Physics

# Grand Unified Theory Combining Gravity Electromagnetism

Tweet
"Grand Unified Theory Combining Gravity Electromagnetism"
Caption:
Location:
Image by:

General Relativity tells us that gravity is the effect of a distortion in time-space caused by the presence of matter. The basic idea is that if a mass is placed in space, it will bend it in a fashion very much like a heavy object placed on taut rubber sheet would, except in all dimensions.

General Relativity tells us the how of gravity, that the slope in space generally follows the Law of Inverse Squares, but not the why of it. Why does gravity do what it does? Is it something that is radiated by a massive body? Is it a force-field, like a magnet? Is it caused by a mysterious particle that transmits the opposite of force, a pull instead of a push?

Perhaps, if we alter our viewpoint just the slightest bit, we can see ever so much farther.

Instead of thinking of space as a generic 'emptiness', we can consider it to be a vast electromagnetic field, alive with energy, set at an exactly neutral charge of zero. Instead of nothing, visualize two perfectly overlapping fields of (for simplicity's sake) infinite positive and infinite negatively charged energy, exactly canceling each other out. Space isn't just a void, it is the full vastness of all the energy of the cosmos; matter is just a rare anomaly.

Got that picture? Good. Now, take a small bit of that energy, the tiniest droplet imaginable, and split it into its component parts, a positive point and a negative point. In sum, they cancel - but, if separated, they can exist as independent deviations from the 'zero' field. We can call these odd bits that crop up occasionally in the infinity of space and time "matter" and "antimatter". If ever the two should meet, they'll return to neutral nothingness, but, for now, they can remain points of fixed somethingness.

Now, if we take one of these bits of cold, hard, reality, and set it in the zero field of space, it will cause a distortion in the immediate area. The sympathetic field's strength will be slightly enhanced in the region, and the antithetic will be slightly weakened. The net effect then, seeing space as 'nothing', would be a localized field of 'something'.

That 'something', what we see as a whole phenomenon, is actually the difference between the balance of the forces that surround any given particle.

See where we're going? Once the anomalous fixed-point charge is placed in the zero-sum field, it indirectly creates an effective slope. Relatively speaking, there is a net force, but it isn't caused by the particle itself - it originates in space, as a reaction to the presence of the particle, a very important difference.

However, the zero sum of the universe is preserved, because the particle's counterpart must, of its nature, cause an exactly opposite sympathetic effect in whatever region of the cosmos it lands in. Like the crest and trough of a wave, they average out to an even, neutral level.

This particle, on its own, will be possessed of an electromagnetic charge, of course, but, if one adds another particle of opposite electric, but identical magnetic charge, the electrical charges will cancel, leaving behind only a composite magnetic field. Though the magnetic field itself is far too weak to exert any influence on anything beyond a very short range, the distortion in the surrounding field of space remains. This distortion, the slope in space, does have an effect over a goodly distance; though less pronounced with distance, the distortion exists throughout the whole extent of space.

Likewise, the exactly opposite distortion in the field will surround the antiparticle. Because the two slopes are exact opposites at identical distance from each other, the two particles will effectively not exist for each other, at least so far as this distortion we call gravity is concerned. Though everything else in the universe would be affected by the distortions they cause, they ignore each other. The only way to get them to interact would be to move them to within electromagnetic range.

Other particles might exist in this cosmos also, and each would be subject to the slope of the field it rests on caused by the presence of other particles of the same type. Give matter a direction to fall, and it will fall. Like a ball rolling downhill, these fixed points of charge will gradually make their way down the gradient in the spatial field, until, like water flowing downhill, they reach a low point. In this case, the bottom of the gradient is another particle.

Yet similar particles do not neutralize each other's spatial distortions - they combine, forming an even steeper gradient. The more mass is added, the more profound the distortion in space, and the more strongly other particles are drawn towards the center.

Thus, the predictions of this hypothesis are threefold. First, gravity is the result of a sympathetic reaction to the presence of matter in the charge-zero electromagnetic field of the universe. Second, matter and antimatter exist in equal portions within the whole of the universe. Third, matter and antimatter posses opposed gravitational slopes, owing to the opposite spatial gradients created in space by their presence.

Though this description is a simple one, the implications on our knowledge of our universe are vast. Knowing the why of gravity's function, not to mention the existence of a zero-sum electromagnetic field permeating the universe, would lend itself to uncountable practical applications, as well as fantastic advances in theory in related fields.

At present, we suppose that the universe is largely filled with matter alone. While this seems impossible, we find no evidence of other reaches of the cosmos being filled with antimatter. We assume that, should other areas be filled with antimatter, there should be some kind of evident reaction at the borders between them; gamma rays should illuminate the entire length of the zone where the pairs annihilate. However, if matter and antimatter largely ignore each other, gravitationally speaking, why should we expect such annihilations should ever occur except in the rarest of circumstances? Should one actually repel the other, then the interactions would be even more rare.

In truth, we now know that most matter does contain antimatter. When a Neutron splits into a Proton and an Electron, an anti-Neutrino is also released. Likewise, the two products cannot be rejoined into a Neutron without the addition of an anti-Neutrino. Why?

Both Neutrinos and anti-Neutrinos are electrically neutral, so what other reason could there be save to serve as a balance for the mass of the Electron? Just as energy can only exist in stable 'quanta', so too can mass only exist in certain stable states. The reason is identical; mass and energy are interchangeable, as shown by Einstein.

Therefore, to form a stable Neutron from a Proton and an Electron, an anti-Neutrino must be added to form a stable unit of mass, meaning that the anti-Neutrino must possess an 'anti-mass', equal and opposite to that of the Electron, while also being electrically neutral.

Thus, we have a sound observational basis to suspect that the Third prediction is correct. What's more, we can deduce that matter and antimatter will only annihilate in exactly matched pairs.

Since we have reasonable grounds for the Third prediction, and the Second prediction has always been judged more likely than not, then we would be justified in further predicting that mass, the very measure of a particle's gravitational 'force' is also an opposed characteristic between matter and antimatter, which, in turn, gives us reasonable grounds to suppose that the First prediction is correct.

Tweet