Are gravity and electromagnetism the same?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Not so. Waves have structure too, and (unlike particles) they don't collide.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Unfortunately, there's no pure waves around. Photons do collide and scatter elastically and inelastically, that's because they are waves in a very peculiar medium called quantum vacuum. These days the questions discussed are the form-factors of leptons and the photon. That second link is full of experimental stuff on exactly the form-factors of photons and electrons; if you still can't get it later, I could email it to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
That is because gravitons have a minimum speed of 20 billion c and show no wave properties, whereas the light-carrying medium has a wave speed of c and mainly wave properties.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is true but that does not mean they are different forces. A dog and a whale look very different but they are both mammals. There are four characteristics that define the nature of a force, speed, strength, range and polarity. If these properties vary with scale we could be observing the same force. I was toying with the idea of force varying with the density of the object according to these rules:

As a body becomes denser...
The strength of force increases
The range of force decreases
The propagation speed decreases
Polarity? (not sure here)

By this view gravity propagates more rapidly because we observe it at the scale of planets and stars (which are the bodies generating it) and these bodies are nowhere close to being the density of an electron. If we take the electromagnetic equations and substitute the general propagation velocity of force for c we can see that the character of electrostatic force will change as the propagation velocity increases. All the secondary terms will diminish to virtually nothing at the propagation speed of gravity and there will be no magnetic field equivalents to make it act like electromagnetism.

At the largest scale (galaxies, galaxy clusters etc) we have these assemblages creating ever weaker but more quickly propagating forces. In the micro realm the forces become stronger and more short range. This is what we observe.

I tend to think of a sea of these force waves being intercepted by matter. Some of this energy is directly converted into the mass of the body and some of that mass is also being directly converted into force waves whose properties depend on the density of the body generating them. Where you see bodies being impacted by particles I tend to think of the bodies themselves as the generators of the forces they appear to have.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Real electrons have no detectable dimensions, and behave as point sources in all experiments.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't have microscopic eyes so I can't speak too confidently about what an electron actually is. The electron radius must have SOME importance otherwise it wouldn't calculate things so nicely. Perhaps it represents a mean value for where most of the mass is located or perhaps it is a mean radius of pulsation for a spherically pulsating body in the aether. You yourself do not posit them as pure points but as assemblages of ever smaller particles. I assume electron radius in this case would be the mean radius of influence of the subparticle assemblage. I am not locking myself into believing that the electron is actually a microsphere but this is a convenient model to use for the gross features of my idea.

Tom

Try this link to see the document -

[url] www.capricorndreams.com/ichep.pdf [/url]

Not sure how you would define the size of an electron. The "accepted" or "classical" radius is about 10 -­3 nm, and this can be derived by integrating Einstein's mc^2 for the particle's electric charge - the charge has to be excluded from within the radius however, or you end up with an infinite "size" for the electron! This approach still leaves you with a point at which "nothing" exists (shades of Patrick's Nothing versus Everything Theory here!). I guess if you were to include the "inner" radius and integrate for the average charge, thereby ending up with an infinite size this might support the wave model, with the electron having a range of probabilities of existing at any point in the universe - good old Heisenberg.

If you're wary of basing your measurements purely on Mathematics, then experiments using X-ray scattering through neon gas have produced results within 1% of the calculation above. There's a quite user-friendly document here -

[url] www.aps.anl.gov/xfd/communicator/user2000/youngl1.pdf [/url]

- which provides a good account of the process.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Atko wrote:
Try this link to see the document - [url] www.capricorndreams.com/ichep.pdf [/url]
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yep, exactly the same document. Now we'll get Tom to read it, finally. Thanks!