To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Can you show me the evidence of this? I have seen no such theory.
just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime
Enough with the really good responses. You're making me dig deep here. (Not really, its great!)
I agree that "Curvature" (and Riemann's extension of the concept) is purely a mathematical construct. It doesn't have any real physical meaning. We give meaning to these concepts through the filter of how we define what it means to be physical (to have a "physical distance" or a "movement in time"). Our ideas of physicality may be deeply flawed.
Einstein's GR equation says that the mathematical construct of curvature (and measurements of distance in the 4 dimensional spacetime) IS energy density distribution. They are the same thing. But its really only saying that changes in energy density distribution, between two measurement points, which is something we can measure, can change 3 velocity measurements and time measurements (another thing we can measure) based on your observer point. It also says the 4 velocity (and 4 momentum) measurements will always be the same for all observers.
The point is, you can think of a deformation (and its resulting curvature) of spacetime as an energy density distribution (like a gradient), or a change in the mathematical construct of curvature, and you will arrive at the same answer either way.
The idea of a 4 vector gives meaning to spacetime as a physical entity. But our measurements do coincide with the physical meaning we give (arbitrarily) to curvature, and thus the problem is, this confirmation bias reinforces our marriage to the physical concept overlays we attribute to it.
To effectively divorce these concepts we would have to be motivated to do so (which many are), but we would also have to come up with completely new ideas of what it means to be "real".
All measurements in physics, or any other physical science are ultimately measurements of two things; spatial and temporal distance. When you measure temperature, or power output, or any other measurement, when you break it down to brass tacks, you are really measuring a movement through space and time. That is why the physical universe as we have defined it (and the concept of curvature that we overlay on it) are so powerful. Those concepts help us measure everything that isn't spiritual or psychological (if those two concepts even have different meanings).
Until we can find another thought paradigm than physical reality as having "distance" in time and space, we are ultimately also married to curvature of space and time, because it works out so well in measurement. Even if we use the other side of the equation (energy density distribution), ignoring the curvature part (which allows us to accurately measure distances in space and time) is disingenuous without that paradigm shift in our concept of reality.
To say that all forces are manifestations of the same force and to say that "gravity doesn't exist" are saying the same thing.
If gravity is a manifestation of E&M then it doesn't exist as a separate force, but is just one way E&M expresses itself.
Now there are different paths to that statement. In the case of the SM one is a symmetry breaking and manifestation of a different force carrying particle (graviton) which can be (in a SUT) transformed into a photon.
In the case of other possible theories of gravity as E&M, gravity is a result of zwitterbegung or some other vibrational energy of the spacetime foam (or virtual particles) that preferences a resultant force in one direction.
But I thought the context of Tesla refuting gravity was in his refuting Einstein's gravitation theory?
Whether it's physically curved or not is debatable, however the equations predict the motion of gravity much better than what was in place before, at least up to the the mass of the Sun.
I always thought Tesla was against Einstein's theories because he didn't understand the math behind it.
Einstein didn't understand his math either which is why his wife "proved" his work.
I am not privy to Tesla's theory of gravity, though if true he would not be alone. Any SUT, or any marriage of E&M and gravity would by necessity either remove the requirement of the deformation of spacetime by energy (mass), and possibly even the idea of spacetime as a deformable medium, or it would require that it is E&M (+weak + strong) energy that causes the deformation.
Einstein never said "I'm right". Or "This is truth." No scientist ever does that. That is not a part of science, that is a part of media interpretation of science (by design of the lying system that is the media).
Everyone knows that GR and QM are not compatible, therefore either one, or both are wrong or incomplete. Einstein knew it, Feynmann knew it, Gell-mann knew it, Hawking knew it, Heisenberg knew it, Carroll knows it, Thorne knows it... EVERYONE knows it.
There is no ego there (or very little) within the community of researchers. It is only (or at least mostly) in the popular media that the idea of "right" and "wrong" or meaningful ego driven competitions exist.
My understanding is that Tesla didn't refute Einstein because his theory didn't marry E&M with gravity, but because he couldn't comprehend the math behind it.
Which is too bad since the math has been shown to be an accurate model for our solar system, better than what existed before.
Also, Einstein didn't base his theory on the principle that spacetime is deformable/warped/curved/etc. That was only an insight that came to him while he struggled to integrate gravity into special relativity. But I would submit that just because he leveraged Riemann's equations to help him with his own, it doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime is curved or anything (even though he concluded it did), but instead it shows that Riemann's equations, which were developed for measuring distances in a manifold of any dimensions, works for spacetime. It could be that nothing is curved, but the effects that gravity has on light behaves as if it is curved. There could be another reason for it we have yet to understand fully.
As for Tesla, I'm disappointed. He had an opportunity to build upon some great work, but he didn't. It seems to me he was the only one sporting any ego.
Can you show me the evidence of this? I have seen no such theory.
Enough with the really good responses. You're making me dig deep here. (Not really, its great!)
I agree that "Curvature" (and Riemann's extension of the concept) is purely a mathematical construct. It doesn't have any real physical meaning. We give meaning to these concepts through the filter of how we define what it means to be physical (to have a "physical distance" or a "movement in time"). Our ideas of physicality may be deeply flawed.
Einstein's GR equation says that the mathematical construct of curvature (and measurements of distance in the 4 dimensional spacetime) IS energy density distribution. They are the same thing. But its really only saying that changes in energy density distribution, between two measurement points, which is something we can measure, can change 3 velocity measurements and time measurements (another thing we can measure) based on your observer point. It also says the 4 velocity (and 4 momentum) measurements will always be the same for all observers.
The point is, you can think of a deformation (and its resulting curvature) of spacetime as an energy density distribution (like a gradient), or a change in the mathematical construct of curvature, and you will arrive at the same answer either way.
The idea of a 4 vector gives meaning to spacetime as a physical entity. But our measurements do coincide with the physical meaning we give (arbitrarily) to curvature, and thus the problem is, this confirmation bias reinforces our marriage to the physical concept overlays we attribute to it.
To effectively divorce these concepts we would have to be motivated to do so (which many are), but we would also have to come up with completely new ideas of what it means to be "real".
All measurements in physics, or any other physical science are ultimately measurements of two things; spatial and temporal distance. When you measure temperature, or power output, or any other measurement, when you break it down to brass tacks, you are really measuring a movement through space and time. That is why the physical universe as we have defined it (and the concept of curvature that we overlay on it) are so powerful. Those concepts help us measure everything that isn't spiritual or psychological (if those two concepts even have different meanings).
Until we can find another thought paradigm than physical reality as having "distance" in time and space, we are ultimately also married to curvature of space and time, because it works out so well in measurement. Even if we use the other side of the equation (energy density distribution), ignoring the curvature part (which allows us to accurately measure distances in space and time) is disingenuous without that paradigm shift in our concept of reality.