I was wondering if there has ever been any serious investigation into
the possibility that gravity might be a byproduct of the electrostatic
and electromagnetic forces. There are plenty of people on the internet
that argue this idea however none of them seem credible, having no
concrete evidence to back up the claim (that gravity is a byproduct of
electromagnetism and electrostatics), is this only because the
question is viewed as bieng preposterous, and therefore not worth
pursuing? Is it that the idea itself is so blatantly invalid that is
has never been seriously considered? Thankyou for time.

Dear ethansmith,

I am going to be brave and try to do your question justice...

I think I would be safe in saying that the current general
understanding in the physics community is that gravity is not a
byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two
of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and
“weak” forces (physicists show such imagination with names!)

These four forces are considered fundamental because they are
considered to explain all observed physical processes. ie Any force
between two objects is due to one or another of these interactions.
The relativistic quantum field theory also describes four carrier
particles for each of these forces. Photons (electromagnetic), bosons
(weak), gluons (strong) and gravitons (gravitational).  However ,
according to the SLAC article this theory is acknowledged as 
incomplete. So the lack of experimental evidence for gravitons and the
fact that the theory does not explain how the fundamental particle
masses are generated, provides considerable opportunities for
physicists to complete the theory.  Other forces and carrier particles
have been proposed and as has previously been the case, proof of such
fundamental particles or forces would definitely be considered a Nobel
prize level achievement.
 
However, there has been continuous serious investigation into the
possibility that gravity and electromagnetic forces are linked.
Unified theories of forces have been of continuous interest to
physicists. Some of the more famous examples include Maxwell in 1855
who showed electric and magnetic lines of force could be described by
a single set of equations; Einstein died working on a unified field
theory to explain the relationship between gravitation and
electromagnetism and more recently, the 1999 Nobel Prize was awarded
for work toward deriving a unified framework for all the theoretical
forces (Hooft).

Unfortunately for mere mortals, as distinct from theoretical
physicists, papers such as Hooft’s are virtually inaccessible.  Their
titles may contain “familiar” words such as gravitational forces,
black holes, big bang, space and time, however due to their complex
mathematics it is impossible for mere mortals to understand their true
value. For this, the non-mathematically inclined have to rely on the
processes of peer review of scientific papers. Results are published,
assessed for internal integrity, repeatability and alignment with
experimental results by their suitably qualified peers. I think this
is why we rely so much on the source of the publication… and thus a
Nobel prize winning physicist or Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
site are considered more reputable sources than a science fiction fan
site. (Of course the Nobel prize winning physicist could also be a
science fictin writer or fan!)

Working out what is known and unknown is also made difficult for
laymen because Nobel winning scientists and science fiction authors
may have similar sounding  and unsupported theories. However, the
Nobel winning scientist is likely to have arrived at the theory from
years of complex mathematics and be much better able to identify
whethe an experimental result or observation is consistent or
inconsistent with the theory. The origin of the universe is one such
area. Where, even in the scientific community, there exist many
conflicting theories…

This Georgia State University site discusses the theory of unification
of all of the four forces in the high temperatures of the big bang

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/unify.html

_____

In summary, yes the link between forces is of vital interest in the
highest circles of theoretical and experimental physics and is subject
of multi-million dollar research and is taken very seriously. However,
like many complex concepts, speculation and trivialization are also
rife.

_____

Stanford Linear Accelerator Virtual Visitor Center(SLAC) provides a
very good overview of current accepted theory.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory.html

American Institute of Physics (AIP)
Describes fundamental forces and Hooft's work.
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/fforces.htm

Nobel Prize Site
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1999/press.html

Hooft, Gerard, Home Page
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/

Hooft, Gerard, Distinguishing causal time from Minkowski time and a
model for the black hole quantum eigenstates, an example paper.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9711/9711053.pdf

Search strategy
Fundamental forces
Maxwell
Einstein
Hooft

Naturally, I would be happy to clarify any of the above - just select
the button!

Regards,

Ethan,

Here is something that may be of interest:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/unified_field_theory.html

An excerpt:

"Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects
of a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity
remains beyond attempts at a unified field theory."

The idea is not blatantly invalid. It is well worth pursuing, but I
believe it is somewhat beyond the scope of Google Answers. I would
presume that if one of our researchers has formulated an elegant
unified field theory, he or she will probably trot it over to some
prestigious journal and sit back awaiting the Nobel Prize in Physics
that is inevitable!

ethansmith...you asked:

Is gravity a byproduct of the electromagnetic force?

Yes. Yes it is. But don't ask me how I know.

Sadly, although I actually know everything...
I can't remember it all at once.

Please accept this comment in the spirit of humor
in which it was intended...

sublime1-ga

Funny you should ask. Apparently Boeing (!) takes the subject
seriously:

- - - - -
AVweb NewsWire (12-August-02)
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0233a.html

Boeing Fed Up With Gravity?

Talk about diversification. While Boeing's commercial sales fall to
match the economy, rumors have been flying that the aerospace leader
is jumping into their newest (and strangest) project for a new
anti-gravity propulsion system.

Janes [http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02t.html] reports
that the world's largest aircraft manufacturer has admitted it is
working on experimental anti-gravity projects that (obviously) could
revolutionize conventional aerospace propulsion technology as we know
it.

The author claimed that current research -- underway at Boeing's
Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle --
centers on the effort to engineer the hardware needed to transform the
idea from theory airborne reality. To reach this juncture, the author
claimed Boeing is trying to solicit the services of a Russian
scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia
and Finland.

While Russian officials discount his work, Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov has
reportedly already developed a device -- called an "impulse gravity
generator" -- capable of producing a beam of "gravity-like" energy
that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object.
According to Boeing, the company is not currently funding any research
in this area at this time, but is well aware of Podkletnov's work and
is following his progress closely.

NOTE: Feel free to peruse Podkletnov's research published August 30,
2001 [http://superconductors.org/gravity.pdf]... but good luck
understanding much of it.
- - - - -


The heck with the CRX. Put me on the waiting list.
Huntsman

Boeing has followed NASA over the edge.  In addition to this
boondoggle, NASA has funded research into transitions "below the
ground state" in atoms (Google for hydrinos & NASA).  According to
slashdot, they're also working on detection of brainwaves in airport
travelers as a security screening mechanism.

I'm not sure exactly when the organization that put men on the Moon
was overrun by drunken howler monkeys, but they're apparently in
charge now.  There are _massive_ problems with the ideas above.  The
brainwave stuff is probably just ridiculously hard - the other two are
fundamentally impossible.

As soon as Boeing, NASA, & the other guy succeed in blocking gravity,
somebody is gonna have to dig Gauss up & explain to him that he didn't
really know vector calc. & geometry.

Gravity is an artifact of curved space and motion.  A slight
confusion, space is said to be curved when it is more accurate to say
space is the curve.  There is also motion within this curve by all
matter.  All particles of all matter are spinning in all dimensions. 
Mass objects, like a planet or proton, cause an increase in the rate
of curvature in that area of space due to their mass.  Likewise those
objects are moving through curved space.  Spinning objects moving in a
curve cause gyroscopic procession toward the center of the arc of
curvature.  In humans case, this would be the force felt as our body
weight toward the center of our planet earth.  Therefore gravity,
though unavoidable, is nothing more than an artifact of motion and
spinning particles experiencing gyroscopic procession.  I have built
apparatus to verify my theory and it all checks out as this model
predicts, therefore I believe this to be the correct model.  This is
original research by me and represents the first writing of my
findings.

The link shown in the answer:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9711/9711053.pdf 

does not work since the PDF is generated on the fly from the
PostScript source file.  This link:

http://lanl.arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9711053

will get you to the abstract and in 1 click you will see the full PDF
document.
Since it took me a while to figure this out and find the paper, I
thought I would tell everyone about it...