# Gravity and electricity

1. Jul 23, 2004

### kurious

The force-carrier of gravity is electric in nature and has field vectors arranged like this:
++++++++++++ +
++++++++++++ | + VACUUM CHARGES
++++++++++++ |
++++++++++++ -------- -------- horizontal field vector
++++++++++++ | +
++++++++++++ |

The vacuum is filled with positive electric charges.The horizontal field vectors cause the vacuum particles to spread out and the vertical field vectors compress the vacuum particles (the vertical field vectors have their origin on negative charges and the the horizontal vectors on positive charges which repel the positive charges of the vacuum).Gravitational waves emitted by binary stars etc are made of lots of these force carriers.

Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
2. Jul 23, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Are you implying that the gravitational field is connected to the electric field? This can happen if and only if the magnetic field is exactly zero. But the bad news is that magnetic field is never equaled to zero even in vacuum because the permeability is not zero in the vacuum.

3. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

I am saying the permeability is different for gravity.

4. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

kurious,

You need to educate me because I have no idea about the permeability of gravity? Thanks in advance.

5. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

In other posts, I have hinted on the functional correlation of gravity to electric and magnetic force given as follow:

$$F_g = f(F_E) - f(F_B)$$

or

$$F_g = f(F_B) - f(F_E)$$

these are different formulations because of the fact that $a^2 - b^2 \equiv b^2 - a^2$ is true only for a=b=1.

6. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

The ratio of E/B in electromagnetism can depend on permittivity and permeability.
I am trying to reduce gravity to an electromagnetic phenomenon.I want it to have a force carrier with a speed greater than light so that it can account for instantaneous action at a distance.For this E/B needs to be greater for gravity.I suspect that B is lower or gravity than in electromagnetism.
Also gravitational force carriers moving faster than light could come and go from a black hole freely.They may even carry information out of it instead of Hawking radiation.

Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
7. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Electromagnetism is solved by the wave equation. And this equation put a limit to a maximum attainable speed of propagation, the speed of light in vacuum. For greater speed, the permittivity and permeability of free space must vanish or smaller than their currently accepted values.

In MKS system, the permittivity is $8.85 \times 10^{-12}$ square of coulomb/meter per newton and the permeability is $10^{-7}$ weber/amp-m. As you can see, both values are extremely small almost beyond undetectability.

Anything that go faster than light cannot be solved by the wave equation. So the first thing you need to do is to come up with an equation that will allow speed greater than light. And furthermore this equation must have a good explanation for the existence of retarded potential (time delay factor in the propagation of any kind of wave motions).

8. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

Perhaps permeability is quantized.The trouble with permittivity and permeability is that no-one knows what they are physically - they are just mathematical constants at the moment.How is it known that there is a retarded potential?

9. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Anything that takes some times to go from here to there or there to here is subjected to a time delay factor. In electromagnetism, these are the retarded and advanced potential functions which are really the change of potential energy to kinetic energy and back to potential energy which ever way you look at it.

10. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

Time delay only applies to charges that move through a Higgs field.
The charges of my force carriers would not.
The key factor for me to consider is whether magnetic monoples exist with different magnitudes - these could give different E/B values.

11. Jul 24, 2004

### Metallicbeing

Try this theory...

I find it interesting that you're trying to link electromagnetism with gravity. I have a concept for you to consider. It ties magnetism (or a form of it) and what we percieve as gravity in an interesting way.

Suppose that there is a parallel universe where instead of matter, there is mainly antimatter. The barrier between our universes is space-time (and zero-point energy). Now, let's say that a star and it's anti-star are mutually attracted. They are prevented from meeting each other by the barrier (ZPE & space-time). Their attraction is so great that they start to "squeeze" the barrier causing the familiar curved space. Other matter (with their own indentation) is attracted to this weakened area of the barrier like water that always finds its way to the low point and the "drain".

As other matter (from both sides) accumulates, the barrier is "squeezed" even further which deepens the well. This causes even more matter to "gravitate" to this thinning barrier. If enough matter and antimatter accumulates into "the mother of all black holes", it may finally breech the barrier causing a Big Bang.

I know, this is full of assumptions, but it is an interesting concept (to me anyway). In summary, mutual attraction across the barrier (ZPE & space-time) squeezes the barrier causing matter and anti-matter on each plane to "gravitate" towards the weak spots in the barrier. This "gravitation" is what we perceive as gravity.

12. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

In terms of my idea that mass is caused by electric charge in space around protons electrons etc. the question of how leptons and quarks can have the same electric charge but different masses is an interesting one.This would suggest that
in my theory a lepton,for example, could have a charge of -1 that has a property associated with it that causes different masses for the tau,muon and electron.
The simplest explanation is that in the electron the electric charge is concentrated in a smaller volume than it is in the other leptons and so the electron is physically unable to make contact with as many charge spheres in the vacuum and so experiences a smaller resistance to a change in its motion (inertia).The elctron would need to have structure for this to be correct.
The electron is the lowest energy particle of the charged lepton family,
and low energy in atoms is associated with electrons being close to the protons.This makes the volume of the atom small.So an individual electron
could be made from subcharges that are held close together.

Last edited: Jul 24, 2004
13. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Please explain your force and its charged carrier. Thanks.

14. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

The gravitational force carrier is made from a line of electric charges - negative charges which attract the positive charges in the vacuum and so makes them locally denser, and positive charges which repel the positive charges in the vacuum and so makes them locally less dense than the undisturbed vacuum particles.Lots of negative charge surrounds each positive charge and cancels its electric field in all but two places which are directly opposite one another (like the poles of a sphere), and which will be able to have an electric interaction with charges of the vacuum.The negative charges can thus form an electric field vector with the positive charges of the vacuum at right angles to the poles of the sphere.

15. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Sphere can have poles only if there is rotational motion such as spinning. But once charges start to spin, they will acquire magnetic moments and also start to radiate electromagnetic energy.

16. Jul 24, 2004

### kurious

Antonio Lao:
Sphere can have poles only if there is rotational motion such as spinning. But once charges start to spin, they will acquire magnetic moments and also start to radiate electromagnetic energy.

Kurious:
Not if the spin has to get to a certain minimum value first.

17. Jul 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Spin is quantized. The values can take only integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... for bosons and half integer values for fermions: 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, ...

18. Jul 24, 2004

### Metallicbeing

Not even worth a comment, huh?