Reply to Arjen Dijksman
' ... you propose to express gravity as a vector perpendicular to the electric field and the magnetic. This may be expressed quite simply as a vector product G proportional to E x B. I don't see how this would relate to experimental evidence ...'
You don't see this because you still think that the mass of particles and the spacedistance between them are entirely different and independent quantities: if, as I argue, mass and distance define, create each other, just like energy and time, if the mass particles show to have to each other, the force between them, the frequency they exchange energy at varies with their distance so their distance is part of their properties, of their mass, then the Maxwell equations relating the E and B field to the distance to its source, in this distance already contain gravity implicitly. In a volume of spacetime with only one single particle in it all positions are identical: as long as it has nothing to interact with so it doesn't matter energetically where it is, it cannot distinguish whether the volume it sits in is infinite or infinitesmal so spacetime to the particle is a completely undefined quantity, as is the particle itself as it cannot exist if there's nothing to exchange energy with. To illustrate how intrinsicly mass and space are related, imagine, in an empty universe, a particle and its antiparticle creating each other by separating as they can only exist at different places, the particle borrowing its positive energy from its twin which, in counterphase, needs an equal, negative energy. The farther apart they move, the longer this takes, the longer they live, and, as at larger, less definite distances, gravity between them is less definite, smaller, so is their energy. Of course, alone in their universe, they cannot feel any force at all, can have no energy as there's no gravity between them to make one position, on distance differ energetically from the other until they acquire some inertia, a foothold to exert and experience gravity from. As they can only rent some inertia from neighboring particles by exchanging energy with them, then this requires the creation of such neighbors to do so, particles which also are looking for partners to exchange energy with, to exist to. As their mass, the energy they exchange to keep existing depends on the force* between them, which in turn depends on the definiteness in their position, in their distance, then they create spacetime as soon as they start to exchange energy. The higher their energy, the less indefinite their distance is, the more energetically different positions they can disinguish, the larger spacetime is to them. As any particle is at the center of its own universe, they create each other at the same time, their energy exchange perhaps** starting in very long wavelengths, an exchange which in time shifts to shorter wavelengths as they contract in clusters as this is the only way to create new particles at the rim of their universe and keep existing themselves: create or perish. So mass and distance, define, create each other just like energy and time, the problem being that if we assume that the mass of particles is an intrinsic, interaction-independent property and use their masses to calculate their distance from the force between or vice versa, or derive their mass from forces and distances, we arrive at numbers which ignore this fact: that to nature mass and distance, space, are interchangable, pass into each other, as mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime which outwards passes into 'empty' spacetime, which is but a diluted form of mass.
Though their exchange is instantaneous, the spacetime they create between them makes particles see each other in an earlier** evolutionary phase, farther shifted to red at larger distances, so they don't see each as they were in the past, as if it takes the energy they exchange so long to reach each other, but simply because they exchange energy in less definite, longer wavelengths as they are farther apart. If their energy is a superposition of energies of different wavelengths, their position a superposition of (in)definitenesses in their position, then by exchanging energy particles knit spacetime together to the continuum we see.
The splitting of a particle with positive energy from its counterpart with negative energy, or the oscillation of particles between opposite states is the same as the particles moving in opposite time directions, as if they oscillate about a zero-time point to prevent violation of conservation laws, which is impossible as with their energy, they create the time to exist in. This energy gap represents a shorter timedistance as a smaller spacedistance equals a greater force, a higher energy, their behaviour more rigidly coupled at shorter distances, one particle being a larger part of the universe of the other. As they create each other at the same time, a timedistance between them certainly is not the same as a duration, never mind that an observer will see the nearest particle change before its twin, a duration which is equal to their space- cq timedistance.
Perhaps we should distinguish two kinds of gravity: the one we're familiar with, the kind which makes stars and galaxies move and radiate, powering or powered by the expansion of the universe, the ongoing creation of massenergy and spacetime out of each other, and the less visible kind involved in the energy exchange objects preserve their properties with. Related to this, there are two kinds of time, an evolutionary kind of time where the evolution of galaxies doesn't so much happen in time, as if there's some clock outside the universe decreeing the pace of events inside, but an evolution which produces time as it proceeds, the accumulating kind of time we associate with past, present and future, and another kind of time which is related to the frequency particles oscillate about a zero-time point, to the energy exchange they preserve each other's mass. Though one process is impossible without the other, our mistake is that, since we take gravity for an attractive force, we interprete the gravitational constant as the constant which relates the force between masses, whereas in fact it only refers to the gravity which is involved in the creation process, in the expansion of the universe. The kind of gravity which is carried by, produced by the energy exchange between (clusters of) particles is much stronger, but, as the mass of an object equals its inertia, doesn't cause any acceleration, though of course one kind of gravity cannot exist without the other. This, by the way, is why the acceleration of an object in free fall doesn't depend on its own mass: that it does depend on the planet's mass is because it is part of a contracting cluster, our Milky Way: the larger its mass, the greater its part is in the ongoing creation, in producing the universe, in its expansion.
Anyhow, the problem to quantify the relation between the E, B and G fields more explicity doesn't invalidate the assertion that these equations contain gravity in the distance x to its source.
If in a windowless rocket, we cannot distinguish whether it is at rest at some planet or accelerates in space, an acceleration from gravity, and an electric field by accelerating a particle brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then perhaps we should apply the equivalence principle by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity, so we shouldn't even speak about an electromagnetic force as if this is an entirely different kind of force which has nothing to do with gravity -in which case we'll never unify them. So if a force does what gravity does and in its effects cannot be distinguished from gravity we should call gravity, however the means we manipulate it with may differ. If the E, B and G fields indeed are different aspects of the same thing, then gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon and vice versa. Similarly, if a photon is an electromagnetic phenomenon which in transporting mass transmits impulse between particles as their changed masses requires a displacement to find a new equilibrium in their neighborhoods, and in their displacement transmits gravity between them, then what do we need the graviton for?
These considerations don't answer questions like why electrons tend to move apart or why a muon, so much heavier than the electron nevertheless seems to have the same charge. I also don't know whether the Poynting vector S ~ E x B giving the energy flow vector of the electromagnetic field can be related to the blackbody radiation of a particle of a cluster of particles, to the energy exchange to preserves its mass. What I do know is that in science it is often more important to dream up good questions than finding answers, though a good answer often opens a path to new discoveries and questions.
However magnificient Maxwell's equations are, they're not all there is to electromagnetism as we tend to forget that we don't even know what it is we don't know. By sticking a label on something, by ascribing electric phenomena to a cause and calling it charge, we commit the act of assuming it to be an intrinsic property of particles, a label behind which we can hide our ignorance about its nature so well that we don't even consider it a subject for study anymore, as if we know all there is to know about it. That we assign particles charge sizes like 1, 1/3 and 2/3 should have made us suspicious as to the pretention that they refer to an interaction-independent property as this is impossible in a self-creating universe. Rather than referring to an intrinsic property, these simple numbers seem to express the need for an explanation for electrically neutral composite particles or states of equilibrium where particles somehow manage to shield themselves from the kind of interactions we associate with charge. Though this is a simplistic, wild speculation probably far off the mark, we might imagine the oscillation frequency of the rotating protonquarks in hydrogen to fit the electron's frequency at different distances, in discrete orbit radii, moving at velocities at which its own frequency is just redshifted enough to fit some of the proton harmonics, equilibrium states we explain by saying they are oppositely charged, as if a force can be unambiguously either attractive or repulsive, an explanation which to me seems rather primitive.
Unfortunately, one outdated idea, one flawed concept breeds the next as it is because we take charge for an intrinsic particle property that we need antiparticles to explain why quantummechanics work. If the charge of a particle only refers to the sign of its energy and fundamental particles oscillate between opposite states, the phase they are in with respect to each other determining their interactions, then we don't need antiparticles, though by pushing them into counterphase with respect to 'regular' particles, we can manipulate them to act as if they are a really different breed. The point is that if the energy of a particle doesn't have any particular sign but its size is determined by the frequency it alternates between opposite states, then like a photon, any fundamental particle is its own antiparticle. If any property contributes to the energy of a particle then it only can exist, contribute to its energy if it also alternates between opposite signs or states: if even for a particle 'to be' is a verb and not a noun, then charge cannot be a static quantity. The concept of charge, then, doesn't only produce that of antiparticles, but is itself the product of the misunderstanding that gravity is attractive as this necessitates an explanation as to why some particles tend to move apart, or why the force between other particles is so much stronger than (an attractive) gravity can account for.
Though I have some ideas about why electrons tend to move apart or why they always are deflected in the same direction in a magnetic field, as if their compass is fixed in some particular direction, or why the muon despite being heavier acts as if it has a charge equal to that of an electron, they haven't yet matured enough to be presentable, though I hope they are before the contest ends.
* gravity being a simultaneously attractive and repulsive force. In the example of the particle and its twin counterpart, this may translate as the necessity to attract when apart -and annihilate, but to repulse to move apart and create each other out of nothing, though the notion of attraction and repulsion is somewhat outdated as no force can exceed the opposition is evokes.
**perhaps, **earlier: well, this depends on whether a self-creating universe can have a beginning at all
