An attempt to unify EM and Grav., just to see if my ideas are in order.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter IooqXpooI
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em Ideas
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on attempts to relate electromagnetism (EM) and gravitation through concepts of energy and quantum theory. Participants explore the nature of energy, its directionality, and implications for understanding fundamental forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that energy has direction and proposes a relationship between EM and gravity based on this idea.
  • Another participant notes that in quantum theory, the concept of "path" is probabilistic and not classically defined, challenging the initial claim about particles exchanging energy to follow each other's paths.
  • A participant reiterates the initial proposal about energy direction and connects it to gravitational potential, suggesting that people in different locations on Earth experience varying gravitational potential based on their orientation.
  • Another participant agrees with the notion of energy direction but argues that energy is a scalar quantity due to a principle of directional invariance, referencing Einstein's approach to unifying EM and gravity through tensor analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy and its directionality, with some agreeing on the intuition behind direction while others challenge the classical interpretations and implications. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of energy and direction, as well as the implications of quantum theory on classical concepts. The discussion reflects a mix of intuitive reasoning and formal theoretical frameworks without clear consensus.

IooqXpooI
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
I would like to relate EM and Gravitation by trying to use energy and Quantum theory etc.

Since I know nothing of Quantum Theory, you might think me a fool.

To relate them, I will state one thing: Energy has direction.

Now, I have seen a(and only one) Feynman diagram, and I probably misunderstood it, but I found that there are two electrons nearing each other, and they exchange a 'virtual photon'(originally I thought it as a photon wave) in the form of energy to repel each other. Now, look at where they were going originally. Assuming this diagram of sorts assumed that the particles were massless and only cared about the charge, it seemed that they exchanged energy to exchange DIRECTION. It seems that they go in the exact path of the other, and this can be explained by stating that objects with mass moves more slowly proportional to the objects mass. Now where have we seen that before? Maybe with A=F/m, something that even I know! And what have we seen with relativity? Acceleration and Gravity are determined with the position of the observer. So, we have related EM and Gravity with one statement. And since I have about 20 people yelling at me to move since I have to go, I feel that this is fitting for you people.

Please criticize me as you wish. Good day.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IooqXpooI said:
It seems that they go in the exact path of the other

FYI: Path is not defined classically in quantum theory. Each possible path is associated with a probability and the sum of all paths is an integral of Feynman's version of quantum theory.
 
IooqXpooI said:
I would like to relate EM and Gravitation by trying to use energy and Quantum theory etc.

Since I know nothing of Quantum Theory, you might think me a fool.

To relate them, I will state one thing: Energy has direction.

Now, I have seen a(and only one) Feynman diagram, and I probably misunderstood it, but I found that there are two electrons nearing each other, and they exchange a 'virtual photon'(originally I thought it as a photon wave) in the form of energy to repel each other. Now, look at where they were going originally. Assuming this diagram of sorts assumed that the particles were massless and only cared about the charge, it seemed that they exchanged energy to exchange DIRECTION. It seems that they go in the exact path of the other, and this can be explained by stating that objects with mass moves more slowly proportional to the objects mass. Now where have we seen that before? Maybe with A=F/m, something that even I know! And what have we seen with relativity? Acceleration and Gravity are determined with the position of the observer. So, we have related EM and Gravity with one statement. And since I have about 20 people yelling at me to move since I have to go, I feel that this is fitting for you people.

Please criticize me as you wish. Good day.

If energy has direction then the people in china have the opposite potential gravity that I do. And, assuming I I am completely in the "positive" direction, people 90 degrees down on the Earth will have near 0 potential gravity.
Hm, yep, that makes sense.

I'd also like to point out that energy is conserved in orbits, where direction is constantly changing.
 
IooqXpooI said:
it seemed that they exchanged energy to exchange DIRECTION

Your intuition about "direction" agrees with my mine. But as for me, the reason why energy is a scalar quantity instead of a vector, is that there is an underlying working principle at the fundamental level of reality. This is the principle of directional invariance. I said something about this principle in other posts.

Einstein definitely knew this problem about "direction" when he was trying to unify EM and gravity. But he used tensor analysis which to me complicated the situation by going into covariance of physical laws instead of invariance of physical quantities.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K