© 2026 David R. Young — Spectrum Energy Research Foundation · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Physics describes four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Decades of effort have gone into unifying them — trying to show they are all expressions of one underlying force. So far, gravity has resisted every attempt at unification. What if the difficulty is not in the math but in the framing? What if we have the wrong starting point — the wrong terminals?
When we think about the most basic polarity in the universe, we think of positive and negative — the two charges. A proton is positive. An electron is negative. Opposites attract. Like repels like. Positive and negative appear to be the fundamental terminals of the system.
This is how electricity is taught. This is how chemistry is taught. This is how we wire circuits and balance equations. Positive and negative. Two terminals. The foundation of everything.
But what if positive and negative are not the foundation? What if they are properties of something more fundamental — and the real two terminals have been in plain sight the whole time?
Look at what "electromagnetic" actually means. The word itself tells you there are two things: electric and magnetic. Not one force with a complicated name. Two distinct behaviours, always found together, always interacting, always perpendicular to each other.
An electric field and a magnetic field are not the same thing. They behave differently. They couple to different properties. They can each exist on their own — a charged object creates an electric field without a magnetic one, and a permanent magnet creates a magnetic field without an electric one. They are independent enough to exist separately, yet coupled enough that when one changes, it creates the other.
That relationship — independent but coupled — is not a property of a single force. It is the relationship between two terminals.
Every terminal system needs something to hold the terminals in position so they can function. A battery has a case that holds its terminals apart so they can produce a flow through a circuit. The case is the base — it does not participate in the energy, but without it, the terminals cannot maintain the separation they need to operate.
The quantum field serves this role for the universe. It is the underlying structure through which all energy travels (Research Note 002). It is not electric. It is not magnetic. It is the ground state — the medium that both terminals act upon.
A conductor provides a useful parallel. In a conductor, the lattice is the stable base and the electron sea is the responsive layer that carries current (Research Note 021). The quantum field may have the same two-layer architecture: a stable base structure that holds everything in position, and a responsive layer that participates in energy events. If so, the base in the two-terminal model is not the full quantum field but its stable layer — the neutral ground on which both terminals operate. This question is explored further in Research Note 025.
The electric terminal acts on the quantum field. The magnetic terminal acts on the quantum field. Their interaction — with each other and with the base — produces everything we observe.
Each of the two fundamental terminals has its own polarity.
The electric terminal has positive and negative. A positive charge reaches toward a negative charge. Two positive charges withdraw from each other. Two negative charges withdraw from each other. Reach and withdraw — the behaviour of a terminal with two poles.
The magnetic terminal has north and south. A north pole reaches toward a south pole. Two north poles withdraw from each other. Two south poles withdraw from each other. The same reach and withdraw behaviour, operating independently on the same base.
Two terminals, each with two poles: four terminals in total. Electric positive, electric negative, magnetic north, magnetic south. These four, operating on the quantum field, are the starting point. And from these four, the math begins.
The electric and magnetic terminals do not simply coexist. They interact — and their interaction follows a specific geometry.
In every electromagnetic wave, the electric field oscillates on one axis and the magnetic field oscillates on a perpendicular axis. Always perpendicular. Never parallel. This is not a design choice or a mathematical convenience. It is how the two terminals relate to each other on the quantum field.
When an electric field changes, it creates a magnetic field at right angles to itself. When a magnetic field changes, it creates an electric field at right angles to itself. They drive each other, always perpendicular, always coupled. This is the engine of every electromagnetic wave — from radio to gamma.
The two terminals do not compete. They cooperate in a specific geometric relationship: one compresses and expands on one axis while the other compresses and expands on the perpendicular axis. Together, they produce a travelling pattern that moves through the quantum field at the speed of light.
Two terminals on one base means every interaction in the universe — including the one we call gravity — is some combination of electric and magnetic terminal operations on the quantum field.
A planet has mass. That mass is made of atoms. Those atoms are electromagnetic structures — protons, neutrons, and electrons held together by electric and magnetic interactions. A planet is not a neutral lump sitting in space. It is an enormous collection of electromagnetic terminal activity operating on the quantum field.
When two such collections exist near each other — two planets, a planet and a moon, a person and the Earth — their combined electromagnetic terminal activity on the quantum field produces a large-scale field effect. We measure that effect and call it gravity. We attribute it to mass. We treat it as a separate force.
But if mass is electromagnetic structure, and the field it acts on is the quantum field, then gravity is not separate. It is what electromagnetic terminal interactions look like at large scale. The same two terminals. The same base. The same reach and withdraw. At that scale, the individual electric and magnetic behaviours are too small to distinguish — all we see is a smooth attraction, and we gave it its own name: gravity.
Gravity did not resist unification because it is fundamentally different. It resisted unification because the starting point was wrong. Physics began with four forces and tried to merge them. But there were never four forces. There were two terminals on one base, producing effects at every scale — and we named the scales as though they were separate things.
If the two-terminal model is correct, several things follow.
First, the search for a "graviton" — a hypothetical particle that carries the gravitational force — is looking for something that does not exist. Gravity is not carried by a particle. It is a large-scale field effect of electromagnetic terminal interactions on the quantum field. There is no separate particle because there is no separate force.
Second, the strong and weak nuclear forces may also be terminal interactions at specific scales — the same two terminals operating at nuclear distances, where the geometry and energy densities produce behaviours different enough that we named them separately. This is an open question, but the pattern is suggestive: every time we find a "new force," it may be the same two terminals at a different scale, viewed from a different distance, given a different name.
Third, electromagnetic propulsion (Research Note 022) becomes not just plausible but expected. If gravity is electromagnetic terminal interaction at scale, then engineered electromagnetic fields should be able to interact with the gravitational field — because they are the same system operating on the same base. The engineering challenge is matching the field geometry and rotation to the local environment, not overcoming a fundamentally different force.
Can the four-terminal interaction be described mathematically in a way that produces gravitational behaviour at large scale without requiring a separate gravitational constant? If G is not fundamental but emergent, it should be derivable from electromagnetic properties.
Do the strong and weak nuclear forces reduce to the same two terminals at nuclear-scale geometry? If so, the four forces of physics become two terminals on one base — a genuine unification, arrived at by changing the starting point rather than the math.
What determines the perpendicular geometry of the electric-magnetic relationship? Is it a property of the terminals themselves, a property of the quantum field base, or a consequence of their interaction?
How does the four-terminal model relate to the spin properties of particles? Electron spin is a magnetic property. Charge is an electric property. The particle itself may be the point where both terminals meet — a compression in the quantum field where electric and magnetic terminal activity converges.
Does the quantum field have a two-layer structure — a stable base that does not participate in energy events, and a responsive layer above it that does? The same pattern exists in conductors (Research Note 021): the lattice is the structural base, and the electron sea is the responsive layer that carries current. If the quantum field follows this pattern, the "base" in the two-terminal model is not the full quantum field but its stable layer. The responsive layer would be where terminal interactions produce their effects. Identifying this boundary — if it exists — would change how we define "base" throughout the research.
© 2026 David R. Young — Spectrum Energy Research Foundation
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 for research and education. Commercial use requires a separate license from Spectrum Energy Research Foundation. Contact: secharts@proton.me