I have this on my mind for some time already so I decided to share it even though I might be completely wrong about it.

Every charged particle has an electrical charge and magnetic moment. The magnetic moment is usually described as the magnetic field generated by the particle's charge "like it was spinning but without actually spinning". To generate a magnetic field you can either move electric charge, or just align enough magnetic moments of individual particles (like it is done in permanent magnets).

Note also that electromagnetic field knows inertia - moving charge generates a magnetic field which in turn keeps the charge moving. That's among others the reason why the LHC magnets need to be ramped down instead of just switched off.

So the idea is - could the mass/gravity be some kind of "monopolar" variant of electromagnetic field? What if particles have gravitational charge and mass moment in a similar way they can have electric charge and magnetic moment? Now, it does not explain why particles have mass, but it changes it to the same problem as why particles have magnetic moment. Plus it can explain inertia in terms of field behavior and it makes it more obvious how electron and quarks can have mass, even though in quarks there's much less "their own" mass than is the total mass of the particle consisting of them.

Well... if that idea is any good I don't believe I'm the first to be considering it, but I have never heard of something similar. This suggests that I am rather completely wrong for some obvious reasons which I fail to see.

Anyway... what are your thoughts?

## Can mass be a field?

### Re: Can mass be a field?

I'm not sure I entirely understand your idea - mass *is* the gravitational charge (or slightly more precisely, energy and momentum). If you are trying to understand gravitation by parallels with electromagnetism, you might be heading towards Kaluza-Klein theories, which do the same thing the other way round. These show how you can get electromagnetism from general relativity if you assume an extra (5th) dimension which is a circle. A particle moving around this circle (i.e. with momentum in the 5th dimension) appears to a 4-dimensional observer (us) to have electric charge. It is quantized because the circle has a finite size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2% ... ein_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2% ... ein_theory

- Tim_BandTechDotCom
**Posts:**29**Joined:**Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

### Re: Can mass be a field?

I'm sorry to see so little activity here, and I don't mean to drive your threads, but it seems this is a lonely place. What a shame. We do see that gravity lacks repulsion and so your monopolar interpretation can be correct, with like charges (of which there is only one type) attractive.Kasuha wrote:I have this on my mind for some time already so I decided to share it even though I might be completely wrong about it.

Every charged particle has an electrical charge and magnetic moment. The magnetic moment is usually described as the magnetic field generated by the particle's charge "like it was spinning but without actually spinning". To generate a magnetic field you can either move electric charge, or just align enough magnetic moments of individual particles (like it is done in permanent magnets).

Note also that electromagnetic field knows inertia - moving charge generates a magnetic field which in turn keeps the charge moving. That's among others the reason why the LHC magnets need to be ramped down instead of just switched off.

So the idea is - could the mass/gravity be some kind of "monopolar" variant of electromagnetic field?

Within polysign numbers

http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/index.html

there exist one-signed numbers, whose correspondence to time and your monopolar supposition do hold, though polysign does not inherently derive affinity qualities.

Still, such qualities are readily derivable. For instance within the two-signed (electric):

- - = + (repulsive)

- + = - (attractive)

+ + = + (repulsive)

+ - = - (attractive)

Within the one signed numbers we will have simply

- - = -

and simply mimic the RHS of the P2 interpretation we could chalk down attractive. This defies ring principles of mathematics, as we now have the RHS a physical reaction of arithmetic product(acceleration or ddx), which is a semiclassical concept, but which needs tremendous work to form a clean interpretation.

If we were to accept this system as universal then we ought likewise to see new behaviors from P3:

- - = + (repulsive)

- + = * (new behavior!)

- * = - (attractive)

...

It happens that P3 are essentially the complex numbers, so rotation can factor in here as some of this new behavior, yet what affinity means then must be challenged, and the slender interpretation of P2 as a 1D phenomenon needs to be considered. The discretization of the continuum is likewise here within all of this, and the massless electron should be addressed I think. Is it massless? Even if it has a 'rest mass' if it never rests, then I think its mass interpretation is suspicious.

Within the emergent spacetime that polysign admits we see the structure

P1 P2 P3 ...

with a natural breakpoint beyond P3, thus enabling a 3D structured spacetime with zero dimensional unidirectional time. This structure admits the sixes of the standard model. It admits a three-type does exist within the fundamentals of spacetime, though there is no obvious direct mapping to the quark. The standard model exists within old assumptions of isotropic spacetime. Polysign exposes that spacetime itself is structured, and in hindsight it is plainly clear through the unidirectional nature of time that any unified spacetime model requires structure, in direct opposition to the reliance upon isotropic principles, and so the tensor usage becomes questionable, for that format inherently enforces the isotropic nature of problems stated within its context. Well, the Minkowski metric breaks out of the isotropic tenser, never mentioning the fact, and never looking back to reconsider its false reliance.

I am sorry to post such a tangential reply, but it does matter, and while I do not yet have a clean gravitational model as you suggest, I have played numerous times with the construction you propose, and have arithmetic support for the monopolar construction, even while I find the affinity results that I posed above dubious. There are numerous errors within the modern interpretations; both physical and mathematical. It is a bit beyond me still to straighten it all out, but I am pecking away at it. Sorry to be cryptic, but if I were to decrypt then this would be even longer.

What if particles have gravitational charge and mass moment in a similar way they can have electric charge and magnetic moment? Now, it does not explain why particles have mass, but it changes it to the same problem as why particles have magnetic moment. Plus it can explain inertia in terms of field behavior and it makes it more obvious how electron and quarks can have mass, even though in quarks there's much less "their own" mass than is the total mass of the particle consisting of them.

Well... if that idea is any good I don't believe I'm the first to be considering it, but I have never heard of something similar. This suggests that I am rather completely wrong for some obvious reasons which I fail to see.

Anyway... what are your thoughts?

- Tim http://bandtech.com