gravitational forces explained by curving "space fabric"..but why not electric forces too?

Everybody nowadays is familiar in some way with Einstein's explanation about gravitational forces i.e. masses create a distrortion in the space "fabric", they curve it and thus the masses fall into other masses' "holes" Couldn't the electric forces be explained in the same way?

What I mean is we could have two kinds of distortion or curves of the space, since there are two kinds of charges, i.e. "holes", as before, and "hills".

Protons e.g. create holes on one side of the "fabric" which at the same time are "hills" on the other side of the fabric, and electrons affect it oppositely, i.e they create hills on the side that protons make holes, and holes on the side that protons make hills...

So when a proton comes close to an electron, the electron is attracted by his hole, but when a proton comes close to that proton, if you see it on the other side, you would have a hll and the proton approaching wouldn't be able to climb that hill, so it would be repelled...

Doesn't it make sense??

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "The Fabric of the Cosmos," by Brian Greene addresses this and other aspects of space as a fabric that can be altered.

    In fact, from the general theory of relativity, we learn that mass is not the only bender of space. Energy and pressure (stress) can also curve space. These are the three major contributors found in Einstein's tensors that cause changes in the corresponding geometry tensor that represents space time. These are the three sources, not one as Newton thought, of gravity.

    There is a new gravity kid on the block... Horava Gravity. As best as I can make it out, Horava Gravity is a stronger gravity field than the general TR predicts because Horava Gravity assumes space itself can be polarized. And in doing that, the gravity fields are transmitted undiminished across space rather than lessening as the inverse square rule. The bottom line of this gravity model, if correct, is that it does away with needing Dark Matter to explain why galaxies don't fly apart.

    A tweaked version of the Horava model has been used to precisely predict planetary orbits much like the general TR can be used. So there is some observational evidence to support the Horava Gravity model.

    I bring up these other interesting aspects of space as a fabric because they support your premise... that other results of attraction and repulsion might be due to space-time altering by the source forces that emit the fields. Who knows?

  • 1 decade ago

    The main difference is that everything appears to be affected by "gravity" or by spacetime warping. Matter, photons, etc. But when you visualize the electromagnetic potentials, that would only be true for charged particles. Photons and neutral matter would not be affected or modified by that landscape.

    So you could visualize an electron traversing this landscape, but meanwhile a photon just goes zipping along through the mountains and over the valleys.

    Another problem I have is that gravitational attraction appears naturally from the behavior in the visualization you have. Two massive particles create "dips" and as they approach the dips become greater and eventually merge as the particles collide. This becomes much stranger if you try to visualize two charged particles approaching. One would be associated with a dip, another would be associated with a mountain (perhaps pushing up from underneath?) Somehow as these things approached they would attract each other more strongly, eventually merging, but destructively instead of constructively. That seems odd to me.

    All that said, I'm sure the real reason has more to do with the way the math works, and the fact that such a model made good mathematical sense for Einstein's GR, but isn't necessary for any explanation of electromagnetism.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.