Why can't gravity be just a form of magnetic attraction?

In summary, Based on the photo electric effect, maybe its perception that is the problem? Charge doesn't travel through a vaccuum. Electro magntic waves always carry photons. Photons can make charge. Charge creates magnetism? Would explain why Coulombs equation is the same as the one for gravity but on a much, much bigger scale. Although they both obey a similar-looking inverse square law in one particular case (nothing is moving), there are many differences: gravitational forces are always attractive and independent of the electric charge present. gravitational fields change differently than electromagnetic fields when the source is moving (Google for “retarded potential”). gravitational waves are mathematically different than electromagnetic waves (Google for “gravitational
  • #1
mamba76
4
1
Based on the photo electric effect. Maybe its perception that is the problem? Charge doesn't travel through a vaccuum. Electro magntic waves alway carry photons. Photons can make charge. Charge creates magnetism? Would explain why Coulumbs equation is the same as the one for gravity but on a much, much bigger scale.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mamba76 said:
Based on the photo electric effect. Maybe its perception that is the problem? Charge doesn't travel through a vaccuum. Electro magntic waves alway carry photons. Photons can make charge. Charge creates magnetism? Would explain why Coulumbs equation is the same as the one for gravity but on a much, much bigger scale.
Although they both obey a similar-looking inverse square law in one particular case (nothing is moving) there are many differences:
- gravitational forces are always attractive and independent of the electric charge present.
- gravitational fields change differently than electromagnetic fields when the source is moving (Google for “retarded potential”).
- gravitational waves are mathematically different than electromagnetic waves (Google for “gravitational wave quadrupole moment”)
- gravity doesn’t really follow an inverse square law; the Newtonian ##1/r^2## is an approximation that breaks down in strong gravitational fields (Google for “Mercury anomalous precession”)

Probably some more, but this will do for a start
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes jsgruszynski, ohwilleke, Nik_2213 and 5 others
  • #3
In addition to the correct points mentioned by @Nugatory one huge difference that is specific to magnetic fields instead of electric fields is that magnetic fields have no monopole solution, only a dipole solution at lowest order. The gravitational sources we observe around us are all approximately monopolar sources. A monopole source has a ##1/r^2## field, but a dipole source has a ##1/r^3## field. There is no way to get Kepler's law from dipoles.

Gravity is not a magnetic interaction. It has nothing to do with perception or the photo electric effect or anything else you mentioned.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, Nik_2213 and PeroK
  • #4
Nugatory said:
Although they both obey a similar-looking inverse square law in one particular case (nothing is moving) there are many differences:
- gravitational forces are always attractive and independent of the electric charge present.
- gravitational fields change differently than electromagnetic fields when the source is moving (Google for “retarded potential”).
- gravitational waves are mathematically different than electromagnetic waves (Google for “gravitational wave quadrupole moment”)
- gravity doesn’t really follow an inverse square law; the Newtonian ##1/r^2## is an approximation that breaks down in strong gravitational fields (Google for “Mercury anomalous precession”)

Probably some more, but this will do for a start
Would the 1/r^2 thing never breakdown with point like sources? Is the distribution of matter what confounds it?
 
  • #5
synthesizers said:
Would the 1/r^2 thing never breakdown with point like sources? Is the distribution of matter what confounds it?
The ##1/r^2## rule for electrical fields is exact as long as ##r## is non-zero, although we will have to use the integral form of that rule for the most charge distributions. In the special case of a spherically symmetric charge distribution (which includes point sources) the integral form reduces to the familiar Coulomb’s law.

The infinity that appears when we set ##r=0## is just telling us that that case is unphysical - the idealization of a point charge with a definite position breaks down at small distances so ##r## is no longer meaningful.
 
  • #7
Update -- after a bit of cleanup this thread will remain closed. LOL
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and mamba76

Related to Why can't gravity be just a form of magnetic attraction?

1. Why can't gravity be just a form of magnetic attraction?

Gravity and magnetism are two distinct fundamental forces in nature. While both involve the attraction between objects, they operate on different scales and have different properties. Gravity is a force that acts between all objects with mass, while magnetism is a force that acts between objects with electric charge. Additionally, gravity is always attractive, while magnetism can be either attractive or repulsive. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that gravity is just a form of magnetic attraction.

2. Can gravity and magnetism be unified into one force?

Currently, there is no scientific evidence or theory that suggests gravity and magnetism can be unified into one force. While some physicists have attempted to develop theories that unify all the fundamental forces, such as the Theory of Everything, there is no consensus or experimental support for such a theory at this time.

3. Are there any similarities between gravity and magnetism?

While gravity and magnetism are distinct forces, they do have some similarities. Both forces involve the attraction between objects, and they both follow an inverse-square law, meaning the strength of the force decreases as the distance between objects increases. Additionally, both forces are long-range, meaning they can act over large distances.

4. Why do objects with mass experience gravity, but not magnetism?

Objects with mass experience gravity because they have mass themselves. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, mass warps the fabric of spacetime, causing objects to be attracted to one another. On the other hand, objects with mass do not experience magnetism unless they also have an electric charge. This is because magnetism is a force that acts between objects with electric charge, not mass.

5. Is it possible to create artificial gravity using magnetism?

While there have been some proposals for creating artificial gravity using magnetism, there is currently no scientific evidence or technology that can accomplish this. The forces involved in creating artificial gravity would need to be incredibly strong and precise, and it is not yet feasible with our current understanding and technology.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
831
Back
Top