I asked this in another question as if it was an answer so as to use a bit of that questions popularity and possibly get some clarifications on this but I also prefer to make a question of my own, so here goes a copy, in case you haven't read it...

What if... gravity and magnetism are actually one and the same? I'm just pondering here basing on an assumption and a few observations, so please, bear with me...

Actually this idea of mine started after watching a video of "Veritassium" and another one of "Minute Physics"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM they are linked to each other at the end of the video) on youtube explaining about magnets and then it kept on developing on it's own in my mind...

When they started talking about magnets in the atomic level, talking about protons, eletrons and neutrons, how magnetism works differently on the micro-scale to our scale, and remembering another video (which I don't actually remember who recorded it or which youtube channel) that talked about ferromagnetic, diamagnetic and paramagnetic objects and a frog that they made levitate with a strong enough magnetic field, that got me thinking...

If electrons and protons have their own magnetic field and everything is made of electrons, protons and neutrons, and everything in our scale(size) and the macro-scale(planets, stars, etc) is made out of atoms... wouldn't magnetism also work differently in the macro-scale? Also, couldn't gravity be the accumulated magnetic force of all that? And magnets in our scale, could they actually be way stronger on a non-gravitational environment like space, as in, actually being "weaker" here on earth? I know there are ferromagnetic, diamagnetic and paramagnetic matter and that should cause alteration when talking about gravity or mass if it were the case but, wouldn't such a MASSIVE magnetic force, or even magnetic wave as the core and the planet or star is also spinning REALLY fast, beat that? also, after seeing this video yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU

That got me thinking about the planets and moons locked around a star or planet and why they don't simply "fall" towards each other... and a black whole would be a really tiny accumulated volume of super dense matter, right? Spinning at an ASTOUNDING speed which would make it's magnetic field... stronger? Like, SUPER strong...

Is that possible? I don't actually have a degree in anything but I have a 145 IQ and always had ease of learning and good observational skills when it comes to physics, so, it sounded pretty good to me... I've been thinking of ways to try and see if that is a reality or just a figment of my imagination, but sounds pretty logical and solid...

Hope someone here is able to test it or give me some clarifications concerning it.

And if you do test it and end up make a breakthrough, at least quote my name or this message... would make it a bit easier for me to find a job as I'm unemployed for about a year, now ç.ç I don't care much about money or fame, but not having any of them makes life quite hard on you ç.ç ahushauhsuaha

Gabriel Canongia |Random Brazilian Guy

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate: Is gravity just electromagnetic attraction? $\endgroup$ – Ruslan Nov 3 '14 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think it's actually a duplicate as my supposition is quite a bit different as I actually think it's stronger and has the micro influencing the macro and also influence of the spin, also I don't think it's electromagnetism but both electro AND permanent magnetism in a sense with it's accumulated strength and taking into consideration para,dia and ferromagnetic matter, but thanks anyway, I'll take a look ^^ $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 10:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ in a sense there are theories which take this route (Yang-Mills non-Abelian gauge theories), which effectively try to model gravity as a gauge theory (similar to electromagnetism), they also predict the existence of the graviton (the analog of the photon), plus at some singularities (e.g "Big Bang") these should be unified into one force (lets say "Hyper-Electromagnetism"). But these (theories) do not say that gravity is electromagnetism (similar maybe and the same at some singularities) $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Nov 3 '14 at 12:14
  • $\begingroup$ maybe an alternative take on gravity as an entropic force would interest you $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Nov 3 '14 at 20:22

No, gravity can not be explained by linking it to electromagnetism. One technical reason for this is that the source of the electromagnetic field is a vector, the current density 4-vector $J^\mu$. On the other hand, the source of gravity is mass-energy, which can not be described by a mere vector and must be included in a tensor of rank 2.

  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say electromagnetism, but magnetism in general as in permanent magnetism and magnetism in an atomic level, that with a spin would producing a wave which in the macro turns into gravity. That's my doubt/theory. I know, by other instructive videos I saw, that with magnetism it's possible to produce electricity, heat, x-ray, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, etc according to its frequency... My question would be if it's possible that gravity is one of those energies or if magnetism would be a kind of "primal energy/force" of the universe as it basically affects everything...? $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ Also, besides the spin, would it not be possible that the collective magnetic force of the whole of earths atoms/matter would be what produces SUCH a strong magnetic force to which it is able to attract "anything", even paramagnetic and diamagnetic materials and seems different than magnetism? Is there a way to check the mass of an object and it's own gravitational pull in an environment with no gravity whatsoever and compare it to one with and compare the gravitational pull of a magnetic material in a non-gravitational environment when paired with a dia, a para and a ferromagnetic material? $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 12:44

In addition to the two great answers above, I would like to state that the E/M kinematics depends on the internal properties of the probe (specifically, on the charge/mass ratio), whether the kinematics of gravity does not. This is the fundamental difference between the two, known as the principle of equivalence.

However, most people (including me) believe that there should be a single consistent theory of everything which describes all known forces as different aspects of a single force. But not the way you suggested :)

  • $\begingroup$ "there should be a single consistent theory of everything which describes all known forces as different aspects of a single force" THAT - that is what have been most in my mind, recently... like, matter is made of atoms which are made of protons, electrons and neutrons which in turn are made of even smaller parts whilst electricity and electric impulses are charges and both electrons and protons carry a charge. Our counciousness in itself is but electrical impulses in our brain that is made out of cells made out of matter... (To be continued) $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ Then we get to electromagnetism and the electromagnetic spectrum hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod/em.gif which can produce from radio waves to X and Gamma rays, and there is the electricmagnetic indiction in which a magnetic field induces current according to Faraday's law... (To be Continued) $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ Gravity is usually described as "a force pulling together all matter" but it is also influenced by matter itself as it is its amount(volume, mass and density) and kind(atomical arrangement) that defines gravity. As I said before matter, in a sence, is made out of charges, protons and eletrons (and neutrons), besides its even smaller particles, so there should be some conection between, well, literally everything. Matter, Mass, Energy, Magnetism, Light and everyother kind of wave and, possibly, a way to turn any of them into any of them... Right? o.õ $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ @GabrielCanongia I would recommend you to study General Relativity -- the commonly accepted theory of gravity. It would answer many of your questions. $\endgroup$ – Prof. Legolasov Nov 3 '14 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ I'll try, again x.x I'm terrible with usual studying way =.='' (Accelerated Thought Syndrome) I'm trying to create a gamified method of studying by myself, as to make it fun, motivating and WAY easier but even the nothingness can distract and sidetrack me, and then I lose myself, have to start all over and end up spending my whole time doing literally nothing =.='' The creativity and flow of ideas that comes with ATS is great, but it's not worth it if you can't keep a thought for long enough to register it and your memory is only good for 30 minutes at most =/ $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Canongia Nov 3 '14 at 17:16

By separating magnetism from electromagnetism and then by saying that magnetism produces electricity you contradict yourself. Also there is simple statement which forbid the statement from the head of your question: magnetic field doesn't have sources ($(\nabla \cdot \mathbf B ) = 0$) while gravitational field has them.

If you don't understand how 4-vector nature of electromagnetism and 4-tensor nature of gravity differ "on practice", there is article about gravitoelectromagnetism, in which there is section "Scaling of fields". So you will see how (even in linear limit) tensor nature of gravity affects the observed effects.

  • $\begingroup$ Some of the effects of the 4-vector theory need to be modified when moved from special to general relativity. (See Four-Vector Wikipedia) That was he earliest indicator that Einstein's attempt to unify gravity was off a little bit. Today we have telescopes in space that can clearly mark our gravitational formulas as incorrect. So we know there is something missing from our math. We must find the answer. To logically exclude the affects of magnetism on gravity solely on the basis of another theory which is slightly wrong is a catch 22. I believe it's worth looking into Gabriel. AMF, I am. $\endgroup$ – John Muggins Apr 15 '16 at 16:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.