1. The unifying theory seeks to combine all of the fundamental forces into only one fundamental force. The first fundamental forces to be unified were electricity and magnetism, which became electromagnetism. The next step is to combine electromagnetism with gravity.

To me it seems that these two forces should be governed under one rule because they both have to do with attraction and it makes sense that all methods of attraction should have the same foundation.

Here is an idea I thought of that could explain the connection:

If we think along the lines of chemistry and intermolecular bonds we have dipole-dipole attraction and london forces. A dipole-dipole force is a negative side of a molecule attracting the positive side of another molecule (between polar molecules). While london forces (between both polar and non-polar molecules) cause attraction between molecules when electrons are momentarily not dispersed evenly around an atom, causing short periods of negative and positive poles. In addition, it is important to know that a larger atom has a larger london force because there are more electrons, allowing for this phenomenon to happen more often. Dipole-dipole forces are much stronger than london forces as is pretty obvious considering the methods of attraction.

Extrapolating this to gravity...
If you think of a purely positive magnet, does it not replicate gravity with a higher force of attraction? Rather than a slow pull towards earth, it is a quick pull towards the magnet. Sort of like the positive side of a molecule with dipole-dipole attraction. But when you have a massive object like earth, it is thought of as electrically neutral, like a non-polar atom. The large mass of the earth provides a large opportunity for london like force to occur. The larger the object is, the more opportunity for this to occur, hence the stronger force of gravity.

Anyways, there's my idea. if i seemed to be rambling on incoherently, I'm sorry. If anything is unclear please ask. I would really love any positive or negative input as I think about these kinds of things because I like problem solving and would love for you to throw hurdles at me to try to figure out.

Thanks.

EDIT. In addition, the gravitational waves of Einstein's relativity would just be magnetic waves.

2.

3. You have not really explained london forces clearly, so I was forced to assume that you mean to say that gravity is caused due to magnetic waves? However, some planets do not have magnetic fields, yet they have gravity, as evinced by their various moons.

Of course, if you could clarify what london forces are more clearly, I would be of much more help.

4. london forces are maybe better known as Van Der Waals Forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...spersion_force

Basically, in a molecule(lets say a neutral molecule) London forces allow for the neutral molecule to attract other neutral molecules.

If all of the electrons are evenly spread out throughout the molecule then the molecule will be perfectly neutral and won't attract other molecules but since they are moving London forces are introduced. If there are areas of the molecule that are more concentrated with electrons, that region will become slightly negative while the sparser region will become slightly positive As the electrons move around the molecule they produce slightly positive and negative regions which allow the molecule to attract other molecules.

I only talk about a neutral molecule because in a polar molecule, these slight regions don't make much of a difference in an already polar molecule

5. Geckos are the kings of van der waals forces.

6. I see. However, that would mean that gravity would not work when none of the objects are in motion, as I see by this statement:

If all of the electrons are evenly spread out throughout the molecule then the molecule will be perfectly neutral and won't attract other molecules but since they are moving London forces are introduced.
An object at rest would never attract another object, which is impossible. Also, what about the mass? Surely the mass would affect the forces as well?

7. An object at rest would never attract another object, which is impossible
But it's not an object at rest. The electrons are in motion. It is the random motion of these electrons which cause London or Van Der Waals forces.

Also, what about the mass? Surely the mass would affect the forces as well?
Yes, as we know mass does affect gravity and I mentioned that in my original post. If it is unclear let me know and I will try to clarify.
it is important to know that a larger atom has a larger london force because there are more electrons, allowing for this phenomenon to happen more often.

Edit:

I don't want to stray but... Something you said made me think about something...

However, that would mean that gravity would not work when none of the objects are in motion
Without motion could there be gravity? At 0 degrees kelvin would there be gravity? Gravity pulls objects, those objects create kinetic energy. At 0 degrees there would be no energy so how could they move?

8. Combing Every Force is not a good idea, you'll rip us right back to the state the universe was originally, a tiny, unimaginably dense universe ball hotter then the core of any star.

Simply meaning big boom we all die .

9. But it's not an object at rest. The electrons are in motion. It is the random motion of these electrons which cause London or Van Der Waals forces.
But electrons are unimaginably tiny. How would they, then, act to create London forces across unimaginably huge distances, say, between the sun and Pluto?

The large mass of the earth provides a large opportunity for london like force to occur. The larger the object is, the more opportunity for this to occur, hence the stronger force of gravity.
This, I believe, is what you said about mass. Why would a change in mass lead to a greater oportunity for this to occur?

Another question I have now is: do london forces decrease with distance?

Without motion could there be gravity? At 0 degrees kelvin would there be gravity? Gravity pulls objects, those objects create kinetic energy. At 0 degrees there would be no energy so how could they move?
Therein lies the magic of potential energy. An object at some distance from the earth, for example, will have potential energy, which gravity gives to the object. This potential energy allows the objects to move.

Also, actually achieving 0 degrees K is impossible, thanks to a whole host of conservation laws.

10. Originally Posted by someguy22
At 0 degrees kelvin would there be gravity? Gravity pulls objects, those objects create kinetic energy. At 0 degrees there would be no energy so how could they move?
There would be no thermal energy, which is an entirely different thing from saying there would be no energy.

11. This, I believe, is what you said about mass. Why would a change in mass lead to a greater oportunity for this to occur?
During my quantum mechanics unit in chem class we were taught that larger neutral molecules have larger London forces than smaller molecules. This is due to the larger number of electrons. If all of the electrons are evenly spread out there is an even charge all around the molecule, but if all of the electrons are concentrated on one side that side would have a more negative charge while the opposite side would be more positive. 10 electrons concentrated together would be stronger than 2 electrons.

Another question I have now is: do london forces decrease with distance
I'm not sure, but I would think that they do decrease with distance because it is just an electric charge. But I don't know of any research done on the force that would be created from an object so large that it has a noticable gravitational field. What would be the effect of an accumulation of molecules to create something the size of the sun? Could it accumulate in a way that could explain gravity? Possibly, I don't know, but that is what needs to be tested.

12. During my quantum mechanics unit in chem class we were taught that larger neutral molecules have larger London forces than smaller molecules. This is due to the larger number of electrons. If all of the electrons are evenly spread out there is an even charge all around the molecule, but if all of the electrons are concentrated on one side that side would have a more negative charge while the opposite side would be more positive. 10 electrons concentrated together would be stronger than 2 electrons.
Thank you for that answer. Now, my problem has been restated to this. Going by what you said, I think I can say with some confidence that you mean to say that the electrons are responsible for London-like forces. So can you propose any conceivable way of testing your hypotheses?

Its a good explanation, but you still need some way to test it.

13. Its a good explanation, but you still need some way to test it.
Therein lies the problem. I'm in grade 12 and have no idea where I would begin. :P

Well, firstly, we have to look theoretically. The first step is trying to come up with a basic mathematical formula that can readily decribe the force. For example, Newton's law of gravity can be expressed like this:.

Einstein's explanation makes use of tensor language and equations, so I won't bother trying to paste it up here.

Now, exactly what is different about your theory? You hold that London-like attraction forces act upon masses. taking , that will affect light beams as well. Very well. Is there a unique distinctive feature of a London force? Remember that it must not contradict any ogther law of physics. For best results, try and make it relativistically sound, so angry general relativity worshippers don't barge in on you and protest. :wink: .

If there is a unique feature, try and focus on it. Develop simple equations to deal with it at first, if you aren't aware of the normal mathematics used to deal with a situation. Don't forget the main point of this theory; focus on the attraction of particles.

If you can set it to work mathematically, simply look at the predictions the math makes. I find that to be a vitally good pointer to see if your theory is correct.

15. Well, it's not that straight forward. London forces are used more in quantum mechanics. The force relies on the randomness of electron motion and really combine many different aspects of quantum mechanics in order to be described. The math in quantum mechanics is way beyond my current level.

I just want to be clear about this - London forces are not a theory of mine - I am simply trying to extend off of an accepted idea to explain gravity.

For best results, try and make it relativistically sound, so angry general relativity worshippers don't barge in on you and protest. Wink .
Good call.
But any attempt to explain gravity through quantum mechanics is really a slap in the face to them.[/quote]

16. Well, you could simply buy The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. He explains the science and maths behind quantum mechanics and general relativity.

 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