1
$\begingroup$

From Coulomb's law and Newton's second law we can state that if there is electrostatic mass (charge) at any point of space then there has to exist inertial mass also at that point of space. Otherwise, in the influence of any other electric field the electrostatic mass will accelerate at infinite acceleration, which is un-physical. So electrostatic mass(charge) has to exist with inertial mass. What does this signify? Can that be the basis of the assumption that electromagnetism and gravitation can be unified?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ One thing to think about is that if you have charge somewhere, it has some energy associated with it, and since energy and mass are equivalent, this means it by its very nature has some inertial mass. I don't think this really says anything about unifying E&M and gravity. $\endgroup$ – JotThisDown Jan 11 '15 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Energy is associated with every charge and energy is equivalent to mass but we don't know what is just 'energy' we know it in its different forms only...the energy associated with charge is in the electrostatic field associated with it with a particular energy density at each point...so i think that it is conceptually wrong to say that charge has some energy and since energy is equivalent to mass charge has to have mass... $\endgroup$ – Dvij Mankad Jan 11 '15 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ Excuse me, I don't understand why "From Coulomb's law and Newton's second law we can state that if there is electrostatic mass (charge) at any point of space then there has to exist inertial mass also at that point of space." is true. $\endgroup$ – gented Sep 23 '15 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ If it has some charge then it will experience some non-zero force in an electric field. If it has doesn't have non-zero inertial mass then it means that its acceleration becomes infinity according to F=ma. But it must not be the case. So the particle has to have some non-zero inertial mass if it has some non-zero electric charge(electrostatic mass). $\endgroup$ – Dvij Mankad Sep 24 '15 at 9:55
1
$\begingroup$

From Coulomb's law and Newton's second law we can state that if there is electrostatic mass (charge) at any point of space then there has to exist inertial mass also at that point of space. Otherwise, in the influence of any other electric field the electrostatic mass will accelerate at infinite acceleration, which is un-physical. So electrostatic mass(charge) has to exist with inertial mass. What does this signify? Can that be the basis of the assumption that electromagnetism and gravitation can be unified?

Electromagnetic mass is not usually concentrated in a point, but is distributed in whole space. Region of space carrying some electromagnetic mass does not need to be charged; even region in vacuum in which no charge is present may carry electromagnetic mass. If there is no charge, there is no force and no acceleration either.

That being said, non-electromagnetic mass is needed in theory, but for another reason: particles would not keep together if they only experienced electromagnetic force. Any charged body would expand and rarify to zero.

The above has no direct connection to gravity as far as I see; it is only about inertial mass (including electromagnetic mass). The fact that gravitational mass is proportional to inertial mass still needs to be added as independent assumption.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you are mixing electromagnetic mass with electrostatic mass... Electrostatic mass simply means charge whereas electromagnetic mass is the proposed concept which tries to show that inertial mass is a direct effect of the electromagnetic properties of particle. $\endgroup$ – Dvij Mankad Jan 15 '15 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you you use the term "electrostatic mass" to say "electric charge"? $\endgroup$ – Ján Lalinský Jan 15 '15 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ Because in the sense of Physics it is completely true...and I am obsessed with the concept of different type of masses like inertial mass,gravitational mass,electrostatic mass,etc. $\endgroup$ – Dvij Mankad Jan 18 '15 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ I do not think there is any good reason to call charge mass. You confuse two different concepts. $\endgroup$ – Ján Lalinský Jan 29 '15 at 19:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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