete cases when forming particles, atoms,…

Correspondingly there is no necessity to “unify” the fundamental forces at all, including Gravity is concrete force that responds for universal attraction of every material objects, what allows to build macro and mega cosmic objects.

More see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4332.9925;

gravitons interactions rather probably can be detected, for example, in experiment with photons see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests

; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”. The experiment was proposed yet in 2007.

Cheers

@Segey Shevchenko " (i) - a mass by using some unknown force and by unknown way “curves/bends” Matter’s [mathematically] imaginary pseudo Riemannian space, and (ii) - further this curved space, again by using some unknown force and by unknown way forces other mass to move “along a geodesics”, for example forces Earth to rotate around Sun. " There is nothing unknown or mysterious about this. It follows form the equivalence of gravitational force and accelerated reference frames; that is all bodies have the same acceleration at a given point in a gravitational field.

@Ramzi Rihan

“…There is nothing unknown or mysterious about this. It follows form the equivalence of gravitational force and accelerated reference frames; that is all bodies have the same acceleration at a given point in a gravitational field.…”

Sorry, but for me it is unknown what relation the masses of bodies and bodies’ motions states [inertial/accelerating] have to Matter’s space/time/spacetime .

And so it is unknown by what reason and by what way from “the equivalence of gravitational force and accelerated reference frames” follows that some “mass” curves Matter’s spacetime [as that is postulated in the GR] in whole Matters spacetime; and by what reason and by what way this “curved spacetime” really change motion of real bodies?.

By another words this GR utmost basic postulate seems as having no physical grounds. If you think that that isn’t so, would you be kind to clear the points above, including to write what are space and time?

At that for you possibly would be useful to know what rather strange consequences follow from the GR, for example see the sec. 3, sub-sec. “The Type 2 solutions” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox

DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1. Though the whole paper would be useful also.

Cheers

Dear colleagues , thanks for your answers , I appreciate your consideration about my question. Actually we are trying to develop new method for derivation of Gravitational Constant from Coulomb's Constant and unification of Gravitation with Electromagnetism, that is why your answers will be helpful for development of my proposed hypothesis. You can find updates about my project at my profile here or my website (www.babanyblog.wordpress.com) . Thanks with my best regards.

Dear Hewa,

You wrote: "Actually we are trying to develop new method for derivation of Gravitational Constant from Coulomb's Constant and unification of Gravitation with Electromagnetism,"

Since the Coulomb constant is part of Maxwell's first equation, which is Gauss's equation for the electric field, itself a generalization of the Coulomb equation, this is precisely what was being analyzed in this paper published last year:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

E= q /(4πεor2),

F = qE = q2 /(4πεor2).

So maybe your team may find helpful hints in this analysis.

Best Regards

André

Dear Hewa,

from my paper (mentioned earlier), at equation (37) on page 11 under the heading '5.2 Coulomb constant and electrostatic force' you will see how the gravitational constant G relates to the Coulomb constant ke. (Sorry, I don't know how to add mathtype onto this page). The former runs proportionally with energy, and the latter runs inversely proportional to energy.

Hope this helps.

PS: trying to link the weak and strong interactions to G at present.

kind regards,

Terry

regards

It is possible to use same curvature describe in Banichi Identity to electrical forces as ,

Rij +1/2Rgij = Ke. Tij ; (Ke - natural constant to explain curvature of Electrical forces)

The sign of ke has ability to explains the nature of force . (attractive or repletion)

Dear Hewa Mustafa,

The Standard Model explains interactions using force carriers. These are gluons, photons, bosons and gravitons. I do not understand this.

First, the exchange of particles leads to the exchange of impulses (see figure). The bodies should push off, not pull. Otherwise, the law of conservation of momentum is violated.

Secondly, attracting bodies accelerate to each other. Who gives them the energy to accelerate? Here the law of conservation of energy is violated.

The source of attraction must be outside the attracting bodies. The Standard Model does not take into account the environment. This is the electromagnetic field environment. We are convinced of the existence of the field whenever we bring a mobile phone to our ear. Nature initially united all interactions.

Earth does not attract the moon. The external electromagnetic field "pushes" the moon to the Earth. Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. I have completed the Maxwell case. I solved his equations for gravity. The gravitational constant G is expressed in terms of the fundamental constants of the field and matter. A modification of the Cavendish experience confirms the loyalty of this idea.

My site http://gravity.spb.ru

Best Regards

Valeriy

just use distributions theory (as I explained here on RG) and you are able to operate in singularities (infinities) too.

In the STOE, gravity is the divergence of the plenum (a continuous medium that supports wave action). The other forces are a result of hod (particle ) structure and are therefore stronger. The trick explored in the papers is that the coulomb interaction is that the particles generate the electric force in the plenum.

Common for all forces is Space. The Space equation unify all forces, More "Space Equation – Basic Equation of Unified Field Theory".

Best regards

Ilgaitis

In fact, the gravity is unified with the other fundamental forces. All fundamental forces can be expressed in same mode using graviton characteristics.

The graviton was proved to express gravitational force. We can calculate the value of universal constant of gravity according to graviton characteristics and also can calculate the exact value of electical elementary chage using... of course ...the graviton characteristics.

The graviton represent connection between all fields of forces.

1-@ Terry Macmahon: "It appears gravity is a property or cost of having mass." But massless particles also experience gravitational interaction as in the bending of light in a gravitational field.

Electromagnetic stress energy tensor does enter into Einstein Field equations for gravity. So it is wrong to say they are not unified. Forces may not be unified, but energies are.

Strong nuclear force is credited with packing fraction in nucleus, which changes mass and alters local gravity. These also are united through energy not through forces.

Weak nuclear force enters into particles interacting and beta decay, where mass is converted to energy or reverse. Energy enters into curvature either as plus or as minus depending on whether the part of energy is potential or kinetic.

The four forces may be united, but they are already represented in the energies.

Dear Jerry,

Saying that the four interactions are unified in energy, or energy-momentum, is not true. If you change the energy- momentum electromagnetic tensor in the Einstein's equations certainly you increse the curvature of the space-time, but never are you are acting on electromagnetic properties of the system: the electromagnetic field remains the same and also the charges. Where is the unification in energy?

The gravity cannot be unified with other interactions in the frame of Einstein GR. The cause is incompatible interpretation of gravity as curvature of space. In the GR the gravity is not a force. Here is confused cause (gravity) with consequences (curvature of space).

In the frame of Newton interpretation the gravity is force. The cause of gravity is mass. In this case unification of all forcefields is possible. More in:

Article New Conception of Space Curvature

Article New Concept of Gravity

Article Space Equation-Basic Equation of Unified Field Theory

To Jerry Decker

In addition that the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor is surely part of the total stress-energy tensor in Einstein’s tensor and metrical field equations in general relativity, electromagnetism itself cannot exist without gravity, following highly respected and experts in gravity Schutz and Lammerzahl and Puetzfeld, which is due to the fact that any electrically charged particle has a mass that is related to gravity or spacetime curvature and not to electromagnetism.

The equations of motion of that charged particle are derived from the tensor geodesic equation with a non-gravitational effect term added to its right. The geodesic equation itself is derived from Einstein equivalence principle where gravitation and inertia are the same and equivalent, according to Albert Einstein.

Dear Issam

All fermions have mass and electric charge. The neutron is composite particle e+p.

...electromagnetism itself cannot exist without gravity...

The photon is electromagnetism without gravity as well as radiowave. In general the bosons can exist without gravity.

“…All fermions have mass and electric charge.…..”

Indeed every fermion has a rest mass, why? – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494.

However, albeit neutrinos are fermions and so have the masses, they, though are fundamental particles, are electrically neutral.

“…..electromagnetism itself cannot exist without gravity... …..”

- that is indeed quite unphysical allegation, though photons have, of course, gravitatioal masses - every paticle has such mass.

Cheers

The neutrinos are fundamental only in frame of Standard Model. Is the neutrinos real particles or only assumption in SM are under big question. More in

Article Neutron Decay and Neutrino Problem

Article About Beta Decay

The building block of universe is quantum mechanics phenomenon, therefore the Gravity must be one of fundamental elementary particle inside of an atom. We all forgot that any mechanical movement has friction, and slowdown and eventually stop. Here we are witnessing acceleration on expanding universe. my recommendation is to read QM Gravity Article Quantum Mechanics Gravity, Mechanical Gravity of Newton is Myth