Dark Matter

[Jamie123]

A little over seven years ago, I sent this e-mail to Professor Catherine Heymans of Edinburgh University:

Quote

From: ***
Sent: 29 December 2013 16:06
To: [email protected]
Subject: An Idea I had about Dark Matter

Dear Dr. Heymans,

I hope you don't mind me writing to you like this, but an idea struck me this afternoon as I was I was re-reading your article on Dark Matter in Physics World (October Edition, pp.33-34).

You note the findings of the Planck survey that the universe is composed on 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. But suppose there is not just one but *four* universes which occupy the same space, but are on (as sci-fi fans would put it) "parallel dimensions". These universes are invisible to each other (i.e. they do not share electromagnetic fields) but *do* share the same gravitational field. Thus the 73.2% "dark matter" would actually be the combined matter of the other three universes. This would account for the missing matter on a universal level.

Furthermore the "clumping" of matter in the early universe might have resulted in galaxies, galactic clusters etc. forming in the corresponding spaces of all four universes, meaning that our galaxy must be aligned with three other galaxies in other universes. All four of these "sister" galaxies would contribute to the aggregate gravitational field, thus accounting for the missing matter on a galactic level.

However, the very minor gravitational attraction between individual stars would not require individual stars within those four galaxies to be aligned, meaning that the space occupied by the sun in our universe would be empty in the three other universes. Thus there are no "dark matter" effects are observable in the orbits of the planets of our solar system.

Of course this theory does not explain the 26.8% dark energy which is (so I understand) fuelling the universal inflation, but maybe dark energy is actually something quite separate from dark matter and (like gravity) common to all the four universes.

I daresay this idea has been thought of before, but I wanted to run it by you to see what you thought.

Thank you very much for your attention. Best wishes and a Happy New Year,

***
*** University

Do you think she replied? Not a bit of it. Not even a "Thank you for your message, but you are a total idiot, so stop wasting my time with your nonsense."

I'd forgotten all about it, but it just popped into my head today, and hey presto it was still in my sent mail box. I almost sent it again to her with a snotty reminder, but chickened out (bok bok bok). But I thought some of you people might have an opinion on my crazy speculations.

[Jamie123]

[Jamie123]

A picture of me not sending a snotty reminder to Catherine Heymans:

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Jamie123

[Vort]

I like the idea, but how could it be tested?

[Jamie123]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I like the idea, but how could it be tested?

Good question - I suppose if there are localized objects (like stars) in parallel universes whose gravity fields permeate into our own, their gravity wells could be detected - perhaps by some kind of gravitational lensing - but finding them would be very hard. Perhaps the gravity of larger objects - like interstellar dust clouds - could be detected. Maybe.

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Good question - I suppose if there are localized objects (like stars) in parallel universes whose gravity fields permeate into our own, their gravity wells could be detected - perhaps by some kind of gravitational lensing - but finding them would be very hard. Perhaps the gravity of larger objects - like interstellar dust clouds - could be detected. Maybe.

Since the mapping of the various universes would not necessarily be 1:1*, we could in principle look for localized gravitational effects where we don't see any matter—the very definition of "dark matter". Makes we wonder if the parallel-universes idea might not be framed as just another way to conceptualize so-called dark matter rather than as a true model.

*That is, the existence of a star or planet or nebula or whatever in this location in this universe (or dimension, if you prefer) doesn't imply that a similar object or structure will exist in this location in another universe (or dimension). The gravitational effects would be present, but might not necessarily result in the same collection of particles, unless you posit identical initial conditions in each "dimension". But then you would have quantum effects that might build up over billions of years to create variability between "dimensions" anyway, unless I don't understand QM correctly. Which is probable. (Get it? Probable? QM? I'm hilarious.)

Edited February 3, 2021 by Vort

[Vort]

No, wait. that doesn't work. If we are experiencing the gravitational effects of three "parallel dimensions" on a large scale (to account for dark matter), why wouldn't we experience it on a small scale (e.g. our solar system)? Answer: We would. Which means that we should expect to see different celestial objects exhibiting varying gravity despite having the same "local" (intradimensional) mass. If we don't see that, it either means that the multidimensional theory is false or else that each dimension has almost exactly the same localized structure—each star in Dimension A corresponds to an equally sized star at that location in Dimensions B, C, and D. This would mean that the gravitational attraction of the "parallel dimensions" is already baked into the universal gravitational constant G. In which case we still haven't accounted for any "dark matter", and the multidimensional idea doesn't give us any value. (Rather, it posits that there are four overlapping dimensions, each of which contains exactly the same particles in exactly the same positions doing exactly the same things. Which, in effect at least, means there is only one dimensional reality in which those particles exist, because why bother defining four absolutely identical overlapping realities?)

[Traveler]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

I like the idea, but how could it be tested?

I can think of some - One off the top of my head would be from data from gradational waves emitted from colliding Black Holes (especially with one or more supermassive black holes).  If the force of gravity was shared between parallel universes then black holes would be able to suck matter from our universe.  It is interesting that all Black Holes, regardless of size , resonate at B-flat.    This would give us several opportunities to gather (test) data of ringing Black Holes.  In particular there would be distortions in the ringing cause by pulling from the other universe.  Also, in additions to gradational lensing there would be a similar Doppler effect to the gravity waves.  

Since the type of gravitational waves necessary have never been detected - it is unlikely that parallel universes pulling against each other with gravity is an answer to Dark Matter. 

In addition the Higgs Boson (has been discovered) results in the unlikelihood of a parallel universe.  But with some radical changes there may be some applications to @Jamie123 theory as it relates to the Big Bang and the creation of our universe from the collapse of a space-time 11 dimensional universe as the origin of our universe. 

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

DARK MATTER/ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

(For those who find the idea of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to be waaaaaay too convenient and random, like putting a thumb on the scale)

• Multiple overlapping "dimensions" or simultaneous coexistent realities where only gravity is observable between them
• Gravitational mass varies by distance (i.e. MOND, where mass m is actually m=μ/a₀)
• There is a fifth fundamental force, weaker than gravity at interstellar distances and below, but becoming dominant at galactic distances and larger
• Gravity fairies messing with us

I'm thinking that 1 doesn't pass muster. I'm partial to 2 and/or 3, though I don't discount the possibility of 4.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Vort

[Carborendum]

I have no idea about the reality of "dark matter."  But what it seems to me is that this is simply the scientific version of "faith."  CAUTION: Gospel metaphors/parallels ahead.

When things don't work out according to our understanding of things, or if things don't seem to follow the rules that we hold to be true, we don't just abandon our beliefs.  We put faith in this "unknown" that there is "some explanation" that we simply can't see or know about right now.

That's faith.

Joseph said that "spirit" is "matter".  In the past, I've considered spirit to be either some form of energy (convertible to matter) or it is yet another third substance that interacts with matter in some way.  And maybe that model still works.  But...

What if that substance we call "spirit" is actually on par with dark matter?  What if it exist in a parallel dimension that is closely tied with ours?  The Lord has said that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically.  What if that part of all things needed a "seed" in the spiritual universe, first.  Then it was tied to the material universe.  What if that "tie" is the driving force behind the creation of material objects?  What if our spiritual actions then change our physical nature due to this tie?

When Jesus entered the room full of the disciples after his resurrection, some say he walked through the wall.  Some say he just "appeared."  What if he came from another (Eternal) universe to the material one?

Brigham Young said that the Fall was not just Adam and Eve, but that the entire Earth was removed from "the Celestial Sphere."  What if that means the "Celestial Universe."

This is something about which I could go on at great length about.

[Jamie123]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

No, wait. that doesn't work. If we are experiencing the gravitational effects of three "parallel dimensions" on a large scale (to account for dark matter), why wouldn't we experience it on a small scale (e.g. our solar system)? 

That's the very problem I'm attempting to address: when you apply orbital models to stars circling within galaxies, you need a lot more galactic mass (or else a larger gravitational constant) than you do when applying the same models to planets orbiting around the sun. (Or even binary stars orbiting each other.) I'm suggesting that if four galaxies A, B, C and D are located at the same position in different universes, and experience each other's gravity, stars in Galaxy A are held in their orbits not only by the gravity of Galaxy A, but also that of Galaxies B, C and D. However, the gravitational attraction between individual stars across interstellar distances is negligible, so while gravity may cause entire galaxies to align with each other, there is no reason for any such alignment between individual stars. In fact, the closest star to our sun in any of our three parallel galaxies, is probably light years away from us. Thus the planets in our solar system feel only the attraction of our sun (and no parallel-universe star) whereas the stars, in their orbits around the galaxy, feel the combined gravity of four different galaxies.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

If the force of gravity was shared between parallel universes then black holes would be able to suck matter from our universe. 

Very interesting thought - a black hole would be equally a black hole in all four universes, regardless of which universe the collapsing star that formed it belonged to. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

That's the very problem I'm attempting to address: when you apply orbital models to stars circling within galaxies, you need a lot more galactic mass (or else a larger gravitational constant) than you do when applying the same models to planets orbiting around the sun. (Or even binary stars orbiting each other.) I'm suggesting that if four galaxies A, B, C and D are located at the same position in different universes, and experience each other's gravity, stars in Galaxy A are held in their orbits not only by the gravity of Galaxy A, but also that of Galaxies B, C and D. However, the gravitational attraction between individual stars across interstellar distances is negligible, so while gravity may cause entire galaxies to align with each other, there is no reason for any such alignment between individual stars. In fact, the closest star to our sun in any of our three parallel galaxies, is probably light years away from us. Thus the planets in our solar system feel only the attraction of our sun (and no parallel-universe star) whereas the stars, in their orbits around the galaxy, feel the combined gravity of four different galaxies.

I think you are mistaken. If galaxies align in the cross-dimensional scheme, how would we prevent stars within them from aligning? Our sun is certainly influenced by the gravity wells of nearby stars, which shows  up in the small-scale motions of the sun in its orbit around the galactic center.

The point is, we're trying to come up with a scheme whereby we can have more gravity at galactic distances without having more gravity locally. The "extra" gravity must be felt only at very large distances. But e.g. if our sun's gravity field shows up just fine in the other dimensions, it will attract matter in those other dimensions, right? And therefore, if a star exists in one dimension, it will result in accretions in the "parallel" dimensions. The larger the gravity well, the more this will hold. Thus a galaxy in Dimension A will most certainly result in accretions (which is to say, galaxies) in Dimensions B, C, and D. Large stars will result in smaller accretions in the parallel dimensions. Small stars will still result in accretions. Even planets will surely result in such cross-dimensional accretions—witness the large number of trojan asteroids at Jupiter's L₄ and L₅ points. If such a relatively small gravitational effect results in notable accretions of asteroids in this dimension, how could it not result in the same effect in other dimensions, assuming the various dimensions all share gravitational effects?

Anyway, that's my thinking on the matter. You might well be a lot more qualified than I am to hold an opinion in this area. I don't claim any special knowledge that gives weight to my thoughts. But you asked.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

When things don't work out according to our understanding of things, or if things don't seem to follow the rules that we hold to be true, we don't just abandon our beliefs.  We put faith in this "unknown" that there is "some explanation" that we simply can't see or know about right now.

When we have good evidence to believe a theory, and new data arrives that doesn't fit that theory, there are three things we can do:

1. Posit the existence of some unknown entity which explains the discrepancy

2. Modify the theory so that it does fit

3. Abandon the theory and start again from scratch

A scientist will typically try 1 and 2 first, and go to 3 only as a last resort. (If you go straight to 3 every time, you're probably a wet-behind-the-ears first year PhD candidate with dreams of being the next Einstein.)

An example of 1 would be the discovery of Neptune. The orbit of Uranus could not be explained by celestial mechanics (as then understood) so it was proposed that another undiscovered planet was pulling upon it. A French mathematician called Urbain Le Verrier calculated the orbit of this hypothetical planet, and when astronomers looked for it, there it was!

An example of 2 was the precession of Mercury's orbit. It's long been known that Mercury's orbit, though approximately elliptical, is actually a "rosetta" shape. The aphelion and perihelion shift slightly with each rotation. Solution 1 was applied first (the hypothetical new-planet was even given a name: Vulcan) but the reality was that the theory needed tweaking. Being so close to the sun, Mercury travels much faster than the other planets, and relativistic effects needed to be included. (If you've ever read up on the history of physics, you'll know exactly same theory was used to explain line-splitting in the hydrogen spectrum.)

There have been cases where 3 was justified. (The miasma theory for example, or the theory of bodily humours, or celestial crystal shells) but these are the exception not the rule. A ludicrous (though seriously intended) example of 3 appears in a Jack Chick comic entitled "Big Daddy", where a student "disproves" evolution. After drivelling on about how Piltdown Man was a hoax (like the professor wouldn't have known this) he suddenly demands "What is the binding force of the nucleus?" The professor (instead of asking him what the heck that had to do with evolution) retorts "Gluons!" with "Gotcha" in a think-bubble. The student shouts "Wrong sir! No one has ever detected or measured a gluon. They don't exist. Protons in atomic nuclei are all positive, and like charges repel, so they ought to fly apart! If gluons aren't the answer, what is?" This utterly defeats the professor, who is forced to accept that the answer must therefore be "Jesus". I'm not kidding - this is a real tract, seriously intended to convert people to Christianity. I believe Kent Hovind had a part in writing it.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

A ludicrous (though seriously intended) example of 3 appears in a Jack Chick comic entitled "Big Daddy", where a student "disproves" evolution. After drivelling on about how Piltdown Man was a hoax (like the professor wouldn't have known this) he suddenly demands "What is the binding force of the nucleus?" The professor (instead of asking him what the heck that had to do with evolution) retorts "Gluons!" with "Gotcha" in a think-bubble. The student shouts "Wrong sir! No one has ever detected or measured a gluon. They don't exist. Protons in atomic nuclei are all positive, and like charges repel, so they ought to fly apart! If gluons aren't the answer, what is?" This utterly defeats the professor, who is forced to accept that the answer must therefore be "Jesus". I'm not kidding - this is a real tract, seriously intended to convert people to Christianity. I believe Kent Hovind had a part in writing it.

I almost responded with a laughie, but somehow that seemed inappropriate. But laughie or no, this is pretty funny. Ignorance on proud display.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

When we have good evidence to believe a theory, and new data arrives that doesn't fit that theory, there are three things we can do:

1. Posit the existence of some unknown entity which explains the discrepancy

2. Modify the theory so that it does fit

3. Abandon the theory and start again from scratch

A scientist will typically try 1 and 2 first, and go to 3 only as a last resort. (If you go straight to 3 every time, you're probably a wet-behind-the-ears first year PhD candidate with dreams of being the next Einstein.)

I agree.  So, I have to wonder why so many people give up on religion or some others will expect someone to give up on religion by choosing option 3 immediately whenever we find something that doesn't seem to fit the rules we know of.

Another thing to consider in this comparison is the average person who does not consider themselves a scientist.  It is perfectly acceptable for someone to simply say

Quote

I'm not an expert on that.  So, I don't have any idea.  But I'm going to be perfectly fine expecting gravity to cause me to fall if I were to go diving into a pool or over a cliff.  Either one. And I can expect to get wet or dead respectively regardless of the answer to your question.

Why is it inexcusable to do something along those lines with religion?

Edited February 4, 2021 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

On 2/4/2021 at 4:47 PM, Vort said:

Anyway, that's my thinking on the matter. You might well be a lot more qualified than I am to hold an opinion in this area. I don't claim any special knowledge that gives weight to my thoughts. But you asked.

For the record, I'm very interested in astronomy, but I don't hold any qualifications in it either. And I'm glad you did give me your thoughts. This is precisely the sort of engagement I'd been hoping to have with Ms. Heymans.

On 2/4/2021 at 4:47 PM, Vort said:

Our sun is certainly influenced by the gravity wells of nearby stars, which shows  up in the small-scale motions of the sun in its orbit around the galactic center.

Really? Let's calculate the attractive force between the sun and Alpha Centauri. The gravitational constant is 6.67E-11 (in SI units), the total mass of the Alpha Centauri system is 2.45E+29 kg, the mass of the sun is 1.99E+30 kg and the distance between them is 4.367 light years, or 4.13153E+16 metres. Using GMm/r^2 gives us 1.90E+16 newtons - which is actually a lot more than I expected. However, the acceleration this produces in the sun is 1.90E+16/1.99E+30=9.56E-15 m/s^2, which is a change of speed of 1m/s (not much for an object travelling at about 200,000 m/s) every three million years. Could that be measured with any accuracy, over the period of time we've had available to do such measurements? (Maybe it could - I'm constantly being surprised about what can be measured.)

Admittedly Alpha Centauri is a very small star (as stars go) - it could be that more distant stars have a more pronounced effect on the sun, but of course the sun is surrounded by stars on all sides, so one would expect their net forces to cancel out. (Somewhat.)

On 2/4/2021 at 4:47 PM, Vort said:

Large stars will result in smaller accretions in the parallel dimensions. Small stars will still result in accretions. Even planets will surely result in such cross-dimensional accretions—witness the large number of trojan asteroids at Jupiter's points. If such a relatively small gravitational effect results in notable accretions of asteroids in this dimension, how could it not result in the same effect in other dimensions, assuming the various dimensions all share gravitational effects?

I think you may be right here - this could be the true Achilles heel of my theory. Accretion does occur in the Solar System, which is swarming with planetesimals - the bits and pieces left over from when the planets were formed. We see them all the time as shooting stars, and as the zodiacal light. (Not that I've ever seen the zodiacal light - there is way too much light pollution around here.) So its hardly surprising that a lot of this material has found its way into the L₄ and L₅ wells in Jupiter's orbit.

Of course you won't find so much stuff available to accrete in interstellar space. There are the comets in the Oort cloud which extends to about 3.2 light years, whereas the average interstellar distance in our galaxy is about 5 light years - so the Oort clouds of adjacent stars must intersect with each other. There must be a kind of Oort Swiss cheese, in which stars have hollowed out holes for themselves. However, the Oort cloud has only about 4.5e-4 comets per cubic astronomical unit, and many of the comets that do get sucked into a "phantom gravity well" are simply going to come straight out again on a hyperbolic orbit.

More important I think are the interstellar dust clouds, and there are an awful lot of them in the Milky Way. There must be a good many phantom gravity wells floating around inside quite dense dust clouds, sucking in dust which of course heats up due to friction, ultimately creating new stars - on top of existing stars in the parallel galaxies. This I admit is a way stars in parallel universes would align with each other. These stars would be hotter and therefore brighter than regular stars of the same size, and would go through their lifecycles faster. Could they be distinguished from regular stars?

Thanks very much to everyone for your input on this!

Edited March 22, 2021 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

@Jamie123: One of the problem we are facing is that our universe (space-time) is expanding - not only is our universe expanding but the expanding is increasing over time.  Try to hold on to all this.  First off there is nothing in this universe that we have much of a handle on that can cause our universe to expand.  But there is even a bigger question of what our universe is expanding into.  One of the more accepted theories is that our universe is a 4 dimensional sphere and that all points outside our universe are singularly the same point.  This works out quite well mathematically but is a bit more difficult to wrap one's mind around.  The fact that our universe is expanding the same in all directions is a bit problematic for the possibility for parallel universes.  However, this does leave the door open for our universe to be expanding into other universes of greater dimensions. 

The reality is that a 4 dimensional star in a 4 dimensional universe (of which our 3 dimensional universe is a subset) - anyway such a star could cause our universe to expand if it existed in a universe of higher dimension that intersected our universe.  Depending on the points of higher dimensions such a star could or would effect all the points in our universe the same.  Unlike stars in our universe that effect points that are closer more than points that are far away.

When I was in college (50 years ago) I suggested to my quantum physics professor that quantum physics would make more sense if our universe intersected a universe of higher dimension.  I also devised a means to test this theory using particle accelerators and measuring the forces in near collisions -- which would create a delta based on dimensional fields rather than particle centers which could be measured for particles traveling near the speed of light.

Getting a grant or the money necessary in order to use an particle accelerator was difficult enough for me that I decided this was not what I wanted to dedicate my life to doing.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

On 2/3/2021 at 1:34 PM, Vort said:

DARK MATTER/ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

(For those who find the idea of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to be waaaaaay too convenient and random, like putting a thumb on the scale)

• There is a fifth fundamental force, weaker than gravity at interstellar distances and below, but becoming dominant at galactic distances and larger

The primary problem with this one is quite simple and mathematical. The weak force and electromagnetism have been shown to arise from the same fundamental physics characteristics, and are together sometimes called the "electroweak force". So the known fundamental forces are, in order from strongest to weakest: (1) strong, (2) electroweak, and (3) gravity.

But the electroweak force ends up canceling itself out, in effect, because it involves two opposite "types" (called charges) that are mutually attractive. For this reason, "strong" electromagnetic forces cannot build up to any significant degree; they always and inevitably attract nearby opposite charges to negate themselves. (I remember learning that a US nickel, if separated into contained negative and positive charges and then placed on opposite poles of the earth, would even at that distance still attract each other with a force of something like 200 tons. I may be off by a factor or two of ten.)

The reason gravity is so pervasive, and thus is the primary shaping force of the large-scale universe, is because it is only attractive. There is no "antigravity" opposite to "negate" the force of gravity. Thus, gravity, though by many orders of magnitude the weakest of the fundamental forces, can build up over immense distances, where the electrical charge fields have effectively dipoled themselves into oblivion. How do you compete with that?

One way might be as follows. In the first place, the strong force is well-named, utterly and unbelievably strong, producing a force so far beyond anything we can see that I truly wonder that it can even exist. If you try to force two protons to stick together, getting them within 10^-15 meters of each other (the approximate diameter of one proton), they will generate an electrical repulsive force of about one pound. (For you metric-loving Brits, that's one pound sterling.) This is absolutely mindblowing. To account for the repulsive force being overcome in large nuclei with many charges, such as an atom of uranium, the strong force acting on any individual nucleon (proton or neutron) must be on the order of around ten pounds. (Or, should I say, "...on the order of around TEN POUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")

But the strong force is anomalous. It acts only at extremely close range, at distances of around 10^-15 m or less. Physicists call it a "contact force", as if a proton or neutron were a Velcro ball that has to touch something else to stick to it. This is bizarre indeed, moreso considering that a QM view of subatomic particles doesn't allow an obvious Velcro-like "contact" mechanism for the stickiness. Plus, the strong force operates on bosons (like protons and neutrons), but apparently doesn't affect leptons (like electrons) or other subatomic particle types.

Does it make sense, even conceptually, to have a force that is somehow the "opposite" of a contact force? A force that does not exist except at large distances? If so, this would be a perfect fifth (really fourth) fundamental force, explaining why our galaxy and others rotate as if there's a whole bunch of unseen matter providing extra gravitational force.

Fwiw, that's my best theory. Now, to await the Nobel Prize. And you'll all get to say you knew me when!

Edited February 5, 2021 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

Not a physicist, and indeed, my grasp of physics is rather limited.

I was actually under the impression that there were four basic forces of the universe, Gravity, Strong, Weak, and electromagnetic.

I understand that in the late 20th century there was work that indicated or showed in theory that the Weak and Electromagnetic forces were actually operating under the same duresses of force, and thus were a unified force, but in that same light we'd also be pressed to then also assume the later work of the Unification of Forces argument.

In this, if you say there are actually only 3 basic forces of the universe, you'd actually by a similar reasoning say that there are only TWO basic forces of the universe, as a Strong force also is inhibited in the same way as the electroweak. 

In fact, the electroweak idea was an outcome of the unification of Forces argument, where the Strong Force was actually in conjunction with the weak and electromagnetic forces. 

The difficulty being at the time (and probably still presently) whereas we could in theory show the unification of the electromagnectic and weak force to support the overall theory of the unification of forces argument, showing the same with the Strong force was beyond us at the time.

The ultimate idea is that ALL the forces are one force, including gravity, but that takes it beyond even the combination of the three other forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic).

If we use that idea, there is indeed, the idea of anti-gravity forces that could be utilized and seen, but once again, beyond our current capacity to test or even find it.  However, the idea of this has been present for many decades, and one could even say that it was one of the ideas that pushed forward the branches that eventually theorized and somewhat showed a unification of forces by the indications that the electromagnetic and weak forces perhaps were operating under the same workings and as such may be considered one force in theory that would be combined as the electroweak.

At least from my rudimentary understanding of the ideas and theories behind it.