Click for author's home page

           The “BIG BAND” Concept of Gravity¥

Joel M. Williams

Los Alamos, NM 87544

Click image for free 18Mb pdf of this "out-of-print" book

"Rethinking the Atom"

a 164 page paperback compilation of articles by JMW

$19.95 US list at Amazon

Click here  for



Click image for free 22Mb pdf of the book


An explanation for gravity was listed as one of the 11 greatest unanswered questions of physics [Discover Vol. 23 No. 2 (February 2002)]. Many have tried; none has succeeded. Einstein spent much of his later life trying, while constrained to the quantum box. A proper explanation has been sought under two hypotheses: that gravity is a separate force from other forces and that it fits the quantum theory ideal (thus, the proposed "graviton"). After a fruitless 75-year attempt to explain gravity with these restrictions and make it fit a grand unification theory, it should strike most that these tenets are faulty. That the premises were not changed long ago testifies to just how completely quantum theory has dominated science, crushing or simply ignoring thought perceived to be inconsistent with its tenets. No one dares challenge this new religion for fear of being ostracized or more importantly admitting that one's own high IQ was insufficient to see its fallacies. It is doubtful that venerable peers would welcome changes that would make their thinking no better that that of an undergraduate -- their station in life is just too good. Peer review becomes self-aggrandizing while claiming impartiality.

Gravity would not be an unanswered question if it could be shown that an object emits an omni-directional, electrostatically neutral, wave that maximally combines with other such waves. This contrasts with like-charge electrostatic waves that, while additive, minimally combine because their sources repel. The combining force must be positive, but will not be very large compared to electrostatic forces. The existence of such a neutral wave has been the difficulty.

Consider the simple equations for electronic and gravity interactions as the starting point for pondering what causes gravity.


  Electrostatics                                                Gravity

   E = F (q1q2)/r2                       E = G (m1m2)/r2

The traditional view of a neutral body has a single component, electrostatic field that is zero at all distances from the object. Neglected in this view are the ever-present positive and negative fields generated by the many charged entities that form the objects. Opposing electrostatic waves from an object do not cancel, but nullify by opposition. The intensity of the resulting neutral wave is the sum of all the individual electrostatic waves. Since most matter is made up of very tiny, charged species, the intensity of the neutral wave will also be directly related to mass*; hence the similarity of the gravity mass-formula to the electrostatic charge-formula. In the quantum theory vernacular, the interaction of two neutral electrostatic waves is equivalent to orbital overlap (think BIG spheres) with no net electrostatic repulsion or attraction from the sources. Here, the positive (dextral?) components combine; so do the negative (sinistral?) ones. Diminishing waves string a dual, three-dimensional, mesh fabric out to infinity. The resultant remains neutral, but the crescendo (pull) rises as overlap maximizes -- halting only when the two masses slam together. The force constant (G) is weak, but positive, for the overlap. This describes another law of the universe: "Neutral bodies attune" -- order from chaos, even as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics grinds away to create more chaos. This explains the scientific dilemma of why we have any order at all.

The "fabric" of a universe is an electrostatically neutral double-weave formed from two like-charged waves. Gravity is simply the propensity of like-charge waves to maximize overlap. Any unification theory that includes electrostatic charge forces already provides the means for handling the gravity force. Gravity does not require, nor have, an independent source. For three-quarters of a century, some of our most intellectual scientists have searched for an independent source of gravity for their grand unification of forces. All have failed, as there is none. Gravity is a force subset, not an independent set.

A crowd gathered as the fiddler strummed the strings to set the tone. The trumpet blared to signal the spot and the sax blew a nostalgic note. The base and drums kept the beat, while the piano spewed out a catchy tune. Sound, in through the head -- out through the foot, induced the audience to hum. Some joined the instrumental gig and the band played on with a bit more gain. Unfretted by time or space the band grew unbounded. Few could pass by without being drawn near to check it out. Eventually the entire world heard the sound - a harmonious beat. A musician might deem it "primal urge" -- this scientist, "gravity"! Gravity -- the tuning of the universe.

Another law of the universe: "Charges Amass" — order from chaos even as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics grinds away. The BIG BAND plays on even while it sweats. This explains the scientific dilemma of why we have any order at all. That electrons have spin allows another kind of order (spiral) to occur. The BIG BAND approach is very different from anything current and approximates the response to "calling all cars" wherein the masses descend on the scene of the crime! “10-4, good buddy, we’re on our way!” Have you exercised your noodle lately and cleaned out that cranial footlocker stored with “treasured” theories? Do you go to the scene of the crime with preconceived ideas that fog your vision?

¥ Concept originally penned in 2002, partially included in “Challenging Science”, Joel M Williams, AuthorHouse (2005)

* To the extent that the charge/mass value of the smallest charge subatomic particles may be different, so will the gravitational force; achieving a normalized value as the average charge/mass value grays through astronomical numbers of each different entity. Does a hydrogen star have the same gravitational constant as a neutron star with the same mass? Closer to home, does the sun have precisely the same gravitational constant as the earth?

Click to go to the Current Version of the BIG BAND GRAVITY Theory

Click to go to a Simplistic Image of the Current View of the Cosmos

Click for author's home page