1. I stumbled upon this as i was going through my day about a week back. It's common knowledge that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: Gravity, the Weak Force, Electromagnetism, and the Strong Force. I believe the week and strong forces have other names, but that's not the point right now.

As i walked through the forest near my house, i started perusing my gallery of thoughts and two facts came to my attention: the inability to explain gravity and the force that holds particles together. As most of us would know, the particles in atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons) are held together by the electromagnetic force. I started thinking about the two and an idea popped into my head. Is it not possible that gravity is the collect force of an atom's electromegnetic field? Since all atoms pull on all other atoms with this force, if, with each additional atom, the force grew in strength, even by a small amount, it would explain why gravity is stronger in objects of higher mass (rather than size), why gravity effects everything (since everything other than pure energy is made from atoms and that kind of energy remains almost completely unaffected by gravity) and why everything has a gravitational pull. If this theory were true, and i sincerely hope it is, that would not only explain a mystery that has plagued humanity for hundreds of years, but would also mean that there are in fact only three forces, rather than four, since gravity is essentially just weak electromagnetism.

Some feedback on this theory would be appreciated. i like to know what people think

2. ### Related Discussions:

3. Would that not make the gravity of an object proportional to the electromagnetic attractions within it rather than, as we observe, proportional to its mass alone? As I understand it, you can have two objects of equal mass but differing electromagnetic fields and they'll still have the same gravity.

How would you test your hypothesis?

4. Problems:

The electromagnetic force acting between atoms is very short range. For example, oxygen atoms in a gas form diatomic molecules (and rarely triatomic ones as in Ozone) because the atoms are close enough to "share" outer electrons. Once they form these molecules they are stable and electromagnetically neutral. They have no more "need" to from larger groups via electromagnetism. The noble gases already have full outer shells and don't even form these molecules.
You can get somewhat larger objects to stick together using these inter-atomic forces (think static cling decals), but again it only works on very short distances, while gravity is infinite in range, falling off in strength by the square of the distance.

In order for macroscopic objects to attract each other electromagnetically over long distances, they would have to have a net charge (positive or negative). A positive would attract a negative and vice versa, but two negatives or two positives would repel each other.

So for example, in order for the Earth to orbit the Sun, One would have to be positive and the other negative. The same would have to be true about the Earth and Moon. But for the Earth to be attracted to both the Moon and Sun both would have to have the same sign and would repel each other. There is no indication that this is the case. (Also, if this were the case, our Lunar probes and astronauts, being attracted to the Earth, would have been repelled by the Moon, which was not the case. )

Gravity on the other hand, is only an attractive force. The Earth, Sun and Moon all attract each other.

The idea of gravity being infinently ranged but decreasing over distance is exactly the same thing as it not having infinite range. Not having a need to attract doesn't cancel the fact that it still attracts. Electromagnetism could easily work in the same way as gravity, it's just working on a much smaller scale in the case of atoms.

A net charge isn't neccesarily required for attraction. The balance of both negative and positive charges could result in a neutral charge that would still be capable of attraction. electromagnetism on atomic levels is almost ludacrisly small, but i'm not saying it has to be a major jump per atom. I'm just suggesting that the combined attraction of every atom contained within an object could have a collective force, rather than trillions of individual forces. I know it's not a perfect theory, but there are still a lot of things we don't understand about electromagnetism and we barely get the most basic facts about gravity, so i don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on here. there are very few things that we can actually confirm to be universaly true, seeing as we can't test every possible situation.

6. Originally Posted by DracoDominus

The idea of gravity being infinently ranged but decreasing over distance is exactly the same thing as it not having infinite range.
No it isn't, Gravity falls off by the square of the distance (At twice the distance it is 1/4 as strong, at three times the distance it is 1/9 as strong etc. At any finite distance it still has a non-zero strength. Ergo, it has infinite range.
Not having a need to attract doesn't cancel the fact that it still attracts.
Not via electromagnetism, the evidence is in the fact that these gas molecules do not clump together in groups larger than the molecules themselves.
Electromagnetism could easily work in the same way as gravity, it's just working on a much smaller scale in the case of atoms.

A net charge isn't neccesarily required for attraction. The balance of both negative and positive charges could result in a neutral charge that would still be capable of attraction.
Not according to any theory of electromagnetism or according to any evidence seen so far. You can't just invent properties for electromagnetism out of thin air just to make your idea work.
electromagnetism on atomic levels is almost ludacrisly small, but i'm not saying it has to be a major jump per atom. I'm just suggesting that the combined attraction of every atom contained within an object could have a collective force, rather than trillions of individual forces. I know it's not a perfect theory, but there are still a lot of things we don't understand about electromagnetism and we barely get the most basic facts about gravity, so i don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on here. there are very few things that we can actually confirm to be universaly true, seeing as we can't test every possible situation.
There is zero chance that gravity can be explained by electromagnetism in the way you are suggesting. We know more than enough about how electromagnetism behaves to rule this possibility out.

7. Alright, fine, i'll take your opinion, but just to make something clear, all of the science we know so far started with somebody making up a theory to agree with their ideas. In the future keep your emotions out of the argument. I'm not attacking you or your thoughts, so cool it down. unless you can prove that i'm wrong, you can at least conceed to the possibility. We don't actually know anything about electromagnetism beyond it's most basic functions. There's an entire universe of things out there that we don't know and that we never will. You're going to have to get used to that fact. Unfortunately, in todays world we've decided that possibility is taboo, only the things that are universally accepted are allowable. If you don't like my theory than i dare you to find your own answer, because force and attraction doesn't just happen. It has to have a source.

8. Originally Posted by DracoDominus
Alright, fine, i'll take your opinion, but just to make something clear, all of the science we know so far started with somebody making up a theory to agree with their ideas. In the future keep your emotions out of the argument. I'm not attacking you or your thoughts, so cool it down. unless you can prove that i'm wrong, you can at least conceed to the possibility. We don't actually know anything about electromagnetism beyond it's most basic functions. There's an entire universe of things out there that we don't know and that we never will. You're going to have to get used to that fact. Unfortunately, in todays world we've decided that possibility is taboo, only the things that are universally accepted are allowable.
Draco, to be honest I'm not seeing the "emotions" you mention in Janus' argument. I do see some specific refutations of some of your points which you've not responded to. Talking in broad terms about how new hypotheses are formed, how scientific progress is made and about how in a general sense lots of things are possible... well that doesn't really progress the discussion. You can take it as a given that we know how science works, and indeed many of us are professional scientists. So please, if you would like to continue this, defend your position with some specifics such as published scientific data or your own observations.

Originally Posted by DracoDominus
If you don't like my theory than i dare you to find your own answer, because force and attraction doesn't just happen. It has to have a source.
It's perfectly logical and allowable for Janus to both state that he does not know how a thing works and claim that it does not work in some specific way. The onus is not upon him to provide an alternative in order to refute you. That is a false dichotomy.

You're making a specific claim here and even offering it up for criticism. So the burden of evidence is on you. Support your assertion with evidence or expect more responses like Janus'.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement