I Doubts about the relativistic description of electrical interactions

Hak
Messages
709
Reaction score
56
I would like help with an issue that I have not yet fully mastered.
Consider a particle resting on a plane, it is subjected to a gravitational force, which can be interpreted as the result of a deformation of space-time.
It remains at rest due to the upward binding reaction provided by the plane. Could the electrical interactions that constitute this force be interpreted as a local deformation of space-time? I say this because it seems natural to me that two phenomena that elide each other can in fact be traced back to the same nature, and it seems quite simple to interpret how a particle is at rest if it is in a space with locally zero space-time deformation (no local curvature). Am I wrong?
Then, electric forces act over smaller distances than gravity, but equilibrium should occur where the two space-time deformations overlap at zero, no? This would explain the action-reaction principle, as the shape of space-time cannot be curved at sharp angles (second derivative less than infinity) and therefore around the equilibrium point, the limit of the first derivative on either side would tend to the same value. Therefore, from an experimental confirmation point of view, can a strong electrical interaction locally deflect a beam of light?
Thank you for any clarification.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hak said:
Could the electrical interactions that constitute this force be interpreted as a local deformation of space-time?
Not unless you can explain why uncharged particles aren't affected by the "electric spacetime curvature". The whole reason you can model gravity as spacetime curvature is that all objects follow the same path given the same initial position and velocity in the absence of other forces and that is not true for electric forces.

Attempts to include EM in GR have been made, such as Kaluza-Klein theory. None has worked - Kaluza-Klein adds a fifth dimension, but ends up predicting the existence of a strong scalar field that we don't see.
Hak said:
electric forces act over smaller distances than gravity
No they don't. They're both infinite ranged.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Dale
This thread is closed.
There is little to be gained by discussing a half-baked speculative idea like “Could the electrical interactions that constitute this force be interpreted as a local deformation of space-time?”; @ibix’s answer above explains why.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Dale
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top