What is an elementary charge?
EL
What is an elementary charge?
Any ideas?
greywolf42
EL <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> What is an elementary charge?
> Any ideas?
Shouldn't this be in sci.physics.electromag?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Uncle Al
Find something smaller than a quark. Find something unconfined
smaller than an electron.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Richard Perry
hanson
> What is an elementary charge?
> Any ideas?
>
Charge of what? --- e, the electon charge,
or the 1/3 color charges in/on quarks ?
For over a century now reports about fractional e charges, (1/3) of e,
have been reported every now and then. But mainstreet P only accepts
less then unit e-charges in the quark model. Maybe these "seen",
rare 1/3 e-charge events are tunneling echoes from the nucleus.
The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi) may be interpreted as 2 e-charges
with 1/2 spin unit each being confined/combined/overlaid/superimposed
in one action quantum package of h (= 1 spin unit), rotating or
vibrating around their mutual/common (gravitational?) center of
attraction with a velocity a*c/2pi. When such an action package
vibrates at a minimum frequency such that its energy exceeds some 1100
MeV it splits for some reason into 2 separate charges, e+ and e-.
Conversely, when e+ and e- meet and meat, then they unite into said
action package again. Even at much lower energy levels such pairs are
supposed to de/materialize into/out of the "nothing", a notion which
has been resurrecting the Aether concept. (bitterly fought against by
the ones who are termianlly infected with relativitis).
Why charge parity (= equal amounts of + and -) should be conserved
stringently is somewhat less mysterious. The force that charge exerts
onto other charges is 10^41 time stronger that the masses of 2
electrons exert gravitationally onto each other. IOW if the charge
equality would be off by only 1 in 10^41 we could have a reason for
gravitation to be stepchild of charge behaviors.
This notion has been around since Faraday.
Why the e-charge always and only appears in the presence of
matter/mass is not known. Maybe charge is simply a property of mass,
like a mass' inertia and density. Maybe all 3 (m,i & d), are the
intrinsic manifestations of a yet unnamed entity, showing different
aspects of it its existence. Maybe mass it not just mass.
Like a wave which needs lambda, frequency and a medium, etc
to be described. Dunno.
Along the lines of Aether and vacuum, there are increasing
speculations that there maybe an entire zoo of new particles (not just
momentary pairs coming and going) down in Planck's domain which may be
as numerously varied as are the now known and manifest nucleons and
subnucleons, but only 1 mole size smaller then the known particles.
One of these expectations recently promulgated is that the electron
and perhaps its charge happens to be a vast (10^23)mole-sized
agglomeration of 10^23 times smaller entities.
The situation reminds me of the state of the art physics was 100-150
years ago, when they finally went to check the relations between
stochiometry and the mass of atoms and ended up with the mole
concept. The pivotal element in this search was Avogadro's number N_A.
There is no known law which prohibits nature to have the same show
happening again at another N_A times smaller dimensions. Dunno, yet
speculative but quantitatively accurate equations for this do exist.
Such a new paradigm will need its time to develop for it involves the
bitch of self similarity and hierarchy. It will be worked on more and
more when the old guard of the paradigm, once dubbed as Jew physics,
dies off and the fetish of relativity which held the evolution physics
in its grip and back for a century will be looked upon just as another
opinion.
But all this does not answer your question of "what" charge is.
Charge, as can be said today, is simple one of the manifestations of
the constituents in masses & energies that are playing and interacting
in space and time.
Let's face it, we don't know, much less have we agreed upon what mass,
space and time basically/fundamentally really is. All we know are some
aspects of how these daily apparent and obvious things do interact
with each other & what effects they do have on our senses & our
existence. The well-known charge effects with its unknown basic
identity is one of them.
...and that's how the world appears to me.....
hanson
Alfred Einstead
"Elementary" in this context means "not composite", as in
"not composed of entities of the same type". So an elementary
charge is, by definition, a charge that's not made out of
smaller or more basic charges.
That also implies, by definition, that for an elementary charge
(unless you're talking point charges), its property of chargedness
is not a local property at all.
FrediFizzx
| What is an elementary charge?
| Any ideas?
Assuming you are talking electric charge, bare electric charge seems to be a
delta function singularity. We will probably never know exactly what it is
other than that.
FrediFizzx
John Sefton
An elementary charge is one-half of
what I call a 'charge-pair', because as
soon as you make one part of space
positive, then an identical amount of
space must, and does, become negative.
It is a volume of space that is spinning so fast
that some wavelengths of emr passing through are
given precession fast enough to make them standing
waves instead of travelling ones. The resulting matter
is thrown out of that thar 'black hole' as arms of stars
around a galaxy.
Positive charge is a misnomer, however, as it is
the black hole which is most enforcedly totally
devoid of all matter, because it spins so fast
John
Mike Varney
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4b823$1tk3ea$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de...
Fool.
Richard Perry
The electromagnetic force is infinitely stronger, because there is no
gravitational force exerted between two electrons.
IOW if the charge
> equality would be off by only 1 in 10^41 we could have a reason for
> gravitation to be stepchild of charge behaviors.
> This notion has been around since Faraday.
OTOH if the force between two masses is the vector sum of the
electromagnetic forces acting between their constituent particles, which
it is (barring external influences, and if the force between charges is
a function of some average of their velocity relative to one another,
which it is, then a difference in average speeds of positive and
negative quanta respectively within the materials can account for any
asymmetric forces, and it does. The Peltier effect, Voltaic effect, even
the production of static electricity are all the result of differences
in affinity of electrons of two materials. In the case of the Peltier
effect differences in temperature between the two junctions causes a
potential gradient that cannot be explained in terms of electrostatics,
only vector potentials can provide this emf. Those vector potentials are
in turn the result of the motions of the internal charges wrt each
other, and a 'net' potential other than zero requires that the motional
distribution of charges be asymmetrical wrt the positive and negative
components of charge within the junctions.
Such an asymmetry already exists between dissimilar materials, which is
the cause of the galvanic effect. The Peltier effect is in turn just the
introduction of an asymmetry between the existing asymmetries at the
junctions, i.e. an introduction of a difference in asymmetries of the
two junctions. The net voltage generated is proportional to the TD
between the junctions simply because the electromagnetic asymmetrical
forces are also proportional to absolute temperature. This is in turn
evidence that this microscopic electromagnetic interaction is
proportional to the relative velocity 'squared' between the quanta,
which is not only in accord with the equation that I derive for this
interaction, but this effect can in fact be used as an alternate means
to the same derivation. *Link to referenced material in tag below.
FrediFizzx
news:IT9aa.503$Ou1....@news.uswest.net...
Trolling cop-out jerk. I didn't see you offering any ideas.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Mike Varney
Farting off random ideas is not physics. Thus your lack of success.
EL
[EL]
Yes, thank you. :)
EL
> EL wrote:
> >
> > [EL]
> > What is an elementary charge?
> > Any ideas?
>
> Find something smaller than a quark. Find something unconfined
> smaller than an electron.
So what did YOU find. ;-)
I honestly need input and I promise that you shall not regret it.
I am trying to be academically "square" here. :)
Cheers.
EL
EL
> EL wrote:
> >
> > [EL]
> > What is an elementary charge?
> > Any ideas?
>
> A fundamental unit of space.
[EL]
Richard, if it was a "fundamental" unit of space then any space must
be charged or contain a charge.
Please restate what you say in a more consistent way and a less
"greedy" way. :)
EL
FrediFizzx
So what? We would still like to hear your ideas. Oh, I forgot. You have
no ideas. You are really just a common troll.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Mike Varney
Your brain... no doubt.
John C. Polasek
>"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
>> [EL]
>> What is an elementary charge?
>> Any ideas?
>>
>What means "elementary"?
>Charge of what? --- e, the electon charge,
>or the 1/3 color charges in/on quarks ?
>
>For over a century now reports about fractional e charges, (1/3) of e,
>have been reported every now and then. But mainstreet P only accepts
>less then unit e-charges in the quark model. Maybe these "seen",
>rare 1/3 e-charge events are tunneling echoes from the nucleus.
>
>The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi) may be interpreted as 2 e-charges
>with 1/2 spin unit each being confined/combined/overlaid/superimposed
>in one action quantum package of h (= 1 spin unit), rotating or
>vibrating around their mutual/common (gravitational?) center of
>attraction with a velocity a*c/2pi.
Please explain "classical". Since
e^2/hc = 2 alpha ep0, (in SI)
how can you equate it to a/2pi? a is otherwise undefined.
Then you have a velocity ac/2pi
You have demoted ep0 to unity, I guess.
>When such an action package
>vibrates at a minimum frequency such that its energy exceeds some 1100
>MeV it splits for some reason into 2 separate charges, e+ and e-.
>Conversely, when e+ and e- meet and meat, then they unite into said
>action package again. Even at much lower energy levels such pairs are
>supposed to de/materialize into/out of the "nothing", a notion which
>has been resurrecting the Aether concept. (bitterly fought against by
>the ones who are termianlly infected with relativitis).
>
snip
>
>...and that's how the world appears to me.....
>hanson
>
Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).
EL
[EL]
Please be more verbose because the subject deserves to throw in all
what we have.
What is the name of the entity, which is "currently" viewed as being
such an elementary charge and what is its charge magnitude and does it
come in pairs like electrons and positrons, etcetera?
This thread is for the record, and all intelligent input is greatly
appreciated.
Regards.
EL
EL
What a pessimistic position! :)
Cheer up and be creative.
Delta is wonderful.
Singularity is ambiguous, and it is like describing water by saying
"well it is water you know". :)
What makes a charge behave like a charge behaves (or misbehaves)?. :)
Cheers.
EL
EL
> EL wrote:
> > [EL]
> > What is an elementary charge?
> > Any ideas?
> An elementary charge is one-half of
> what I call a 'charge-pair', because as
> soon as you make one part of space
> positive, then an identical amount of
> space must, and does, become negative.
How interesting!
Could you elaborate on that and give some examples and citations please.
>
> It is a volume of space that is spinning so fast
> that some wavelengths of emr passing through are
> given precession fast enough to make them standing
> waves instead of travelling ones. The resulting matter
> is thrown out of that thar 'black hole' as arms of stars
> around a galaxy.
>
> Positive charge is a misnomer, however, as it is
> the black hole which is most enforcedly totally
> devoid of all matter, because it spins so fast
[EL]
If 1/2 spin was "so fast" is it not true that a spin should be faster? ;-)
How about quarks, and where do they come in into this picture?
Also what is it that you think "is spinning"?
How can you relate a spin to a charge?
Does all what spins have a charge?
Does all what have a charge spins?
Which is the cause and which is the effect?
Cheers.
EL.
> John
EL
Mike, this is your chance to show him how "fool" he is.
Show him how a celebrated physics researcher would answer such a
question with a wealth of information.
Please do not let him think that you are more a fool "than he is" by
having absolutely nothing to say.
I am sure that you have a lot to say, so why do you not contribute
majestically?
Cheers.
EL
Mike Varney
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<IT9aa.503$Ou1....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b4b823$1tk3ea$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > > | [EL]
> > > | What is an elementary charge?
> > > | Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Assuming you are talking electric charge, bare electric charge
seems
> > to be a
> > > delta function singularity. We will probably never know exactly
what
> > it is
> > > other than that.
> >
> > Fool.
> [EL]
> Mike, this is your chance to show him how "fool" he is.
No need. He does that well enough himself.
> Show him how a celebrated physics researcher would answer such a
> question with a wealth of information.
> Please do not let him think that you are more a fool "than he is" by
> having absolutely nothing to say.
I have no worries about what he thinks, as that is a skill he does not
possess.
Jacob Newly
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
EL
If so then what is it that sums up external to a mass and manifests as
gravitation?
>
> IOW if the charge
> > equality would be off by only 1 in 10^41 we could have a reason for
> > gravitation to be stepchild of charge behaviors.
> > This notion has been around since Faraday.
>
> OTOH if the force between two masses is the vector sum of the
> electromagnetic forces acting between their constituent particles,
> which it is
[EL]
Electromagnetic forces!
What about masses that has neither magnetic nor electric components
external to the "surface" by any significant distance to account for
gravitational interactions measured by a torsion balance?
Please restate and clarify.
>(barring external influences),
[EL]
This is very strange, Richard, because two gravitating masses, each
must be external to the other, so how can you define that external
which you wish "to bar".?
>and if the force between charges is
> a function of some average of their velocity relative to one another,
[EL]
What is the function of the average of zero?
Masses shall still gravitate.
> which it is, then a difference in average speeds of positive and
> negative quanta respectively within the materials can account for any
> asymmetric forces, and it does.
[EL]
I am sorry to find your speculations unfounded and illogical.
>The Peltier effect, Voltaic effect, even
> the production of static electricity are all the result of differences
> in affinity of electrons of two materials. In the case of the Peltier
> effect differences in temperature between the two junctions causes a
> potential gradient that cannot be explained in terms of electrostatics,
[EL]
Oh!
There are many explanations for the thermoelectric effect as much as
there for the photoelectric one.
Thermocouple reversible reactions are just another version of
piezoelectric reversible reactions.
While the first takes heat energy or gives it the other takes pressure
and gives deformation.
Both belong to surface phenomena when atomic domains intersect.
And most certainly they do involve electrostatics in the course of
explanation.
> only vector potentials can provide this emf. Those vector potentials are
> in turn the result of the motions of the internal charges wrt each
> other, and a 'net' potential other than zero requires that the motional
> distribution of charges be asymmetrical wrt the positive and negative
> components of charge within the junctions.
[EL]
This may be fine in anisotropic cases but it fails in all isotropic
cases.
Therefore it is not a general hypothesis for the phenomena.
>
> Such an asymmetry already exists between dissimilar materials, which is
> the cause of the galvanic effect. The Peltier effect is in turn just the
> introduction of an asymmetry between the existing asymmetries at the
> junctions, i.e. an introduction of a difference in asymmetries of the
> two junctions. The net voltage generated is proportional to the TD
> between the junctions simply because the electromagnetic asymmetrical
> forces are also proportional to absolute temperature. This is in turn
> evidence that this microscopic electromagnetic interaction is
> proportional to the relative velocity 'squared' between the quanta,
> which is not only in accord with the equation that I derive for this
> interaction, but this effect can in fact be used as an alternate means
> to the same derivation. *Link to referenced material in tag below.
[EL]
Holy Molly!
Richard, I was not asking about your "equations that you derived",
I was simply making an inquiry about the deep meaning of a charge.
If you have one, you are very welcome, but you may start a thread to
discuss your full theory and references to your papers.
In this context I fear that we might misjudge you.
Cheers.
EL
Jacob Newly
Quoted from:
http://names-of-god.com/
FrediFizzx
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
| "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<b4b823$1tk3ea$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de>...
| > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
| > | [EL]
| > | What is an elementary charge?
| > | Any ideas?
| >
| > Assuming you are talking electric charge, bare electric charge seems to
be a
| > delta function singularity. We will probably never know exactly what it
is
| > other than that.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
| [EL]
| What a pessimistic position! :)
| Cheer up and be creative.
| Delta is wonderful.
| Singularity is ambiguous, and it is like describing water by saying
| "well it is water you know". :)
| What makes a charge behave like a charge behaves (or misbehaves)?. :)
| Cheers.
Hehe. Well, you are approaching that forbidden zone of "why" when you want
to know more about the singularity. Why do we have plus and minus
elementary bare charge? The only thing I can tell you is that it was maybe
existing for all "time" and "no time". Chicken pot pie, that is why.
Yin-yang principle at work. Even though we may never really know what the
singularity is, I would hope that we could find out the exact value of
charge that it has and maybe even the reason why it has that particular
value of charge.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
hanson
news:3e696ded.20234785@news-server...
> >>
> >The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi)
> >
> Please explain "classical". Since
> e^2/hc = 2 alpha ep0, (in SI)
> how can you equate it to a/2pi? a is otherwise undefined.
> Then you have a velocity ac/2pi
> You have demoted ep0 to unity, I guess.
>
I think we have been over this before.
Yes, we use the charge description in 2 different unit systems.
You use the SI which includes Permeability & Permittivity, and
I use the venerable cgs system which does NOT include eo & eo
but defindes straight foreward e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi), which
predates your expression, but is still equivalent to it.
Here are some numbers on Permeability & Permittivity:
Permeability mo of vacuum,
mo = 1.256E-06 gr^2 cm^4 s^4 = 4*pi*10^-7
Permittivity eo of vacuum,
eo = 8.854E-16 gr^-2 cm^-2 s^2 = 1/(mo*c^2)
resistivity of free space,
rfs = 3.77E+02 Ohm = 4*pi/(c*Ohm)
resistivity of free space,
rfs = 4.191E-10 s/cm rfs = 4*pi/c
resistivity of free space * c = 4*pi = 12.56637
1 Ohm = 1.11E-12 s/cm = (6*a)^(1/2)/(2*pi*c)
a = finestructure constant ~ 1/137
mo and eo was introduced with the Gaussian unit system,
to gain simplicity in calculations, (they didn't have computers
then) but I do not think that eo and mo has any physical reality.
Both unit systems have their advantages and adherents.
But neither does influence the behavior nor the nature of the
charge.
Take care,
hanson
FrediFizzx
|
| >"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
| >> [EL]
| >> What is an elementary charge?
| >> Any ideas?
| >>
| >What means "elementary"?
| >Charge of what? --- e, the electon charge,
| >or the 1/3 color charges in/on quarks ?
| >
| >For over a century now reports about fractional e charges, (1/3) of e,
| >have been reported every now and then. But mainstreet P only accepts
| >less then unit e-charges in the quark model. Maybe these "seen",
| >rare 1/3 e-charge events are tunneling echoes from the nucleus.
| >
| >The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi) may be interpreted as 2 e-charges
| >with 1/2 spin unit each being confined/combined/overlaid/superimposed
| >in one action quantum package of h (= 1 spin unit), rotating or
| >vibrating around their mutual/common (gravitational?) center of
| >attraction with a velocity a*c/2pi.
| Please explain "classical". Since
| e^2/hc = 2 alpha ep0, (in SI)
| how can you equate it to a/2pi? a is otherwise undefined.
| Then you have a velocity ac/2pi
| You have demoted ep0 to unity, I guess.
He must be in Gaussian units. It should be:
e^2/a = hbar*c
I think the e^2 and alpha should go together. Alpha is really the square of
another number, -0.08542455. This number is "the amplitude for a real
electron to emit or absorb a real photon" -- R. Feynman, QED. And hbar may
be just:
hbar = e^2/((-0.08542455)^2*c)
This makes one think that maybe c is also the square of another number.
Well, we know that e and alpha change together so I would think they should
stay together as a unit. So the velocity is most likely just c. The one
action quantum package of h is most likely actually h/2pi or hbar.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > [EL]
> > What is an elementary charge?
> > Any ideas?
> >
> What means "elementary"?
In the sense with which Holmes say it to Watson. :)
This excludes all forms of statistical electrostatics.
Charges (whatever they may be) are reported to be free, in conduction
bands and in atomic orbits as well.
But what is "A charge?".
> Charge of what? --- e, the electon charge,
> or the 1/3 color charges in/on quarks ?
[EL]
You are good Hanson, as I expect you to be. :)
Naturally, in QCD, an electron is a lepton and it is not composed of
quarks as far as QCD is concerned.
But classically the electron holds a charge the magnitude of which is
taken as the unit charge.
That is why the bottom, down and strange quarks are -1/3 charge in
comparison.
As a source of negative charge, all four particles are considered to
be "elementary" but it does not explain what is a charge.
How does any of those charges affect the immediate space-field in
which they exist?
What are they? What is their structure and what is the true meaning of
the intrinsic spin?
Some mesons have ZERO spin, but that is another debatable subject.
>
> For over a century now reports about fractional e charges, (1/3) of e,
> have been reported every now and then. But mainstreet P only accepts
> less then unit e-charges in the quark model. Maybe these "seen",
> rare 1/3 e-charge events are tunneling echoes from the nucleus.
[EL]
Hanson, there are no free stable quarks, and those chartings are the
products of the bubble chamber at the end of accelerators where they
smash order into chaos. The rest of the chart is a sorry mathematical
treatment that preserves the exclusion laws of quantum numbers and
some logical consequences to make QCD work.
The biggest portion of nuclear physics is a mathematical beast based
on the bubble chamber tracts and particle trajectory paths. This could
lead us astray while we seek the physical meaning of charge.
>
> The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi) may be interpreted as 2 e-charges
> with 1/2 spin unit each being confined/combined/overlaid/superimposed
> in one action quantum package of h (= 1 spin unit), rotating or
> vibrating around their mutual/common (gravitational?) center of
> attraction with a velocity a*c/2pi. When such an action package
> vibrates at a minimum frequency such that its energy exceeds some 1100
> MeV it splits for some reason into 2 separate charges, e+ and e-.
> Conversely, when e+ and e- meet and meat, then they unite into said
> action package again. Even at much lower energy levels such pairs are
> supposed to de/materialize into/out of the "nothing", a notion which
> has been resurrecting the Aether concept. (bitterly fought against by
> the ones who are termianlly infected with relativitis).
[EL]
Now you are speaking. :)
But you are still "spinning" around the charge without "charging" into
battle. :):)
>
> Why charge parity (= equal amounts of + and -) should be conserved
> stringently is somewhat less mysterious. The force that charge exerts
> onto other charges is 10^41 time stronger that the masses of 2
> electrons exert gravitationally onto each other. IOW if the charge
> equality would be off by only 1 in 10^41 we could have a reason for
> gravitation to be stepchild of charge behaviors.
> This notion has been around since Faraday.
[EL]
But gravitational causes could be a superposition to the cause of
charge. ;-)
While gravitation accumulate and extend its field beyond the topology
of the charge domain, the charge effects are mostly locally non local
with the mightiest manifestation in thunder storms. No intergalactic
discharge was ever reported and neither does such a fantasy exist
between planets and the sun.
This implies that charge must be mediated by material to extend its
field inductively and conductively while gravitation is material
independent.
>
> Why the e-charge always and only appears in the presence of
> matter/mass is not known.
[EL]
Good wondering!
But there lies the crux of the solution.
Something must be polarised to "spin" the "strings" on which the
"spider" may seek its prey. ;-)
>Maybe charge is simply a property of mass,
[EL]
But there is neutral mass that has no charge.
All massive particles spin and have a magnetic momentum.
> like a mass' inertia and density. Maybe all 3 (m,i & d), are the
> intrinsic manifestations of a yet unnamed entity, showing different
> aspects of it its existence. Maybe mass it not just mass.
> Like a wave which needs lambda, frequency and a medium, etc
> to be described. Dunno.
[EL]
The only "macro-phenomenon" of inertia I can see is the gyroscopic
inertia, and it has a "spin" too.
What happens when we spin a magnet or a charge?
Nature could be as simple as three fingers but it is also complex as
much as what three fingers could do.
>
> Along the lines of Aether and vacuum, there are increasing
> speculations that there maybe an entire zoo of new particles (not just
> momentary pairs coming and going) down in Planck's domain which may be
> as numerously varied as are the now known and manifest nucleons and
> subnucleons, but only 1 mole size smaller then the known particles.
> One of these expectations recently promulgated is that the electron
> and perhaps its charge happens to be a vast (10^23)mole-sized
> agglomeration of 10^23 times smaller entities.
[EL]
Aha! There you go dear Hanson. :):)
>
> The situation reminds me of the state of the art physics was 100-150
> years ago, when they finally went to check the relations between
> stochiometry and the mass of atoms and ended up with the mole
> concept. The pivotal element in this search was Avogadro's number N_A.
> There is no known law which prohibits nature to have the same show
> happening again at another N_A times smaller dimensions. Dunno, yet
> speculative but quantitatively accurate equations for this do exist.
>
> Such a new paradigm will need its time to develop for it involves the
> bitch of self similarity and hierarchy. It will be worked on more and
> more when the old guard of the paradigm, once dubbed as Jew physics,
> dies off and the fetish of relativity which held the evolution physics
> in its grip and back for a century will be looked upon just as another
> opinion.
>
> But all this does not answer your question of "what" charge is.
[EL]
Exactly, and I admit to admire your exquisite attention, honesty and
deep understanding. :)
> Charge, as can be said today, is simple one of the manifestations of
> the constituents in masses & energies that are playing and interacting
> in space and time.
>
> Let's face it, we don't know, much less have we agreed upon what mass,
> space and time basically/fundamentally really is.
[EL]
Hey, hey, don't quit on me yet. :)
It is tough but we shall make it through if we have the will.
>All we know are some
> aspects of how these daily apparent and obvious things do interact
> with each other & what effects they do have on our senses & our
> existence. The well-known charge effects with its unknown basic
> identity is one of them.
>
> ...and that's how the world appears to me.....
> hanson
[EL]
We all share your black eyeglasses Hans.
We attempt to take them off and look profoundly, searching for hidden
relations and clues.
Kindest regards.
EL
FrediFizzx
EL, you are wasting your time with Varney. He is just a common troll,
mostly looking to start flames instead of engaging in any dialogue with
value to it. I am not really sure why he hangs out here. I think he would
happier over in alt.flame.
FrediFizzx
hanson
with extremely pleasure and profound gratitude I do accept your
immense shower of kudos, but I must disappoint you for I will quit
on you for the moment because I have nothing else to say.
Besides, it is MY universe I am interested in and that is not for
sale.
Occasionally, when others have views close to mine I do share, but
principally I do march to my own drummer, try to make my own music
and I do enjoy the noise.
So, therefore and quasi-forever I will retire for the night and
continue to pontificate about something else tomorrow.
Take care, EL & guys,
hanson
PS: Just read a post about you a minute ago. Some dude elevated
you to the rank of God!. I always new that there was something
fishy, well godly, about you, but the irreverence is my trademark.
hahahahhahaha.........hahahahanson
(Hildo) news multikabel
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> What is an elementary charge?
> Any ideas?
At what level would you like an answer?
An elementary charge by definition is the charge of an electron (give or
take a minus sign that doesn't seem to exist anyway :-).
An elementary charge is the thingy that sits on other thingies that give
these thingies a charge.
For example: it's feasible that a neutrino is an electron that just misses
the charge thingies.
Quarks seem to show 1/3 and 2/3 charges, maybe electrons and positrons
contain combinations of such "more elementary" charges.
This would suggest an elementary charge is a thingy that gives other
thingies a charge in amount of 1/3 of the original elementary charge.
I think that pretty much sums up the current state of knowledge of what an
elementary charge really is. It is a thingy.
(Sorry can't seem to turn my cranky mode of)
Hildo
EL
> "EL" is another name used for God in the Bible, showing up about 200
> times in the Old Testament. El is the simple form arising from Elohim,
That is not your mistake because it should be written in English as El
Lohim.
Even Babylon was originally {Bab EL} but it really meant {The Gate}.
You can see for yourself from the study you made how many times {The}
was repeating.
In many cases {EL} and {Lxxxxx} are combined into {Elxxxxx}
So my name is {The} which reflects the same meaning of Hemetis which
is Hemet is.
I belong to an ancient bloodline and in my language any one who
descends from a documented bloodline has a family name that begins by
{EL}
This is identical to talking about {The Foresters} or {The Kennedy's
Family}
So {EL} is not the name of God but {The} ONLY. :)
Cheers.
EL
John Sefton
I don't know if the definitions of spin relate to speed, do they?
½ spin in the sense of the electron means a composite spin
of 1 rotation and 2 precessions, but this just relates to
the proportions of spin as it
travels around the proton it belongs to, not the speed. See
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/2color2vieworbital.GIF
> How about quarks, and where do they come in into this picture?
Smack a black hole into pieces and I guess
they break along certain lines. But the pieces don't live.
> Also what is it that you think "is spinning"?
I said that: a volume of space has spin. The spin is at
a rate that any energy whose wavelength is significantly
smaller than the diameter of the spin becomes a standing
wave and is ejected in this changed state.
> How can you relate a spin to a charge?
A composite spin?
There are two ways a standing wave can spin;
over-the-top and left or over-the-top and
right. The black hole at a galaxy's center spews
out protons which have the opposite spin to
what it does. So I guess that black hole
would be negative charge as far as we are
concerned since we have deemed protons to be
positive.
> Does all what spins have a charge?
Fast enough composite spin IS charge.
> Does all what have a charge spins?
By this definition.
> Which is the cause and which is the effect?
Space turning is the cause.
John
John Sefton
Wait, I see what you're saying. I am viewing space
as having something left to define its matrix even though
everything is gone. So we have not yet proven that there is
a matrix and what is its nature. But there must be,
because of 'c', because all protons are the same size, etc.
EL
Come on Fredi, I sow Mike's pictures in the laboratory of physics at
the university.
They even mentioned his name in the article.
I know that you could argue that he was sitting like a duck in those
pictures like a
spectator rather than a contributor but you shall be making a big
mistake.
He participated in a revolutionary experiment of great sensitivity to
measure
the gravitational attraction between test masses by measuring the
response
induced by changing the distance infinitesimally.
So the man is a scientist alright.
I know that you could argue that he is fat and short and does not look
like a
standard intellectual figure.
I know that you could argue that he sounds too conceited and rarely
contributes
his knowledge.
Yet please believe me when I tell you that that fat short mostly
ridiculous troll
can be nice and do have knowledge to contribute.
Mike is of the type that needs to be motivated positively and even
begged sometimes.
Of course a couple of visits to the university psychologist's clinic
could help him a lot.
Of course we can do absolutely perfectly without him, but who knows!
Maybe only Mike has the answer and he does not even know it.
Maybe he has inferiority complex and hides behind his animosity and
barbaric behaviour as defence.
I am sure that there is hope in all people if we know the gate to
their hearts.
If we could only make him love people rather than hate everyone
including himself, there is hope.
So follow me and give him a very big smile like this. :):):):)
Then give him a hug like this. {{{{{}}}}}
Also do not forget to congratulate him for the experiment he
participated in. :)
It is very easy to make enemies but it is not that easy to make
friends.
But it is up to you really to decide if he was worth the effort or
not.
In my personal view, everyone is worth the effort, even the wrost.
Cheers.
EL
John C. Polasek
The principle glaring deficiency of the Gaussian unit system is that
while you can define it, it can never describe anything.
Who, for example, would defend and explicate (to the bewildered clerk
at Radio Shack, maybe)
Z = 4 pi/c ohms?
How would one ever deduce that
H = E/Z
using H = E*c/4pi ?
Ex: 50 kW at 10 Km over 4pi, and using SI units:
Power = 10kW/4pi*100km^2 = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2
Power = EH = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2 Poynting
Power = E^2/Z, using impedance of space
so E = 0.122 V/m deducing the field strength
H = E/Z = 0.122 V/m/377 ohm = 3.25x10^-4 A/m
Power = ExH = 0.122 V/m * 3.25x10^-4 A/m = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2
SI makes sense.
Adherence to the Gaussian system is one of the most blatant examples
of untrammeled obscurantism since the NIH in 1981 renamed their new
pestilence from GRIDS to the socially embraceable AIDS. (How many of
those millions who now rest in peace, owe their situation to the
efforts of the gay lobby, who wished the band to "keep on playing"?)
It's time to say goodbye to Abraham and company and accept the new
covenant.
Mark Fergerson
> ... I am viewing space
> as having something left to define its matrix even though
> everything is gone. So we have not yet proven that there is
> a matrix and what is its nature. But there must be,
> because of 'c', because all protons are the same size, etc.
So, you're on Uncle Al's side (modified Eotvos experiment)?
Mark L. Fergerson
Mike Varney
LOL!
Fat... short.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Ole D. Rughede
>"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<v6hg0v1...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > What is an elementary charge?
>> > Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> greywolf42
>> ubi dubium ibi libertas
>
>[EL]
>Yes, thank you. :)
Shouldn't this first of all be in sci.physics.particle
and in sci.physics.gravity, if that newsgroup exists?
But why in alt.sci.physics.new-theories when electrons
and their elementary charges have been known for ages?
Is someone looking for physics or for alternative theories?
Ole D. Rughede
EL
[EL]
Hahaha, Hildo. :)
Its a good ruse after you almost defined a charge as flees on a
neutrino . :):)
The closest one who came to an answer was Hans.
Both mass and charge as well as the electromagnetic unit are measured
through force interactions leading to work.
Avogadro's number haunts us due to our arbitrated standard units of
measurement.
For the meanwhile let us confine our discussion to charge.
Please revise the definitions of the Ampere and the Coulomb to find
the arbitration of the electron's charge source.
The most critical fact is the *Method* with which the electron charge
was evaluated.
From there we may begin to talk about "WHAT IS A CHARGE".
After we grasp the answer we may easily explain why quarks have -1/3
and 2/3 charges.
By the way Hildo, electrons are Leptons and they contain no quarks. :)
Cheers.
EL
FrediFizzx
OK, I will take EL's advice and give it one more try. I am not sure where
EL got the short and fat from but congratulations on your gravity experiment
anywise. However, I think you need to get down to molecular or atomic
length scales before we start seeing GR being different.
So please explain why you think my opinion about elementary charge was
foolish.
FrediFizzx
Mike Varney
> | LOL!
> | Fat... short.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
>
> OK, I will take EL's advice and give it one more try. I am not sure
where
> EL got the short and fat from
Problems with visual perspective caused by trying to interpolate a 3-D
perspective from a 2-D photo. Considering that 6'2'' is not considered
short outside the NBA, that would explain why in most pictures I am
relegated to either the back of the group photo or to a crouching
position. (Other than perhaps sheer ugliness)
Oh well.
> but congratulations on your gravity experiment
> anywise. However, I think you need to get down to molecular or atomic
> length scales before we start seeing GR being different.
The point that gets physicists pissed is that you state such things
without any reason. As I tell many people, what you think has little to
do with how the universe works.
Why do you think we "need to get down to molecular or atomic length
scales before we start seeing GR being different"? Please show us the
math... standard tensor notation is fine. Please show us your
experimental evidence? Publications?
> So please explain why you think my opinion about elementary charge was
> foolish.
" Assuming you are talking electric charge, bare electric charge seems
to be a delta function singularity. We will probably never know exactly
what it is other than that."
When you are talking about a bare charge, it is hard to know if you are
using the nomenclature correctly. Are you considering the 4-current
invariant point charge in Maxwell's electrodynamics? If so, empirically
this is known to be insufficient in the QM picture.
Elemental charges have little to do with charge per unit volume at the
extreme infinitesimal volume limit in QM, as the electron is designated
by a probabilistic wave function, spread out over momentum space (or in
space).
Bare charge applies to the classical concept of a point object, and is
represented by a handy mathematical concept of a delta function (not
really a function, but a PDF in its own right... but I digress) in order
that Coulombs law does not blow up at the location of the electron.
To state that "we will never know exactly what it is other than that" is
a concept that is dead on arrival since the QM view works fine.
Now, usually I do not deign it worth my time and effort to go into any
detailed discussion with people who show that they are cranks or are on
Old Man's crank list. If I am not mistaken, you are a member of both.
You have quite a bit of work to do to absolve yourself of the stigma
attached as a result of your earlier interactions, but I am sure it can
be done if you put your mind to it.
FrediFizzx
SI almost makes sense. I just don't see that an ampere should be more
fundamental than charge. SI has charge as amps*time. Which seems
definitely better than how Gaussian units has charge. At least we have
charge with no mass in its description with SI. Plus, SI does not hide the
quantum vacuum from us. But I think a really good system of units should
have force sources and sinks as fundamental and not mass. How to do it? We
just haven't figured it out yet maybe. IMHO, mass should be a composite
dimension and not fundamental.
FrediFizzx
Zagan
> [EL]
> What is an elementary charge?
[Zagan]
Is this a trick question? :*)
You qualified the term "charge" with "elementary" so a charge would have to
be that electric "force" exihibited by an elementary particle, such as an
electron. The positive charge of a proton is (to me) more complex since we
have reason to believe it, unlike the electron, consists of quarks.
(Nevermind the whole superstring issue for now.)
But you already know about this, so what exactly are you asking for?
I'm I correct in thinking that the positive charge of a proton is equal to
the negative charge of an electron, but opposite in polarity? And if so,
why?
We don't know why an electron or proton has the charge is does, and why they
are equal but opposite in polarity. We do know that if this were not the
case the world at the atomic level, and thus the molecular/physical world we
see, would not exist as we know it. Someone more knowledgeable than I would
have to predict what the world would be like if the proton's charge was,
say, 10% less (in force) than the electron's negative charge.
I do find it interesting that we can simulate the positive charge of a
proton by doping a pure silicon matrix (crystal) with an element which has 3
electrons in its valence shell that would like to have 8 electrons. But
maybe "simulate" is the wrong term here since the charge of the "hole" in
such doped material is the result of the positive charge in the nucleus of
the silicon atom.
After expressing some thoughts on the matter, I find I still do not
understand your question.
Cheers,
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| The Keepers of Forever
|| Read reviews & download Novel
|| http://jcd.members.atlantic.net/
John Sefton
That alone could make me rethink my position.
FrediFizzx
No reason to get pissed. All you have to do is ask. I didn't include any
explanation because I didn't really think you would be interested in MHO.
Which you probably aren't anywise. IMHO, GR will need to be different at
the quantum object level because time for them is not the same as time for
macroscopic objects. There is actually quite a bit of experimental evidence
for this. And it is built into the wavefunction and part of HUP. It is all
a matter of interpretation. No complicated math is needed for this idea.
Macroscopic time is the result of infinite speed being reduced to c or
slower. This is why QM, GR and SR all work correctly for their
applications. A lot of people think that QM needs to be modified to include
gravity. It seems to me that GR needs to be modified down at the quantum
object level (actually a modification may not even be necessary if the right
value for time is plugged in). If you continue with your gravity
experiments to smaller and smaller length scales, you *should* start to see
GR not working correctly. I would imagine that it would start somewhere
around the molecular level. Someone really should do UA's idea.
| > So please explain why you think my opinion about elementary charge was
| > foolish.
|
| " Assuming you are talking electric charge, bare electric charge seems
| to be a delta function singularity. We will probably never know exactly
| what it is other than that."
|
| When you are talking about a bare charge, it is hard to know if you are
| using the nomenclature correctly. Are you considering the 4-current
| invariant point charge in Maxwell's electrodynamics? If so, empirically
| this is known to be insufficient in the QM picture.
I am talking about this:
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/topaz/research/emagcoupl.html
| Elemental charges have little to do with charge per unit volume at the
| extreme infinitesimal volume limit in QM, as the electron is designated
| by a probabilistic wave function, spread out over momentum space (or in
| space).
| Bare charge applies to the classical concept of a point object, and is
| represented by a handy mathematical concept of a delta function (not
| really a function, but a PDF in its own right... but I digress) in order
| that Coulombs law does not blow up at the location of the electron.
| To state that "we will never know exactly what it is other than that" is
| a concept that is dead on arrival since the QM view works fine.
Sorry, I should have said integrated delta function. I quote from Milonni
"The Quantum Vacuum" section 11.5:
"It should be emphasized that the "spread" of the electron associated with
relativistic effects does not alter the fact that the electron in QED is
regarded as a pure point particle. The "spread" is associated with quantum
fluctuations in the position of the point electron: the electron jiggles
around as a consequence of vacuum fluctuations."
I interpret this to mean that there is somewhat of a difference between what
we observe an electron to be from a distance and what "bare" charge is up
close. The Topaz experiment supports this. As a result, I contend that
"bare" point-like charge is not exactly the same thing as an electron. An
electron is "bare" point-like charge plus the relativistic/vacuum effects.
So will we ever know exactly what the singularity of "bare" point-like
charge really is? I don't think so. And probably it is not really so
important to know. It just is.
FrediFizzx
(Hildo) news multikabel
I never said electrons contain quarks.
I jus meant that I wouldn't be surprised if one day a granularity is found
in the electrons structure and if granularity suggests the same partial
elementary charge
As with baryons and quarks. Why should only the baryons have all the fun
with partial charges?
Hildo
EL
> In <7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com>, hem...@hotmail.com (EL) writes:
> >"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<v6hg0v1...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> EL <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> >> > [EL]
> >> > What is an elementary charge?
> >> > Any ideas?
> >>
> >> Shouldn't this be in sci.physics.electromag?
> >>
> >> greywolf42
> >> ubi dubium ibi libertas
> >
> >[EL]
> >Yes, thank you. :)
>
>
> Shouldn't this first of all be in sci.physics.particle
> and in sci.physics.gravity, if that newsgroup exists?
You are correct but cross posting to more than 4 groups at a time is
prohibited by Netiquette ethics.
I would measure the responses and exchange the least by the particle
group when deeper analysis becomes required.
I appreciate your observation and point taken, thank you.
>
> But why in alt.sci.physics.new-theories when electrons
> and their elementary charges have been known for ages?
!
Known for ages to be what?
When was the last time you examined the QCD list of elementary
charges?
> Is someone looking for physics or for alternative theories?
>
> Ole D. Rughede
[EL]
Both are welcome if they can shed some light on the meaning of charge
(else than the attack held by a military group and explosive
charges).
You see, I am leading a discussion to bring the relation between
"meaning" and "method of measurement" to the table for deeper
understanding of what the average person believes a charge to be.
In fact many electric and electronic engineers have no clue on what a
charge means on a deeper level than arbitrated assumptions.
So please help by contributing to this thread.
Kind regards.
EL
FrediFizzx
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
| [EL]
| What is an elementary charge?
| Any ideas?
While we are at it, what the heck is *mass* at a fundamental level? And
should elementary electric charge have mass in its description? Seems to me
that mass should be described by charge.
mass = force*length/c^2
Plug in the force equation for force and then what would the length be?
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Blair P. Houghton
>EL wrote:
>>
>> [EL]
>> What is an elementary charge?
>> Any ideas?
>
Its effect on the quark to its right,
when there's a quark on its left.
--Blair
"Hey left nut."
Richard Perry
>
> Richard Perry <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E68E54F...@yahoo.com>...
> > EL wrote:
> > >
> > > [EL]
> > > What is an elementary charge?
> > > Any ideas?
> >
>
> [EL]
> Richard, if it was a "fundamental" unit of space then any space must
> be charged or contain a charge.
> Please restate what you say in a more consistent way and a less
> "greedy" way. :)
>
> EL
Number 2 above, "all space contains charge". This is because all space
'is' charge. Space is a composite field, and exists only by virtue of
its influence on particles. That field is in turn exuded by those
particles themselves. Particles and space are one in the same. All
neutral particles are composites of positive and negative charge, hence
space is charge, and charge is space. The electron, a basic unit of
existence is therefore a fundamental unit of space. The positron is
another, there are no others, just composites of these two. Couldn't be
simpler. "Greedy?", I think not, just concise and to the point.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Richard Henry
news:<3e6a3245$0$146$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>...
> You are correct but cross posting to more than 4 groups at a time is
> prohibited by Netiquette ethics.
Says who?
Richard Perry
>
> Richard Perry <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E692F43...@yahoo.com>...
> > hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > > > What is an elementary charge?
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > Charge of what? --- e, the electon charge,
> > > or the 1/3 color charges in/on quarks ?
> > >
> > > have been reported every now and then. But mainstreet P only accepts
> > > less then unit e-charges in the quark model. Maybe these "seen",
> > > rare 1/3 e-charge events are tunneling echoes from the nucleus.
> > >
> > > with 1/2 spin unit each being confined/combined/overlaid/superimposed
> > > in one action quantum package of h (= 1 spin unit), rotating or
> > > vibrating around their mutual/common (gravitational?) center of
> > > attraction with a velocity a*c/2pi. When such an action package
> > > vibrates at a minimum frequency such that its energy exceeds some 1100
> > > MeV it splits for some reason into 2 separate charges, e+ and e-.
> > > Conversely, when e+ and e- meet and meat, then they unite into said
> > > action package again. Even at much lower energy levels such pairs are
> > > supposed to de/materialize into/out of the "nothing", a notion which
> > > has been resurrecting the Aether concept. (bitterly fought against by
> > > the ones who are termianlly infected with relativitis).
> > >
> > > stringently is somewhat less mysterious. The force that charge exerts
> > > onto other charges is 10^41 time stronger that the masses of 2
> > > electrons exert gravitationally onto each other.
> >
> > gravitational force exerted between two electrons.
> [EL]
> If so then what is it that sums up external to a mass and manifests as
> gravitation?
Anisotropy of vector potentials. The net electromagnetic (vector
induced) attractive force between the electrons and protons is greater
than the sum of the respective repulsive forces between the electrons
and protons (these latter two not necessarily being equal to one
another), result net attraction of neutral masses. In opposition to the
speculation of the 'electrostatic' potential being asymmetric, of which
there is no discernible reason, the asymmetry of 'temperatures' of the
constituent charges, which does in fact exist, not only accounts for
gravity and a host of other related effects as outlined, it also
provides a discernible reason for the anisotropy.
>
> >
> > IOW if the charge
> > > equality would be off by only 1 in 10^41 we could have a reason for
> > > gravitation to be stepchild of charge behaviors.
> > > This notion has been around since Faraday.
> >
> > OTOH if the force between two masses is the vector sum of the
> > electromagnetic forces acting between their constituent particles,
> > which it is
> [EL]
> Electromagnetic forces!
> What about masses that has neither magnetic nor electric components
> external to the "surface" by any significant distance to account for
> gravitational interactions measured by a torsion balance?
> Please restate and clarify.
You, nor anyone else, have ever observed gravitation between point
particles. What else is there to clarify? Gravity is exerted only
between macroscopic entities, i.e. between large numbers of mixed
charges (The empirical evidence is thus far restricted to this
observation, extrapolation to untested domains is foolishness that
cannot be reasonably tolerated).
>
> >(barring external influences),
> [EL]
> This is very strange, Richard, because two gravitating masses, each
> must be external to the other, so how can you define that external
> which you wish "to bar".?
Casimir for one, light pressure (shading) for another, shall I go on?
> >and if the force between charges is
> > a function of some average of their velocity relative to one another,
> [EL]
> What is the function of the average of zero?
When is the relative velocity of two electrons on opposing surfaces ever
zero?
> Masses shall still gravitate.
Electrons shall not gravitate, the only field is the electromagnetic
field, and the electron interacts with it exclusively. What you are
failing to grasp is that the ambient field is anything but 'static'.
Phase relationships are complex and varied, neutral matter can be
accelerated solely by electromagnetism by virtue of a greater force on
one sign of charge than on the other. Neutral matter appears to be
'charged' more with respect to one charge than to the other owing to the
differences in the average speeds of the two signs of charge wrt that
matter.
>
> > which it is, then a difference in average speeds of positive and
> > negative quanta respectively within the materials can account for any
> > asymmetric forces, and it does.
> [EL]
> I am sorry to find your speculations unfounded and illogical.
These aren't speculations, they are firmly founded upon empirical data,
and the logic is perfectly sound.
If you prefer, I can derive exactly the same effects via SR, the values
will differ somewhat but the effects predicted will be precisely the
same. The only difference between my electromagnetism and SR's
electromagnetism is the issue of constancy of c, other than that the
approach to unifying the electromagnetic field is exactly the same. SR
predicts, indeed is partially founded upon, the development of a vector
potential between relatively moving electrons (per Lorentz). Again,
'which' electrons are not moving wrt each other? Try reading up on the
subject.
>
> >The Peltier effect, Voltaic effect, even
> > the production of static electricity are all the result of differences
> > in affinity of electrons of two materials. In the case of the Peltier
> > effect differences in temperature between the two junctions causes a
> > potential gradient that cannot be explained in terms of electrostatics,
> [EL]
> Oh!
> There are many explanations for the thermoelectric effect as much as
> there for the photoelectric one.
> Thermocouple reversible reactions are just another version of
> piezoelectric reversible reactions.
Correct.
> While the first takes heat energy or gives it the other takes pressure
> and gives deformation.
> Both belong to surface phenomena when atomic domains intersect.
What is an atomic domain except microscopic electromagnetic
interactions? What aren't you getting?
> And most certainly they do involve electrostatics in the course of
> explanation.
Absolutely not. Electrostatics is a macroscopic effect and cannot be
successfully applied to either of these effects without nulling the PD.
>
> > only vector potentials can provide this emf. Those vector potentials are
> > in turn the result of the motions of the internal charges wrt each
> > other, and a 'net' potential other than zero requires that the motional
> > distribution of charges be asymmetrical wrt the positive and negative
> > components of charge within the junctions.
> [EL]
> This may be fine in anisotropic cases but it fails in all isotropic
> cases.
> Therefore it is not a general hypothesis for the phenomena.
There are no isotropic cases, symmetry is exactly why electrostatics
won't cut it in explaining these effects.
>
> >
> > Such an asymmetry already exists between dissimilar materials, which is
> > the cause of the galvanic effect. The Peltier effect is in turn just the
> > introduction of an asymmetry between the existing asymmetries at the
> > junctions, i.e. an introduction of a difference in asymmetries of the
> > two junctions. The net voltage generated is proportional to the TD
> > between the junctions simply because the electromagnetic asymmetrical
> > forces are also proportional to absolute temperature. This is in turn
> > evidence that this microscopic electromagnetic interaction is
> > proportional to the relative velocity 'squared' between the quanta,
> > which is not only in accord with the equation that I derive for this
> > interaction, but this effect can in fact be used as an alternate means
> > to the same derivation. *Link to referenced material in tag below.
> [EL]
> Holy Molly!
> Richard, I was not asking about your "equations that you derived",
> I was simply making an inquiry about the deep meaning of a charge.
> If you have one, you are very welcome, but you may start a thread to
> discuss your full theory and references to your papers.
> In this context I fear that we might misjudge you.
No problem, this discourse wasn't a response to your inquiry, it was a
response to an inquiry into asymmetrical electrostatic forces.
Richard Perry
It is this jiggling (which event is also derivable from first principles
as a necessary contribution to macroscopic electromagnetic effects) that
produces charge in the macroscopic sense, i.e. 'electrostatics'. Only
relative motion can produce a change in motion. Two 'point' particles at
rest wrt one another cannot possibly generate the mutual motion of one
another as presumed by Coulomb, since this would require a mechanism and
therefore particles in motion which is contradictory to the given
premise of particles at rest. In this sense it seems very clear that
'point' charges must replace 'mass' (which latter is a composite
attribute) as the real influence on space metrics. A point charge is in
fact just 'a metric' and nothing more wrt another point charge. As
Faraday noted "What is a molecule except its influence on other
molecules?"
>
> I interpret this to mean that there is somewhat of a difference between what
> we observe an electron to be from a distance and what "bare" charge is up
> close. The Topaz experiment supports this. As a result, I contend that
> "bare" point-like charge is not exactly the same thing as an electron. An
> electron is "bare" point-like charge plus the relativistic/vacuum effects.
> So will we ever know exactly what the singularity of "bare" point-like
> charge really is? I don't think so. And probably it is not really so
> important to know. It just is.
In perfect agreement with my observations above. Be careful lest you
actually figure it out, you'll be branded a heretic:-)
>
> FrediFizzx
EL
[EL]
I have to disagree with you empirically.
Faraday was never refuted for claiming that an iron sphere with a hole
for making measurements in the air within shall contain neither
charges nor magnetic fields.
By adding a second hole connected to a positive pump we may bring it
to an extremely low pressure and the space within shall be practically
depleted from electrostatic charge, electro-dynamic charge, magnetic
fields, electromagnetic waves and even heat shall be reduced to a
minimum. If measurements inform us with such facts, how can I believe
your talk?
Try again. :)
EL
EL
FrediFizzx
The way I see it, there is no such thing as "at rest with respect to one
another" for the bare point charges. Bare point charges are never at rest
in their "local" domains. So, is it possible to even make the statement
that two electrons could be at rest wrt one another? I don't think we can
ever say that. Seems to me that electrons are perpetual motion devices.
Why and how? The only explanation I can think of for "how" is that time
does not exist in the electron's local domain or is greatly different than
macroscopic time. Due to the exclusion principle, the electron should clear
out a "hole" in the quantum vacuum and can "see" the pure void where time
does not exist. However, the electron's time is most likely a mix of no
time with time set by its interaction with the quantum vacuum (or other real
particles). The origin of quantum fuzziness?
Yes, I think that force sources and sinks are more fundamental than mass.
Since they maybe are responsible for making mass, then they should also be
the source of gravity.
Mass = force*length/c^2
When I try to calculate this for an electron, length ends up being alpha
times the Compton wavelength divided by 2pi. About 2.82*10^-15 meters. If
I set the r in Coulomb's law to the Compton wavelength divided by 2pi,
length ends up being the Bohr radius for the hydrogen atom.
| >
| > I interpret this to mean that there is somewhat of a difference between
what
| > we observe an electron to be from a distance and what "bare" charge is
up
| > close. The Topaz experiment supports this. As a result, I contend that
| > "bare" point-like charge is not exactly the same thing as an electron.
An
| > electron is "bare" point-like charge plus the relativistic/vacuum
effects.
| > So will we ever know exactly what the singularity of "bare" point-like
| > charge really is? I don't think so. And probably it is not really so
| > important to know. It just is.
|
| In perfect agreement with my observations above. Be careful lest you
| actually figure it out, you'll be branded a heretic:-)
I'm already branded, so what the hey. Did you ever find a copy of your
article that had all your equations in normal format instead of in text
format?
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong.pdf
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong.ps
EL
If at any time in the future a Nobel prise was given to a pampered
physicist for a new theory that postulates that quarks, which comes in
different colours and flavours, were made of "farts", which come in
different smells and noises and that they have partial charges of down
to 1/60 of the charge of an electron, does that solve the problem of
what is a charge?
No certainly not.
Does saying that a block of cheese was made of eight identical blocks
of cheese explain what cheese is?
Say cheese. :):):)
Hildo, do you know how was the unit charge originally quantified?
I know, but I would like to hear a physicist's explanation in a
professional language, for the least benefit of all readers, would you
kindly do that for us?
Kindest regards.
EL
EL
[EL]
Says Google.
EL
[EL]
Says Google.
Rusty Shackleford
EL, there must be something wrong with your news server or news reader as
you continually send multiple copies of your responses. On another thread
there was 3 copies sent one right after the other (Time stamps were within
one minute). Unless of course you are tying to make a point?
Rusty Shackleford
(Hildo) news multikabel
(Hildo) news multikabel
Cranky mode off.
Yes, now that you mention it, it is surprising that Millikan is mentioned
nowhere in this thread.
Anyone that studied physics should know it, it's a famous experiment and a
textbook example of experimental physics.
The original experiment to determine the elementary charge was conceived by
Robert Millikan in 1909.
He used tiny oil drops (oil mist actually, the kind you'll find in smoke
machines) in a chamber with glass walls and a metal top and bottom.
The bottom plate got a negative charge the top one a positive so there was a
vertical electric field in the chamber. An x-ray emitter ionized the air so
the droplets could acquire a charge when the entered the chamber.
The mist was sprayed over the top plate, which had a small hole in it. Some
of the droplets fell through, got a charge and fell down.
The droplets where watched by a microscope and illuminated by a light source
at a right angle with the microscope.
On entering the chamber (of the droplets) the electrical field was set to
zero, by measuring the speed with which they fell, the mass of the droplets
was determined.
The trick was to adjust the electrical field now in such a way that one or
more of the droplets stopped falling.
Now the gravity force was known (mass of the droplet was known) and when the
droplet remained stationary the electrical force was known to be equal to
the electrical force.
By knowing the electrical force due to a known electrical field the charge
of the droplets was known.
After many measurements, the charge turned out to be always whole number
multiples of a lowest value.
This was said to be the elementary charge, about 1.6 * 10^-19 coulomb.
I don't know if the elementary charge was ever measured individually, I
would have to look that up.
I hope this is what you meant, it's a long story to type if it isn't work
:-).
Hildo
Jeff O'Callaghan
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
> > John Sefton wrote:
> >
... I am viewing space
> as having something left to define its matrix even though
> everything is gone. So we have not yet proven that there is
> a matrix and what is its nature. But there must be,
Shadows http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm defines physical
matrix of space in terms of the resonate properties of the mass and
energy component of space with respect to the experimental verified
relationship of E=mc^2.
The magnitude of the unit electrical charge is defined in terms of the
resonate "Shadows" associates with the mass and energy components of
this matrix http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter13.htm
Jeff
John Sefton
You say in your paper " The positive electric charge of a proton was
defined in terms of the energy "Shadows" associates with a clockwise
rotation in the mass and energy components of space while the negative
electric charge of an electron was defined in terms of a counter
clockwise rotation of equal energy in the mass and energy components of
space."
OK maybe.
El says lately that when the relationship clears
as how vortices link we will be well on the way.
Look at the galaxy model: the central
black hole, or proton, is huge and has
a certain rotation. It throws out the ATOMS
of the galaxy arms which are protons or tiny black holes
which CUMULATIVELY equal to an opposite rotation.
So the vortices are the ONE of one spin to the
MULTITUDE of the negative spin.
John
http://www.petcom.com/~john
Richard Perry
Incorrect. Within an iron sphere the the field is opposed (not
'nonexistent'.
Whether you can distinguish the difference is something I cannot help
you with.
According to your stance there is no gravity acting on an object at
rest.
Equilibrium is not equivalent to absence of field.
EL
Before diving deeper into this very positive post from Hildo, I would
like to thank him for his contribution.
We should have faith in the experimenters who preceded us and we are
grateful to them all.wrote in message news:<1047249155.342940@cache2>...
[EL]
Millikan!
I wish to take you back to Thales of Miletus (640-546 B. C.).
I wish to take you back to Jerome Cardan in 1551 who distinguished
between the attractive properties of amber and magnetite; yes it was
THAT "dark" then.
The mere distinction between electrostatic attraction and magnetic
attraction was a revolution. :)
Jerome was behind the persistent conception of the "electric charges'
population" being a fluid, and believe me it is so "handled"
occasionally until this day of today.
In 1600, it was Gilbert who classified materials to friction electric
or non-electric.
In 1733, duFay suggested two electric fluids, but in 1747, it was
Benjamin Franklin, who called an excess of the electric fluid positive
electrification and a deficiency of the electric fluid negative
electrification. I also recall that Franklin was a military person and
thus described the electrostatic "sparks" as a discharge of charge (as
in gunpowder).
So Franklin is behind our subject's agony. :):):)
In 1767, Priestly discovered the inverse square law.
In 1785, Coulomb rediscovered the inverse square law and elaborated
extensively, thus wining the honours of the foundation.
In 1800, Volta came with his experiments to give the world the voltaic
pile.
In 1820, Oersted demonstrated that an electric current exhibited a
magnetic field.
Ampère contributed also between 1820 and 1825
*
But I would like to emphasise on Coulombs work.
<snip for brevity>
>
> This was said to be the elementary charge, about 1.6 * 10^-19 coulomb.
[EL]
To be precise it is 1.60217733(49) * 10^-19 C.
> I don't know if the elementary charge was ever measured individually, I
> would have to look that up.
>
> I hope this is what you meant, it's a long story to type if it isn't work
> :-).
[EL]
This should do very well to trigger the subject. :)
>
> Hildo
[EL]
Very well; then the elementary charge is measured in Coulombs.
Great! No where does this say what is a "charge" but at least we have
a clue, the elementary charge is measured in Coulombs.
Now what is a Coulomb? :):):)
Faraday introduced the concept of the electric force field to banish
the magic of action at a distance, but did he?
The answer to the question of "what is a Coulomb?" shall take us to
quantification rather than qualification.
But answering the question "What is an electric force field" must
force us to qualify the field topologically.
The cause of the electric field is dogmatically arbitrated to a
*POINT* without any sound reasoning else than a dogmatic tautological
assumption.
Maxwell worked on the concept of Faradays *Lines of force* within the
concept of a force field.
Maxwell only produced a successful formalism when he worked on Baron
Kelvin's vortex Aether.
The three fingers of Fleming are extremely obvious in the axis, radius
and tangent of a vortex that nature is screaming for us to admit it.
But we cannot close our eyes on the NULL result of Michelson in his
attempt to measure the relative velocity of earth to THAT Aether.
Something is very fishy here.
The vortex Aether was refuted empirically.
How can this stupid EL {me :) } resurrect such a dead, dead concept.
Vortexes in Primedium is not the same thing as a vortex Primedium,
because I never proposed a vortex-matrix.
A universally static matrix demands a relative motion to be true.
My Primedium is dynamic and chaotic by definition and must be set to
order to be detected, but once chaos was transformed into LOCAL order
it is not Primedium any more. It becomes a field in its most modern
sense of the word.
Imagine billions of neutrinos and antineutrinos (of all types)
shooting across the space of the M&M experiment randomly and in all
conceivable directions.
How can that alter the interference of the coherent light split-wave?
All what we really need is a new experiment in which we force
(nothing) to become (something) UNEXPECTED. :)
This brings us to the MOST MODERN DEFINITION of Supercritical fields.
The shameless textbooks define vacuum as: "a polarizable GAS of
VIRTUAL particles, fluctuating randomly".
Where were those Virtual Particles of that Virtual Gas that fluctuates
randomly when Michelson conducted his experiment? ;-)
Oh! It must have been a virtual experiment too. :):)
There in no *VIRTUE* at all in all that *SIN*. :):)
Come to EL, come. :):)
Logos Impervious Ultimatum.
We discovered our logic, and we did not invent it at will.
Existence is mathematically logical and Logic is behind existence.
The Casimir effect is just a hint about vacuum polarisation normal to
the conducting plates forcing them proportionally to the inverse forth
root of the distance.
The fourth root is the square root of the square root; how can we be
so blind not to see two Gaussian curvatures interacting.
The surface of my proposed primordial spherical oscillators.
The material of the two conducting plates are simply polarising the
chaos in a favoured direction where it can manifest its existence.
I can design another experiment to produce an unexpected result
through dynamic gravitation-rate to force vacuum into an order that
did not exist and force the coherent light split-wave to interfere
significantly to measure the speed of the induced currents of
Primedium.
It is based on forcing the replacement of primedium by the
displacement of spheres made of iridium to produce a measurable effect
at practical velocities.
But that is another story.
So what is a charge? :):):)
<I did not give an answer yet>
Kind regards.
EL
Jeff O'Callaghan
> John
> http://www.petcom.com/~johnJohn
Shadows defines all forces and energies in terms of the physical
orientation of axes of three dimensional space with respect to the "W"
axis of the fourth spatial dimension instead of four dimensional space
time. The mechanism responsible for the interaction of the energy
vortexes Shadows associates with the unit electric charge is related
to the effects they have on physical orientation of axes of
three-dimensional space with respect to the "W".
Very briefly, as pointed out in your response, the rotational energy
Shadows associates with a positive unit electric charge is opposite to
the rotational energy associated with a negative unit electric charge.
Therefore the “torque” associated with their rotational
energies generated on the “W” axis of the fourth spatial
dimension will also be opposite.
Unit electric charges with dissimilar polarities attract because the
energy associated with opposite torques will subtract and reduce the
energy difference between the two regions of space that the electric
charges occupy. Therefore, there will be a net force to bring them
together.
Unit electric charges with similar polarities repel because the energy
associated with similar torques add and increase the energy difference
between the two regions of space that the unit electric charges
occupy. Therefore, to reduce the stress on the dimension there will
be a net force to push them apart.
Jeff
(Hildo) news multikabel
<snip>
> So what is a charge? :):):)
>
> <I did not give an answer yet>
>
> Kind regards.
>
> EL
What I told you, charge is a thingy
:-)
Hildo
EL
> not 'nonexistent'.
> I cannot help you with.
> According to your stance there is no gravity acting on an object at rest.
> Equilibrium is not equivalent to absence of field.
You are forgetting that we are originally in agreement about very
critical concepts. :)
In fact, I am too easy on you because I know very well that you give
deep thought to your convictions.
Now you are dragging gravitation into the subject but I have to be
very firm that I disputed your claim that space was charge and charge
was space.
An object at rest on the surface of earth has a weight that can prove
that gravity is acting on it. Since it is a state of equilibrium, the
measurement of weight is best done by comparing that weight with
standard weights at equilibrium in a Libra.
You claimed that space is charge not "charge at equilibrium" because
if you did then I should ask you if you mean field or field source and
here is the crux of our disagreement. I just refuted your claim that
space could be "charged" significantly.
Now you are clarifying your position by introducing "Equilibrium".
With such a new notion we have two different ideas.
I still refute one of them leading to space being opposing
charge-particles neutralised, because that would imply that space has
mass which is clearly funny.
So you must be talking about the hypothetical infinite extension of
any electrostatic field of any charge while obeying the inverse square
law.
My argument to that is about the neutralization of the field vectors
because the vectors shall cancel out destructively or sum-up
constructively, while the "field" was never disputed to be set-up in
some medium the pervades in a most primordial sense.
Therefore you are talking about what I call Primedium, which you might
like to call Aether not charge.
Yet you were definitely drifting away by energy quanta of high energy
electromagnetic waves as if they were compounded from electrons and
positrons, as if the alleged billiard-ball photon was a neutral solid
particle pervading space.
Inside Faraday's iron-vacuum-sphere there are no electromagnetic
waves, whether that be high or low energy.
The propagation of a photon is a periodical displacement of a state of
vacuum polarisation ( from mainstream POV), but in my view it is a
periodical displacement of a state of Primedium polarisation. Particle
creation as in p-e pair production is an interaction between a high
energy quantum and a magnetic field, so it is not a photon splitting
into two, sorry.
Similarly, the alleged annihilation of an electron colliding with a
positron does not necessarily produce a propagating photon because a
neutral composite particle is also probable and undetected.
Nevertheless we could view it as one absorbing the other in the same
sense in which an electron is excited from its ground state, followed
by a return and the emission of a photon, so I have no problem with
that.
I gave you one example of such a space that could never possibly be a
charge in any way.
Primedium is the substrate "polarizable vacuum" that could become a
wave and could become a particle but it is not a charge until it is
charged.
Therefore, space is not charge even though it has the potential to be
it.
Q. E. D.
EL
FrediFizzx
news:b4fvgb$cke$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
| In article <7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com>,news:<v6hg0v1...@corp.supernews.com>...
| >> > What is an elementary charge?
| >> > Any ideas?
| >>
| >>
| >> greywolf42
| >> ubi dubium ibi libertas
| >
| >[EL]
| >Yes, thank you. :)
|
|
| d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0
|
| Where rho is the field density, and v is the mean velocity. If a field
| is incompressible this simplifies to:
|
| (rho)Div v = 0
|
| Since with the incompressible assumption, there can be no change in
| density. We can further simplify the equation by removing density
| (dividing it from both sides) we then get:
|
| Div v = 0
|
| This definition requires infinite propagation speeds of any perturbations,
| eliminating any possibility of waves phenomena.
|
| Conversely, in compressible mediums we see that (rho)Div v equals the
| time rate of change in the density d(rho)/dt. For the limit, as a volume
| element [s] go to zero, we get:
|
| s(rho)Div v = s(d(rho)/dt)
|
| This is based on the observation that for the two terms to sum to zero,
| and therefore must have opposite signs. This leads directly to:
|
| m(Div v) = dm/dt
|
| And cannot be zero. This is an important finding, it describes a unique
| characteristic of all compressible systems. The result of this is a
| fixed finite propagation speed for any perturbations in the resulting
| continuum, leading to standard wave mechanics.
|
| In general the physical consequences of this definition has been
| overlooked due to an almost universal adoption of the 'assumption' of
| incompressibility. This, by definition, eliminates many higher order
| terms greatly simplifying the resulting equations.
|
| It does however eliminate this property and any resulting consequences
| from any such evaluations. As should be obvious, as a limit, this
| definition has a unique value fixed by the other properties the field.
|
| So, what is the above equation saying? It appears to be saying that
| compressible fields must have a basic oscillation or harmonic oscillators.
| Moreover, given a generally uniform field, this fluctuation will have a
| distinctive frequency associated with this activity. This is clearly
| demonstrated by the relationship:
|
| Div v = d/dt
|
| When applied to fields of Electromagnetism where is this? There is a
| fundamental property that has remained undefined (and given arbitrary
| units), this is charge [q]. So, if we assign to charge the units [kg/sec]
| and assume it is a result of the definition above, what is the result?
|
| In Coulomb's law, the force resulting from the interaction of two charges
| is given to be:
|
| F = [1/4pi(eps)][qq/r^2]
|
| Following our assumption we find that permitivitty [eps] must have units
of
| density to get a result in units of force.
|
| If we can associate permitivitty with density, we find that standard
acoustic
| equation matches that given for light propagation exactly. In standard
| acoustics wave speed c is given by the relationship:
|
| c^2 = Y/rho
|
| Where Y is proportional to pressure and the specific heats in a gas, the
bulk
| modulus of a liquid, or Young's modulus in a solid. For a solid we have
the
| further complication of whether we are evaluating the compression <p wave>
or
| shear <Sv, Sh waves>. The relationship between these two in a perfect
elastic
| medium is that the shear wave travel at a speed Sqrt(3) time slower than
the
| compression wave.
|
| We can of course write the above equation in terms of inverse Y [u] (in
the
| standard literature this is known as the coefficient of compressibility),
in
| that case we get:
|
| c^2 = 1/u(rho)
|
| And as can be seen:
|
| c^2 = 1/u(eps)
|
| This provides us with confirmation that this definition is, at least,
internally
| consistent for Coulomb's law and the Maxwell/Heavyside relationship to EM
wave
| speed.
|
| We can now look elsewhere for other possible correlations.
|
| As shown above, Div v = nu (a characteristic frequency in Hertz). With our
| definition, the charge to mass ratio would suggest that the mass, seen in
matter,
| could be some sort of resulting stable manifestation of this harmonic
oscillation
| in the field.
|
| Exploring this idea, lets look at the thermal (as in black body) frequency
| which, given the above definitions, results from this relationship.
Given:
|
| E = h(nu) = 3kT
|
| and, as defined,
|
| nu = q/m.
|
| We have:
|
| E = hq/m = 3kT
|
| And the resulting temperature T is
|
| T = hq/3km
|
| For the smallest stable elemental particle, the electron, this calculates
to be
| 2.8 degrees Kelvin.
|
| As defined, the property charge is of a form consistent with a simple
harmonic
| oscillator. These have a unique mathematical form, which is:
|
| nu = [1/2pi]Sqrt(A/m)
|
| where A is called the 'spring constant'. And:
|
| m(nu) = [1/2pi]Sqrt(Am)
|
| which gives us to the requisite units kg/sec, and as stated above, to be
correct,
| charge MUST take this form! It does:
|
| q = [1/2pi]Sqrt(hSqrt[eps/3u]) = 1.603815E-19 kg/sec
|
| For free space...
|
| But wait! This value isn't quite correct, elemental charge is given to be
| 1.60217E-19, not 1.603815E-19. We're off (high) by 1.001. But we've seen
this
| value before, the 'theoretical' value for the electron's magnetic moment
is:
|
| qh/m4pi
|
| and is called the Bohr magnetron. But when we actually measure it, we get
a
| value that is 1.001159653 times higher than the equation predicts. The
difference
| is called the magnetic moment anomaly. When we use the value derived by
our
| model, this difference practically vanishes, but importantly doesn't
exactly. We
| note that elemental charge is measured in air, and while the dielectric
constant
| for air is close to unity, it is in fact 1.0006 times higher. Now
plugging this
| into the above definition of charge (replacing eps with 1.0006eps) we get
| 1.604589E-19 or 1.001174. This is well within the uncertainty of the
dielectic
| constant of air...
|
| Finally, a new correlation emerges, which is:
|
| k = h/qc = 1.38E-23 m-sec
|
| and gives us units of impact d^p/dt^2 for temperature, just as one would
expect.
|
| Thus, there should be little doubt, given the preceding presentation, that
the
| property we call charge is an inevitable result of field compressibility
and
| inexorably connected to the wave properties of the field. This in turn is
a result
| of compressibiliy of the field. Thus one cannot ignore compressibility
and hope to
| correctly define the proper equations of state.
|
| Moreover, given this definition, Permitivitty and Permeability which today
are
| arbitrary definitions, become simple density and inverse energy density
| (pressure/modulus). This facilitates the conversion of all EM/QM
properties into
| prosaic medium properties and results in a completely self consistent
mechanical
| system that matches all physical EM observations.
|
| Paul Stowe
Paul, how do you explain this at the following link within your ideas?
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/topaz/research/emagcoupl.html
The value for bare charge is different than for that of an electron at a
distance. The fine structure constant is not really a constant in the
strict sense. Neither is e, as represented by bare charge.
FrediFizzx
Ole D. Rughede
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:b4fvgb$cke$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> | In article <7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com>,
> | hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> |
> | >"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:<v6hg0v1...@corp.supernews.com>...
> | >> EL <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | >> news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> | >> > [EL]
> | >> > What is an elementary charge?
>
[SNIP]
>
> The value for bare charge is different than for that of an electron at a
> distance. The fine structure constant is not really a constant in the
> strict sense. Neither is e, as represented by bare charge.
>
> FrediFizzx
[SNIP]
Please explain what is meant by "the value for bare charge", and in which
way it differs from the elementary charge of an electron at a (at some, or
at which?) distance.
Please explain in which "strict sense" the fine structure constant is not a
constant, and if not constant, how it may be a variable dependent of what?
Please explain in which way the elementary charge e of an electron may
be represented by some other "bare charge" indicating that e is not constant.
Please explain in which way such explanations may answer the question:
"What is an elementary charge?".
Ole D. Rughede
FrediFizzx
--
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photon/photon.html
"All we are is dust in the wind" -- Kansas
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:3E6D1EEC...@privat.dk...
Did you read the content at the following website and in the postscript
file? Most of the answers to your questions are all explained there.
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/topaz/research/emagcoupl.html
The running coupling constant for alpha is explained on page 12 of Jackson
"Classical Electrodynamics" 3rd Ed. If you don't have access to that, let
me know and I will try to post it when I get home.
FrediFizzx
Alfred Einstead
> Please be more verbose because the subject deserves to throw in all
> what we have.
> What is the name of the entity, which is "currently" viewed as being
> such an elementary charge and what is its charge magnitude and does it
> come in pairs like electrons and positrons, etcetera?
The spectrum of charges of the fundamental particles is a topic tht
came up in s.p.r. not too long ago, particularly the fact that it
forms a highly regular pattern.
"Charge" means the whole charge, which has 4 degrees of freedom, not
one. The degrees of freedom are generally characterized as the
hypercharge, isospin, and the 2 associated with the strong force.
Electrical charge is a combination of hypercharge and isospin.
In its entirety, the spectrum forms a regular lattice.
The full spectrum for the fundamental fermions is below.
This is excerpted from one of the earlier articles there.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Subject: The Particle Spectrum On A 6-D Cartesian Lattice
Y = Hypercharge, in units 1 = e/(6 cos T)
W3 = Isospin, in units 1 = e/(2 sqrt(3) sin T)
Q3, Q8 = The SU(3) charges, in units 1 = gs/(2 sqrt(3))
G = (Baryon - Lepton)/3
T = weak mixing angle: sin T and cos T are about 8/17 and 15/17.
Qbit Y W3 Q3 Q8 G N Description
a 3 -sqrt(3) 0 0 0 0 "Isospin"
b 3 sqrt(3) 0 0 0 0 "Iso-parity"
c 2 0 -sqrt(3) -1 2 0 "Cyan"
d 2 0 0 2 2 0 "Magneta"
e 2 0 sqrt(3) -1 2 0 "Amber"
The 5 vectors are formed from the 6 orthogonal vectors with
a = X - A, b = X - B, c = X - C, d = X - D and e = X - e:
and the assignments:
Qbit Y W3 Q3 Q8 G N
X 2 0 0 0 1 1
A -1 sqrt(3) 0 0 1 1
B -1 -sqrt(3) 0 0 1 1
C 0 0 sqrt(3) 1 -1 1
D 0 0 0 -2 -1 1
E 0 0 -sqrt(3) 1 -1 1
The 4 exchange bosons and their 4 anti-particles simply exchange + and -
qbits, with the assignments for a,b,c,d,e and equivalent assignments for
A,B,C,D,E,X, assuming X = 0:
SU(2) a b c d e | A B C D E X
W+ +1 -1 0 0 0 | -1 +1 0 0 0 0
W- -1 +1 0 0 0 | +1 -1 0 0 0 0
SU(3) a b c d e | A B C D E X
R 0 0 -1 +1 0 | 0 0 +1 -1 0 0
O 0 0 -1 0 +1 | 0 0 +1 0 -1 0
Y 0 0 0 -1 +1 | 0 0 0 +1 -1 0
G 0 0 +1 -1 0 | 0 0 -1 +1 0 0
B 0 0 +1 0 -1 | 0 0 -1 0 +1 0
P 0 0 0 +1 -1 | 0 0 0 -1 +1 0
(The color-exchange gluons don't have official names, so I just call
them "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Green", "Blue" and "Purple",
abbreviating them R, O, Y, G, B and P).
These 8 vectors form the 8 vertices to a hexagonal double pyramid.
The 32 fermion states in each generation (right-neutrinos are
included in this count) are the 32 combinations of a,b,c,d,e
taking on the values +1/2 and -1/2 each.
Values for a,b,c,d,e listed with + = 1/2, - = -1/2:
Y listed as multiple of the Y coupling constant e/cos T
W3 listed as multiple of the SU(2) coupling constant e/sin T
Q3, Q8 listed as multiple of the SU(3) coupling constant gs.
Names pertain to generation 1. There are 2 other generations.
The "anti-colors" anti-red, anti-green and anti-blue are respectively
called cyan, magneta and amber. Chirality is not indicated. The
left particles and right anti-particles are the ones with non-zero W3.
a b c d e Y W3 Q3 Q8 B-L Charge State
+ + + + + 1 0 0 0 1 Positron
+ + + + - 2/3 0 -1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Blue Up
+ + + - + 2/3 0 0 -1/sqrt(3) 1/3 Green Up
+ + + - - 1/3 0 -1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Cyan Anti-Down
+ + - + + 2/3 0 1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Red Up
+ + - + - 1/3 0 0 1/sqrt(3) -1/3 Magneta Anti-Down
+ + - - + 1/3 0 1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Amber Anti-Down
+ + - - - 0 0 0 0 -1 Neutrino
+ - + + + 1/2 -1/2 0 0 1 Anti-Neutrino
+ - + + - 1/6 -1/2 -1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Blue Down
+ - + - + 1/6 -1/2 0 -1/sqrt(3) 1/3 Green Down
+ - + - - -1/6 -1/2 -1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Cyan Anti-Up
+ - - + + 1/6 -1/2 1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Red Down
+ - - + - -1/6 -1/2 0 1/sqrt(3) -1/3 Magneta Anti-Up
+ - - - + -1/6 -1/2 1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Amber Anti-Up
+ - - - - -1/2 -1/2 0 0 -1 Electron
- + + + + 1/2 1/2 0 0 1 Positron
- + + + - 1/6 1/2 -1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Blue Up
- + + - + 1/6 1/2 0 -1/sqrt(3) 1/3 Green Up
- + + - - -1/6 1/2 -1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Cyan Anti-Down
- + - + + 1/6 1/2 1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Red Up
- + - + - -1/6 1/2 0 1/sqrt(3) -1/3 Magneta Anti-Down
- + - - + -1/6 1/2 1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Amber Anti-Down
- + - - - -1/2 1/2 0 0 -1 Neutrino
- - + + + 0 0 0 0 1 Anti-Neutrino
- - + + - -1/3 0 -1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Blue Down
- - + - + -1/3 0 0 -1/sqrt(3) 1/3 Green Down
- - + - - -2/3 0 -1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Cyan Anti-Up
- - - + + -1/3 0 1/2 1/sqrt(12) 1/3 Red Down
- - - + - -2/3 0 0 1/sqrt(3) -1/3 Magneta Anti-Up
- - - - + -2/3 0 1/2 -1/sqrt(12) -1/3 Amber Anti-Up
- - - - - -1 0 0 0 -1 Electron
FrediFizzx
news:hSbba.368$TC2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
OK, here is what Jackson says:
"Vacuum polarization is manifest by a modification of the electrostatic
interaction between two charges at short distance, or in more modern terms
as a 'running' coupling constant. Since the charge of a particle is defined
as the strength of its electromagnetic coupling observed at large distances
(equivalent to negligible momentum transfers), the presence of a screening
action by electron-positron pairs closer to the charge implies that the
'bare' charge observed at short distances is larger than the charge defined
at large distances."
Basically this means that the values for e and alpha (FSC) change together
the closer we get to "bare" charge. And since alpha is really the square of
another number say we call it -a_p, then:
(e/-a_p)^2 = hbar*c
e/-a_p should be a unit. In units where hbar = c = 1 then e = -a_p and
e/-a_p = 1. However, I am not so sure that we can take c = 1 at the quantum
level.
FrediFizzx
Lee Pugh
Maybe, just a guess:
An elementary charge is not what something is, it is what something isnt.
For example a primary positive charge is the gap of an uncompleted eigth
electron of the third shell of an atom. This leaves the atom with a valence
charge where the number of electrons cannot balance the number of protons in
the nucleous of that atom. This will cause the topography of the spatial
charge density of the near space to cluster the charge and that cluster will
follow the hole around the atom, without actually displacing individual bits
of spatial charge. You then have a very small lighthouse propagation of the
negative charge attributes.
The neutrons holding together the protons actually have a very slight
induced negative charge which is residual should the neutron be removed from
the nucleous, I think a nucleous can be displaced from the center of an atom
that the "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03030...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> What is an elementary charge?
EL
:):)
You see Hildo, it is quite "embarrassing" for the mainstream
physicists to admit it but it is a fact. :)
A charge is a "thingy", how nice! :)
Yet at least we do know that there is a particle-like "thingy" to
which a field is associated, which obeys the inverse square law for
interactive attraction.
What are the possibilities that the two signed charges are nothing
more than spherical oscillators!?
One may be with a sharp attack and a fading slope |\ , while the other
with a slow attack and an end abyss /|.
Another possibility is that they are compounded vortexes where the
helical transition in one is from base to apex and in the other is
from apex to base. This should make a nice topology with a load of
experiments to verify such ideas. :)
EL
(Hildo) news multikabel
I am a mainstream physicist, I find nothing embarrassing about admitting it.
Most physicists know they only work with models and concepts and consensus.
They rarely engage in truth, reality, and the freedom to pursue happiness
ehm no, that was another district of reality, sorry)
Yes, the ever recurring question: "What if".
This is certainly not intended as a criticism to your posts EL, I usually
enjoy them actually.
A lot of people ask "What if". What most of these people forget is, that
asking "What if" almost compels you to give at least one answer to that
question.
It doesn't have to be a good answer, but an answer that means something is a
must.
What if the is no "real" minus. If you ask that question, it won't suffice
to continue with "Then we will have holes in our theories and that's
interesting.
I can think about ten interesting "what ifs" per minute for quite some
minutes in a row, it's the answer that counts.
I like your helical idea, now propose a prediction, if you do I can probably
think of an experiment to verify it.
:-)
Charges are as charges go. Note that in the Millikan experiment, elementary
charge was defined by force.
Hildo
EL
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> > Please be more verbose because the subject deserves to throw in all
> > what we have.
> > What is the name of the entity, which is "currently" viewed as being
> > such an elementary charge and what is its charge magnitude and does it
> > come in pairs like electrons and positrons, etcetera?
>
> came up in s.p.r. not too long ago, particularly the fact that it
> forms a highly regular pattern.
>
> "Charge" means the whole charge,
Therefore a "Charge" is a whole charge.
Now we all have no problems at all and milk shall come home in
milk-pipes.
The relation should be obvious because that milk is not just any milk
but whole milk. :)
> which has 4 degrees of freedom, not one.
[EL]
Now you're talking. :)
> The degrees of freedom are generally characterized as the
> hypercharge, isospin, and the 2 associated with the strong force.
[EL]
Those make a charge much much clearer, *****, really. :)
> Electrical charge is a combination of hypercharge and isospin.
[EL]
Oops, whatever happened to the "2 associated with the strong force?"
Oh! of course we do not have a strong force associated with an
electron.
So "isospin" is a better name than intrinsic spin indeed.
Then a "hyper-charge" must be thrown in to match the model, indeed. :)
*
The remaining of the post is a wonderful effort at tabulating
particles and the related charge.
************************
* BUT WHAT IS CHARGE? *
************************
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hahahotmail.com> wrote:
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b4fvgb$cke$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
[Snip ...]
> Paul, how do you explain this at the following link within your
> ideas?
>
> http://www.physics.purdue.edu/topaz/research/emagcoupl.html
>
> The value for bare charge is different than for that of an
> electron at a distance. The fine structure constant is not
> really a constant in the strict sense. Neither is e, as
> represented by bare charge.
>
> http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Note the following equation,
q = (1/2pi)Sqrt(h(Sqrt[z/3u]))
With z being bulk permitivitty and u being bulk permeability.
Of course, in a vacuum, since
z = z_o(k1)
and
u = u_o(k2)
with k1 and k2 being exactly unity... We don't actually measure
elemental charge in a vacuum, but, as in the case of Milliken's
method, in air with oil drops. Thus the bulk z and u are a
composite of the relative abundance of these materials, not a
hard vacuum. In fact, if you examine the predicted behavior of
the above equation the value of unit of charge is defined by the
material's bulk value of z & u...
This is where I think Galvanic Potential comes from this. Ever
wonder why a plastic cover will electrostatically 'stick' to the
paper while just sitting in a desk draw over time? I had suggested
that replicating Milliken's experiment in a gas (such as pure CO2)
which has nearly double air's dielectric value should show
(depending upon its corresponding u) statistical variance from the
standard Milliken values.
Where the voltage potential of a pure Galvanic cell (for example
touching electrically neutral Silver to electrically neutral Zinc)
comes from not been well understood or explained, has it? If so,
is there a reference?
Paul Stowe
EL
> [EL]
> > :):)
> > You see Hildo, it is quite "embarrassing" for the mainstream
> > physicists to admit it but it is a fact. :)
> > A charge is a "thingy", how nice! :)
> > Yet at least we do know that there is a particle-like "thingy" to
> > which a field is associated, which obeys the inverse square law for
> > interactive attraction.
> > What are the possibilities that the two signed charges are nothing
> > more than spherical oscillators!?
> > One may be with a sharp attack and a fading slope |\ , while the other
> > with a slow attack and an end abyss /|.
> > Another possibility is that they are compounded vortexes where the
> > helical transition in one is from base to apex and in the other is
> > from apex to base. This should make a nice topology with a load of
> > experiments to verify such ideas. :)
> > EL
>
> I am a mainstream physicist, I find nothing embarrassing about admitting it.
[EL]
I know that you are a mainstream physicist indeed and to my
acknowledgement ant happiness. :)
I placed the word "embarrassing" between quotes to indicate a special
abstract meaning.
Not one individual could ever be embarrassed by not knowing what a
charge is.
The personification of the mainstream as a faction in place of one
person should be quite embarrassed due to the claims of the so
advanced knowledge along with the failure to answer such a basic but
profound question.
If I were to be a government funding physics research I would
obliterate the chicken shit on black holes, big bangs, twin paradoxes
and mapping mars, and fund an extremely aggressive research to find
the answer to such a fundamental question.
Now THAT is embarrassing.
>
> Most physicists know they only work with models and concepts and consensus.
> They rarely engage in truth, reality, and the freedom to pursue happiness
> ehm no, that was another district of reality, sorry)
[EL]
That was quite fine Hildo, because my happiness is to find answers to
questions. :)
Reality is not remote magic as I conceive it, but reality IS as I
conceive it.
Therefore I seek to reconcile my cognitive conceptions with the
abstract model.
>
> Yes, the ever recurring question: "What if".
> This is certainly not intended as a criticism to your posts EL, I usually
> enjoy them actually.
> A lot of people ask "What if". What most of these people forget is, that
> asking "What if" almost compels you to give at least one answer to that
> question.
> It doesn't have to be a good answer, but an answer that means something is a
> must.
>
> What if the is no "real" minus. If you ask that question, it won't suffice
> to continue with "Then we will have holes in our theories and that's
> interesting.
> I can think about ten interesting "what ifs" per minute for quite some
> minutes in a row, it's the answer that counts.
>
> I like your helical idea, now propose a prediction, if you do I can probably
> think of an experiment to verify it.
> :-)
[EL]
Ok, I have this nagging hypothesis that all known fields must be
bipolar.
Looking for magnetic monopoles (my apologies to Dirac) is
scientifically foolish from my perspective.
In my mind, I see gravitation as a bipolar field, and I see each of
the electric charges as a bipolar entity as well.
let me confine my idea to an electron to be well in the subject of the
thread.
But before I dive deeper into that I wish to make a statement based on
*Fermi holes and heaps*.
Electrons could be found very close to each other in the heap
probability model of the wave function.
How?
Another image is an atmospheric tornado riding on an oceanic gigantic
vortex.
What can we learn from that image?
>
> Charges are as charges go. Note that in the Millikan experiment, elementary
> charge was defined by force.
> Hildo
[EL]
This is the best starting point and I wish to take it further to force
vectors in a field.
If you toss a couple of tiny bar-magnets into mercury at random so
many times, there is not one single incident in which they will repel
ultimately, but rather all repulsion incidents are tactical movements
for the sake of *reorientation* before a strategic attraction to close
the loop of the field.
An electron is indeed a bipolar "magnet", and the secret behind the
associated field when electrons move in a current is that the
potential difference creates a field polarization along which
electrons unify orientation and the magnetic effect is
line-integrated. In my world, a magnetic macro-effect is a result of
summing a population of micro-effects.
Does a magnet repel electrons? No, but electrons shall always reorient
and be attracted to the nearest pole and distribute along the lines of
force as well as if they were micro compii.
When electrons accumulate on a conductive surface they form a regular
matrix with half of the electron population being with an inverted
orientation to form a cloud. The matrix is a hexagonal matrix, just
like honey combs. The net magnetic result should be obviously
insignificant when electrons are static. Now bring a strong magnet
near a plasma beam in any clear plasma tube and watch the deflection
and interaction of the beam. A magnet shall affect a glowing cathode
as well.
All what we need to visualise our model is to imagine a vortex of
"something" acting as the core of a "pump", which while swirling pumps
"something" along the axis through its core (in and out). This should
make the magnetic field of a solenoid an obvious figure. A solenoid is
a group behaviour that simulates the behaviour of a single standing
electron but with an exchange between the shape of the electric and
the magnetic fields.
This topology can explain electron-vortexes to come in two varieties,
a laevorotatory and a dextrorotatory type.
Yet both L and D electrons are tornados that pump the field from apex
to base internally such that a strongly directional field is at the
apex while the base side have a radially diffused field through
divergence coupled with curl, thus helical. It is this directionality
that we call negativity. Positivity, OTOH, is the opposite process in
which the core field enters through the base and exits through the
apex (rather like a water vortex not a tornado). That is why we shall
find positive charge to be stable at the nucleolus and not as free
positive particles, while electrons are stable in the atomic
atmosphere.
Repulsion between negatively charged surfaces is a head-on force
interaction. Electrons are a very special form of "quarks" and they
have clockwise and counter clockwise rotations as well as up and down
varieties that follows Pauli's exclusion rules. With all electrons
oriented to pump "something" in a direction normal to the surface and
outwards, two interacting negative surfaces should experience that
repulsion force. The return of what is being pumped out as a group
returns helically orthogonally and that is why we do not detect the
bipolarity of a single charge.
It is that "something", which I call the chaotic Primedium, to which
the mainstream gives all the attributes of the field.
There is no such thing as a magnetic field versus an electric field
but there is only one electromagnetic field and that is What Maxwell
discovered through rigorous mathematical derivations. What we see
around a permanent magnet is indeed an electromagnetic field with the
electric component Nulled external to the material of the magnet. To
make a permanent magnet demands the orientation of the nuclei to unify
the orientation of the (positive holes) protons and it has nothing to
do with an electric current flowing inside the Ferro magnet. In a
solenoid the situation is quite different and electron orientation is
decided by the electric potential gradient.
This leads to a surprise because "electric fields" and "magnetic
fields" are the same type of field orthogonally oriented.
Hence we may predict and test our prediction that a permanent magnet
must react with an electro-statically charged surface if we take the
direction of the field into consideration.
Simply put, Fleming's left and right hand rules sum it all. :)
Therefore a charge-particle must be a vortex/tornado "thingy". :):)
Kindest regards.
EL
FrediFizzx
news:b4m1cp$jd$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Oh, silly me. Of course, the permittivity and permeability are different
the closer we get to bare charge with higher energy since we are seeing less
of the quantum vacuum which is the source of permittivity and permeability.
FrediFizzx
Ole D. Rughede
Oh, what a horrible name for aether - the "quantum vacuum"!
Why not "Vacuum void of ponderable matter and Planck quanta,
entirely consisting of wave-formy EM-energy at some density
and temperature", or "the vacuum source of permittivity and
permeability", if anybody doubts the meaning of the good old
stuff named "Aether"? Same problem with "electrons of bare
charge". We need terminological cautiousness, because names
may bewilder our interpretations of concepts. If, of course, we
should discuss the scattering of light on light or gravitational
deflection of light, hf-quanta are just fine "as if models", for
how else consider a finite quantum of radiant energy at the
same time specifying a fundamental quality of that bit U of the
infinite energy of the aether?
Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
an electron.
So now Fredi, what is the permittivity and permeability inside
an electron where U oscillates at which velocity of light?
I have argued 1/eps*mu = 2*c^2 as extreme maximum, and in
electrons your LC should be working perfectly? Any objections?
Ole
FrediFizzx
Hehe. A physicist is less liable to castrate you if you use the term
"quantum vacuum" instead of aether. They still don't like to admit to the
fact that QED is basically an aether theory. A valid simplification of the
real process. I mean, how would you feel if you erroneously tossed out the
aether and then had to put it back in. No big deal really. They just
didn't know exactly what it was until QED paved the way. QED is a very
slick way of getting the aether back into electrodynamics.
| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
| an electron.
So maybe the equation should really be:
(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar constant? (I
changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why? This is another
mystery. We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical size of
the bare point-like charged particle?
| So now Fredi, what is the permittivity and permeability inside
| an electron where U oscillates at which velocity of light?
Very good question. This is the big mystery to figure out.
| I have argued 1/eps*mu = 2*c^2 as extreme maximum, and in
| electrons your LC should be working perfectly? Any objections?
I think maybe it is more complicated than that. But maybe it works as an
average. There is just too much dynamic stuff going on. But yes, I was
thinking maybe sqrt(2)*c also as some kind of average for the new value of c
close in to the "bare" particle. One absolute maximum we can be sure of is
infinite speed. Thus no time at all. It seems to me that a mix of no time
with time set by c would be more correct. Now to just figure out what this
"mix" would be. I think it has to be a more dynamic kind of equation.
FrediFizzx
hanson
news:3e6a1cb6.6428620@news-server...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >The classical e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi)
> >> >
> >[John]
> >> Please explain "classical". Since
> >> e^2/hc = 2 alpha ep0, (in SI)
> >> how can you equate it to a/2pi? a is otherwise undefined.
> >> Then you have a velocity ac/2pi
> >> You have demoted ep0 to unity, I guess.
> >>
> >[hanson]
> >I think we have been over this before.
> >Yes, we use the charge description in 2 different unit systems.
> >You use the SI which includes Permeability & Permittivity, and
> >I use the venerable cgs system which does NOT include eo & eo
> >but defindes straight foreward e^2 = h*a*c/(2*pi), which
> >predates your expression, but is still equivalent to it.
> >
> >Here are some numbers on Permeability & Permittivity:
> >Permeability mo of vacuum,
> >mo = 1.256E-06 gr^2 cm^4 s^4 = 4*pi*10^-7
> >Permittivity eo of vacuum,
> >eo = 8.854E-16 gr^-2 cm^-2 s^2 = 1/(mo*c^2)
> >resistivity of free space,
> >rfs = 3.77E+02 Ohm = 4*pi/(c*Ohm)
> >resistivity of free space,
> >rfs = 4.191E-10 s/cm rfs = 4*pi/c
> >resistivity of free space * c = 4*pi = 12.56637
> >1 Ohm = 1.11E-12 s/cm = (6*a)^(1/2)/(2*pi*c)
> >a = finestructure constant ~ 1/137
> >
> >mo and eo was introduced with the Gaussian unit system,
> >to gain simplicity in calculations, (they didn't have computers
> >then) but I do not think that eo and mo has any physical reality.
> >
> >Both unit systems have their advantages and adherents.
> >But neither does influence the behavior nor the nature of the
> >charge.
> >Take care,
> >hanson
> >
[John]
> The principle glaring deficiency of the Gaussian unit system is that
> while you can define it, it can never describe anything.
> Who, for example, would defend and explicate (to the bewildered
> clerk at Radio Shack, maybe)
>
> Z = 4 pi/c ohms?
>
> How would one ever deduce that
>
> H = E/Z
>
> using H = E*c/4pi ?
>
> Ex: 50 kW at 10 Km over 4pi, and using SI units:
>
> Power = 10kW/4pi*100km^2 = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2
>
> Power = EH = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2 Poynting
>
> Power = E^2/Z, using impedance of space
>
> so E = 0.122 V/m deducing the field strength
>
> H = E/Z = 0.122 V/m/377 ohm = 3.25x10^-4 A/m
>
> Power = ExH = 0.122 V/m * 3.25x10^-4 A/m = 3.979x10^-5 W/m^2
>
> SI makes sense.
>
> Adherence to the Gaussian system is one of the most blatant examples
> of untrammeled obscurantism since the NIH in 1981 renamed their new
> pestilence from GRIDS to the socially embraceable AIDS. (How many of
> those millions who now rest in peace, owe their situation to the
> efforts of the gay lobby, who wished the band to "keep on playing"?)
>
> It's time to say goodbye to Abraham and company and accept the new
> covenant.
> Mr. Dual Space
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHHHA..........hahaha... yeah, yeah .....the gays, AIDS and
physics .... hahahhaha.......AHAHAHAH....
Dr. John Dual Space-Polasek, you sure are a heavy duty crusader for
your convictions.
Consider John, fundamentally it makes no difference whatsoever
which/what unit system is used to solve an engineering problem or to
demonstrate the "right/wrong" of a theory. But I grant you that all
those unit systems are somewhat of a pain in the ass. It's like
talking to someone with a hard to understand dialect arguing over the
very same *resolved* issue but not fully understanding what the other
guy says and means......the Babylon syndrome.........that's all.
Different strokes for different folks.
hanson
hanson
news:e58d56ae.03031...@posting.google.com...
> + - - - - -1/2 -1/2 0 0 -1 Electron
>
Yo, W. Hopkins, nice work.
But, how come that the electron and the neutrino etc shows up twice in
your same final grand table below?
Then, I can see that the word "charge" is used for many different
states of particle matters.
But aren't gluons just the concepts of the energy
purveyors/transporters within the nucleus, just like the photons are
the ones for energy transport on the outside between atoms?
Can you explain in a few lines how these energy transporters, the
gluons and the photons are principally related to the phenomenon of
******What is an elementary charge********
>
[Alfred]
> "Charge" means the whole charge, which has 4 degrees of freedom, not
> one. The degrees of freedom are generally characterized as the
> hypercharge, isospin, and the 2 associated with the strong force.
> Electrical charge is a combination of hypercharge and isospin.
> W3 = Isospin, in units 1 = e/(2 sqrt(3) sin T)
>
Is then according to you a hypercharge more elementary then a
simple elementary charge (e), the electrical charge?
Even then it simply shoves the question
******What is an elementary charge********
another shelf deeper.
Is there an answer to this question in the first place?
hanson
"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.03031...@posting.google.com...
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote:
> > Please be more verbose because the subject deserves to throw in
all
> > what we have.
> > What is the name of the entity, which is "currently" viewed as
being
> > such an elementary charge and what is its charge magnitude and
does it
> > come in pairs like electrons and positrons, etcetera?
>
[W.Hopkins]
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hahahotmail.com> wrote:
> to admit to the fact that QED is basically an aether theory. ...
They don't do they? (chuckle) Even though Dirac was a closet aetherist.
> ... A valid simplification of the real process. I mean, how would
> you feel if you erroneously tossed out the aether and then had to
> put it back in.
Grateful, for, as a scientist, the goal is understanding nature.
Indeed, this happened specifically TO me. I assure you, I started
as typically educated in modern science, nuclear science in particular.
I assure you, no mention of aether was presented except to say it was
a falsified concept.
> ...No big deal really.
Indeed...
> They just didn't know exactly what it was until QED paved the way.
Oh, I think Dirac did :)
> QED is a very slick way of getting the aether back into electrodynamics.
>
>| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
>| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
>| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
>| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
>| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
>| an electron.
>
> So maybe the equation should really be:
>
>(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
>
> So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar constant?
> (I changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why?
Shouldn't that be obvious?
> This is another mystery.
Why?
> We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
>situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
>particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
> size of the bare point-like charged particle?
There probably is no point charge.
>| So now Fredi, what is the permittivity and permeability inside
>| an electron where U oscillates at which velocity of light?
>
> Very good question. This is the big mystery to figure out.
>
>| I have argued 1/eps*mu = 2*c^2 as extreme maximum, and in
>| electrons your LC should be working perfectly? Any objections?
>
> I think maybe it is more complicated than that. But maybe it works as
> an average. There is just too much dynamic stuff going on. But yes,
> I was thinking maybe sqrt(2)*c also as some kind of average for the new
> value of c close in to the "bare" particle. One absolute maximum we
> can be sure of is infinite speed. Thus no time at all. It seems to me
> that a mix of no time with time set by c would be more correct. Now to
> just figure out what this "mix" would be. I think it has to be a more
> dynamic kind of equation.
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:b4orbf$18f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
I would like to hear or learn more about this if you can point the way to
some references.
| > QED is a very slick way of getting the aether back into electrodynamics.
| >
| >| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
| >| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
| >| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
| >| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
| >| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
| >| an electron.
| >
| > So maybe the equation should really be:
| >
| >(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
| >
| > So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar constant?
| > (I changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why?
|
| Shouldn't that be obvious?
|
| > This is another mystery.
|
| Why?
Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion. What is the source
of the circular-like motion? It is like the dang bare point charge particle
for the electron is tied to another invisible particle (I am still trying to
figure out that triplet idea from the Bi-Vacuum article; but once again I am
having to work on some other stuff). Yes, it is easier to imagine the
circular-like motion if we do away with the point particle concept.
| > We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
| >situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
| >particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
| > size of the bare point-like charged particle?
|
| There probably is no point charge.
That is what I thought initially when I started on this journey of
understanding a couple of years ago. Then how do we reconcile the Topaz
experiment that seems to indicate that there is complete elementary bare
charge concentrated in a space smaller than 10^-18 meters? I guess I must
have missed what you were trying to tell me in the previous post. So if you
wouldn't mind trying again, please do. Maybe in a different way?
FrediFizzx
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b4orbf$18f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
[Snip...]
>| > Hehe. A physicist is less liable to castrate you if you use the
>| > term "quantum vacuum" instead of aether. They still don't like
>| > to admit to the fact that QED is basically an aether theory. ...
>|
>| They don't do they? (chuckle) Even though Dirac was a closet aetherist.
>|
>| > ... A valid simplification of the real process. I mean, how would
>| > you feel if you erroneously tossed out the aether and then had to
>| > put it back in.
>|
>| Grateful, for, as a scientist, the goal is understanding nature.
>| Indeed, this happened specifically TO me. I assure you, I started
>| as typically educated in modern science, nuclear science in particular.
>|
>| I assure you, no mention of aether was presented except to say it was
>| a falsified concept.
>|
>| > ...No big deal really.
>|
>| Indeed...
>|
>|
>| > They just didn't know exactly what it was until QED paved the way.
>|
>| Oh, I think Dirac did :)
>
> I would like to hear or learn more about this if you can point the way
> to some references.
See "QED and the Men Who Made It", Silvan S. Schweber, Princeton Series
Page 12,
"Dirac was not only one of the chief authors of quantum
mechanics, but was also the creator of quantum
electrodynamics and one of the principal archit of
quantum field theory. All the major developments in
quantum field theory in thirties and forties have as
their point of departure some work of Dirac's. Let
list them:
1. The hole theory and the prediction of anti-matter
(Dirac 1930a). Di had advanced his hole theory in
order to give a consistent quantum in chanical
interpretation to the relativistic equation he had
proposed for the electron-the equation which now
bears his name (Dirac 1928a,b).
2. The many-time formalism based on the "interaction"
picture (Dirac et a]. 1932a,b).
3. The recognition that in the presence of an external
electromagnetic field, hole theory implied the
phenomenon of vacuum polarization. . Dirac
furthermore indicated how the associated divergence
could be eliminated by a process of charge
renormalization (Dirac 1934a,d).
4. A relativistic formulation of the Lorentz electron
including a classical version of mass
renormalization (Dirac 1938b). ..."
Page 72,
"Once ideas are established, one can put them in algebraic
form and one can proceed to deduce their consequences.
That's just a question of algebra. The more important part
is the getting of new ideas and that requires a geometrical
mind, I believe" (Dirac 1963, 3d Kuhn interview).
Commenting on how he had derived his relativistic equation
Dirac told Kuhn: I'd be thinking of wave functions ...
forming some kind of density which one picture spread about
in space." When asked by Kuhn if by "pictorial models he
meant "something that interacts with mathematics but that
is not simply mathematics," Dirac replied: "Some way which
enables you to understand the equations independently of the
approximate methods of solving the equations. I suppose I
pictured the q-numbers as some kind of mysterious numbers
which represented physical things.... The delta function
came in just from picturing the infinity" (Dirac 1963, 5th
Kuhn interview, p. 23). ..."
>| > QED is a very slick way of getting the aether back into electrodynamics.
>| >
>| >| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
>| >| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
>| >| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
>| >| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
>| >| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
>| >| an electron.
>| >
>| > So maybe the equation should really be:
>| >
>| >(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
>| >
>| > So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar constant?
>| > (I changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why?
>|
>| Shouldn't that be obvious?
>|
>| > This is another mystery.
>|
>| Why?
>
> Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion.
H is the classic "Action" term. Action divided by 2pi is that component
associated with cyclic processes. It certainly CAN be rotation or it can
be linear harmonic.
> What is the source of the circular-like motion? It is like the dang
> bare point charge particle for the electron is tied to another
> invisible particle
I don't think so. We see things at this level SO indirectly as to make
interpetation critical.
> (I am still trying to figure out that triplet idea from the Bi-Vacuum
> article; but once again I am having to work on some other stuff). Yes,
> it is easier to imagine the circular-like motion if we do away with the
> point particle concept.
>
>| > We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
>| >situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
>| >particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
>| > size of the bare point-like charged particle?
>|
>| There probably is no point charge.
>
> That is what I thought initially when I started on this journey of
> understanding a couple of years ago. Then how do we reconcile the
> Topaz experiment that seems to indicate that there is complete
> elementary bare charge concentrated in a space smaller than 10^-18
> meters?
I'm familarizing myself with this. Is this the proper paper?
http://www.iusb.edu/~ilevine/run_alph.pdf
> I guess I must have missed what you were trying to tell me in the
> previous post. So if you wouldn't mind trying again, please do.
> Maybe in a different way?
I'll try again once I understand the details of the measurements.
Thus the question above.
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:b4p4m7$vti$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Great, thanks. I am going to get this book.
| >| > QED is a very slick way of getting the aether back into
electrodynamics.
| >| >
| >| >| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
| >| >| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
| >| >| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
| >| >| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
| >| >| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
| >| >| an electron.
| >| >
| >| > So maybe the equation should really be:
| >| >
| >| >(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
| >| >
| >| > So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar
constant?
| >| > (I changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why?
| >|
| >| Shouldn't that be obvious?
| >|
| >| > This is another mystery.
| >|
| >| Why?
| >
| > Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion.
|
| H is the classic "Action" term. Action divided by 2pi is that component
| associated with cyclic processes. It certainly CAN be rotation or it can
| be linear harmonic.
Yes, that seems true.
| > What is the source of the circular-like motion? It is like the dang
| > bare point charge particle for the electron is tied to another
| > invisible particle
|
| I don't think so. We see things at this level SO indirectly as to make
| interpetation critical.
I hope you are right about this as it is a real pain to imagine what the
invisible unknown particle might be. I was hoping that it was more like you
showed me before about the ... (crud, I forgot the name already). The idea
is that the vacuum virtual pair particles are creating pressure on each
other to create the circular-like motion. IOW, doing the vortices-like
thing. Quantum vacuum bubbles.
| > (I am still trying to figure out that triplet idea from the Bi-Vacuum
| > article; but once again I am having to work on some other stuff). Yes,
| > it is easier to imagine the circular-like motion if we do away with the
| > point particle concept.
| >
| >| > We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
| >| >situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
| >| >particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
| >| > size of the bare point-like charged particle?
| >|
| >| There probably is no point charge.
| >
| > That is what I thought initially when I started on this journey of
| > understanding a couple of years ago. Then how do we reconcile the
| > Topaz experiment that seems to indicate that there is complete
| > elementary bare charge concentrated in a space smaller than 10^-18
| > meters?
|
| I'm familarizing myself with this. Is this the proper paper?
|
| http://www.iusb.edu/~ilevine/run_alph.pdf
Yes it is. I guess I had my semantics wrong. The website at the link below
mentions that the electron and positron come to within 2 x 10^-18 meters
from each other. Not specifically that the charge is in a size smaller than
that. This implies to me that they might have to be smaller than this. Or
not much bigger. Well, anywise, QED regards them as point-like particles
also. I am assuming that QED is correct since it does have good success.
But here I am trying to counter QED's point-like photon by saying it is a
valid simplification of the real process. I don't exactly remember now, but
I have run across other things that do indeed indicate that the bare
elementary charged particle that makes the electron is point-like. This is,
if you could make it truely and completely at rest.
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/topaz/research/emagcoupl.html
| > I guess I must have missed what you were trying to tell me in the
| > previous post. So if you wouldn't mind trying again, please do.
| > Maybe in a different way?
|
| I'll try again once I understand the details of the measurements.
| Thus the question above.
OK, thanks. Now you got me wondering again about if elementary bare charge
really is point-like (I am not claiming the electron is point-like
however--only its interactions maybe are point-like). With my idea about
quantum particles being able to see space with no time, then they really
would be more like wavy strings possibly (or sure, maybe even vortices-like
objects). But I was thinking they still interact at a point because it
takes "no time" for the whole string (or whatever) to get to the point of
interaction. So that idea still has the bare charged particle as a
point-like object. So heck, maybe the point-like charged particles of QED
are just a valid simplification also just like what I am claiming for the
photon.
FrediFizzx
Ole D. Rughede
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b4p4m7$vti$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>| In article <b4otv4$22s7ec$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de>,
>| "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|
>| ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>| >news:b4orbf$18f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>|
>| [Snip...]
>|
>|
>| >| > Hehe. A physicist is less liable to castrate you if you use the
>| >| > term "quantum vacuum" instead of aether. They still don't like
>| >| > to admit to the fact that QED is basically an aether theory. ...
>| >|
>| >| They don't do they? (chuckle) Even though Dirac was a closet
>aetherist.
>| >|
You are talking about (few) physicians and many veterinarians,
and QED is neither basically, co-ordinately, nor superficially any
theory of the aether. Feynman, QED, The strange Theory of Light
and Matter, Princeton 1985, p 7:
"I would like to again impress you with the vast range of
phenomena that the theory of quantum electrodynamics describes:
It's easier to say it backwards: the theory describes *all* the
phenomena of the physical world except the gravitational effect,
the thing that holds you in your seats (actually, that's a
combination of gravity and politeness, I think), and radioactive
phenomena, which involve nuclei shifting in their energy levels.
So if we leave out gravity and radioactivity (more properly,
nuclear physics), what have we got left?"
>| >| > ... A valid simplification of the real process. I mean, how would
>| >| > you feel if you erroneously tossed out the aether and then had to
>| >| > put it back in.
>| >|
>| >| Grateful, for, as a scientist, the goal is understanding nature.
>| >| Indeed, this happened specifically TO me. I assure you, I started
>| >| as typically educated in modern science, nuclear science in particular.
>| >|
>| >| I assure you, no mention of aether was presented except to say it was
>| >| a falsified concept.
>| >|
>| >| > ...No big deal really.
>| >|
>| >| Indeed...
>| >|
>| >|
>| >| > They just didn't know exactly what it was until QED paved the way.
>| >|
>| >| Oh, I think Dirac did :)
>| >
>| > I would like to hear or learn more about this if you can point the way
>| > to some references.
>|
>| See "QED and the Men Who Made It", Silvan S. Schweber, Princeton Series
>|
[SNIP]
>
>Great, thanks. I am going to get this book.
>
>| >| > QED is a very slick way of getting the aether back into
>electrodynamics.
>| >| >
Certainly not! And physicists need no manipulation, no white
Irakian rabbits, to be led to the right confession. They know that
the physics of the aether is The Physics to which all physical
disciplines will have to comply and contribute. They have been
silent for generations, not for fear, but working hard to find an
opportunity to say something true and valuable about the aether,
patiently waiting for some concept without Feynman's exceptions.
Plenty of wildcards have been played in the wild hopes that maybe
one of them would lead the game to the physics of the aether they
all have contemplated, discussed as students, secretely studied and
joked about at the party dinner tables, while being silent about the
subject in their labs and lecture theaters, awaiting break through.
>| >| >| Well, there are many ways of looking at the invisible and, as
>| >| >| stated in my direct mail to you yesterday, the fine sructure
>| >| >| constant is a variable when c varies from change in permittivity
>| >| >| and permeability of the aether energy U according to its density,
>| >| >| therefore also when going from the free aether unto and inside
>| >| >| an electron.
>| >| >
>| >| > So maybe the equation should really be:
>| >| >
>| >| >(-e/a_p)^2/c = hbar
>| >| >
>| >| > So e, a_p and c all change together to produce and keep hbar
>constant?
>| >| > (I changed e to -e to represent the electron) But why?
>| >|
>| >| Shouldn't that be obvious?
>| >|
>| >| > This is another mystery.
>| >|
>| >| Why?
>| >
>| > Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion.
>|
>| H is the classic "Action" term. Action divided by 2pi is that component
>| associated with cyclic processes. It certainly CAN be rotation or it can
>| be linear harmonic.
>
>Yes, that seems true.
Because it couldn't be phrased more precisely!
>
>| > What is the source of the circular-like motion? It is like the dang
>| > bare point charge particle for the electron is tied to another
>| > invisible particle
>|
>| I don't think so. We see things at this level SO indirectly as to make
>| interpetation critical.
>
>I hope you are right about this as it is a real pain to imagine what the
>invisible unknown particle might be. I was hoping that it was more like you
>showed me before about the ... (crud, I forgot the name already). The idea
>is that the vacuum virtual pair particles are creating pressure on each
>other to create the circular-like motion. IOW, doing the vortices-like
>thing. Quantum vacuum bubbles.
>
Fantacies and dreams are certainly imaginations we need to grasp ideas
about the real world, in which we are. But nothing in the whole real
world has ever been a point, except the very idea of bare nothing.
I wonder why you have these difficulties with "circular motion".
What do you think should be circling? Nothing in the aether happens
without mutual actions of electric and magnetic forces. If I mention
a word like "self-induction" trying to imagine such mutual actions,
would that be of any help? We cannot hope to understand or explain
it. Should be glad if we find some sort of description enabling us to
communicate about such phenomena, - like Feynman with his points
and arrows, or like an equation of coefficients to the reduced aether
equation, showing "cyclic periodicity with asymptotic parameters":
x/y*z^2 = 1, y = (x + 1)/2, z^2 = 2*x/(x + 1).
>| > (I am still trying to figure out that triplet idea from the Bi-Vacuum
>| > article; but once again I am having to work on some other stuff). Yes,
>| > it is easier to imagine the circular-like motion if we do away with the
>| > point particle concept.
Perhaps, then, you should keep your points and drop the circles.
I mean to imagine it the other way round before tossing out both.
Nah ..., dare we trust that? Valid? (chuckle, chuckle).
Ole
EL
news:<3e708958$0$132$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>...
> >| > Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion.
> >|
> >| H is the classic "Action" term. Action divided by 2pi is that component
> >| associated with cyclic processes. It certainly CAN be rotation or it can
> >| be linear harmonic.
> >
> >Yes, that seems true.
>
> Because it couldn't be phrased more precisely!
[EL]
Planck's constant "h" is in fact a *Line integral of the TANGENTIAL
action per cycle of energy wave (Quantum)*.
OTOH, "h bar" is the RADIAL action of the same quantum, because h_bar
= h * r/(2pi * r).
Multiplying the tangential action per unit length of the circumference
by the length of the radius produces a new term.
Action is supposed to be either a linear product of work and time or
an impulse of moment of force.
The difference between "h" and "h_bar" in the physical essence is the
same as the difference between work and torque.
Therefore we need to be very careful here, that Planck's constant is
the line-integral sum of the force along the circumference for a full
period, which is a mathematical expression of the sum of the terms in
an infinite series of the tangential force acting for a full cycle
representing a single time period of the quantum.
On the other hand, h_bar is the torque being applied for a full cycle,
that is a product of torque and time.
Therefore, while "h" represents the tangential action of tangential
work, h_bar represents the radial action of tangential torque.
This means that Planck's constant *Obfuscates* the cyclic nature of
the quantum of action or the action of a quantum and represents it as
work applied for a time interval.
The preferred h_bar correctly represents the quantum because [h / (2pi
* r)] represents the linear action per unit length of the
circumference of a single cycle of a wave, which on multiplying by "r"
produces the torque being applied for a single period of time being a
complete cycle.
The classical objection is in the numerical fact that h_bar is
equivalent to a linear action for a single radian of the cycle rather
than a full cycle. This is due to a hidden variable, namely the time
interval during which the linear action along a "single radian
interval" takes place.
Therefore it is not true that h_bar represents the torque for a full
duration of a cycle but rather for the duration of a radian.
That is why frequency of the wave must be expressed appropriately with
each of the two terms, where we use cycles per unit time with "h" and
radians per unit time with h_bar.
Regards.
EL
EL
> Hbar to me represents some kind of circular-like motion. What is the source
> of the circular-like motion? It is like the dang bare point charge particle
> for the electron is tied to another invisible particle (I am still trying to
> figure out that triplet idea from the Bi-Vacuum article; but once again I am
> having to work on some other stuff). Yes, it is easier to imagine the
> circular-like motion if we do away with the point particle concept.
>
> | > We seem to be missing the reason why hbar stays a constant in this
> | >situation. It is like quantum particles are tied to another invisible
> | >particle with a string. Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
> | > size of the bare point-like charged particle?
> |
> | There probably is no point charge.
>
> That is what I thought initially when I started on this journey of
> understanding a couple of years ago. Then how do we reconcile the Topaz
> experiment that seems to indicate that there is complete elementary bare
> charge concentrated in a space smaller than 10^-18 meters? I guess I must
> have missed what you were trying to tell me in the previous post. So if you
> wouldn't mind trying again, please do. Maybe in a different way?
>
> FrediFizzx
[EL]
Dear Fredi,
Remember the uncertainty rules set by Heisenberg.
We cannot hold the electron in position and in orientation while
measuring it without affecting and altering the measurement of its
charge. Nevertheless, the distance of measurement at less than 10^-18
meters does not set the electron "naked" but probes the heart of the
"tornado" rather than the "winds" caused remotely. While the angular
velocity should be the same all over the electron, the linear velocity
if Primedium is certainly not the same near the apex as well as near
the base of a vortex.
We are measuring forces all the time in terms of the work done by the
force being probed or the action of the same.
Yet we seem to overlook the essence of charge being a force synonymous
to mass times acceleration while being charge times acceleration in
this case.
This brings us to the original question; What Is Charge (not as a
particle this time but as a force-field)?
EL
Ole D. Rughede
>ole.r...@privat.dk (Ole D. Rughede) wrote in message
>news:<3e708958$0$132$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>...
>
>> >| [Paul]
>> >| H is the classic "Action" term. Action divided by 2pi is that component
>> >| associated with cyclic processes. It certainly CAN be rotation or it can
>> >| be linear harmonic.
>> >Yes, that seems true.
>> [Ole]
Excellent description. Of course we should distinguish h*f = hbar*w.
The problem of obfucasion is that you cannot predict or determine
the degree of possible actions h = (h_tang. + h_torq.) + impulse j.
About action generally I would prefer to say:
Radiant action is supposed to be EITHER a linear product of work
and time in transferring a quantum of energy from the aether to an
absorbing particle, or from an emitting particle to the aether, with
one impulse of moment of force hf/c at the particle in both cases,
OR the scattering/reflection of a quantum of radiant energy on a
target particle recieving thereby the double impulse 2hf/c.
Kind regards,
Ole
hanson
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > | > Or is hbar just due to the actual physical
> > | > size of the bare point-like charged particle?
> > | There probably is no point charge.
>
It is an empirical fact that no elementary ELECTRIC charge (e) has
ever been observed without being directly associated with the mass of
some kind of particle, mostly the electron mass (m_e).
Only when we talk about the properties of e^2, the interaction of 2
charges onto each other then the associated masses seems to cancel out
as in ------- e^2 = hbar*a*c.
Hence, I have wondered for a long time about the following equation:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
It is apparent that the electron with its mass (m_e) may arise out of
a condition delineated by rotating Kerr black hole limit or event
horizon of (c^2/G) at a radius, resp. circumference, of 1 Planck
length, sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3), and is shrouded by a Coulomb mantle type
"accretion zone", being the product of 1/(f_L*F) which is manifest in
product of the well known Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and the
Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler), and is further
governed by geometry demands of (pi*sqrt(3)/3) and EM/QM fine
structure conditions set by the Fine structure const (a).
Now, since the charge (e) associated with m_e is related as follows
e = a*c* sqrt (m_e * r_H),
where r_H being the H-Bohr radius, and since therefore
e^2 = h*a*c/2pi = m_e*a^2* c^2 * r_H, we reshuffle to
h*a*c/2pi = m_e*a^2* c^2 * r_H, and solve for
h = m_e *a*c * 2 pi * r_H, or
h / 2 pi = hbar = m_e *a*c * r_H
we get a quantitative result which you guys have been discussing
under -- what could "h vs hbar" mean --, how h or hbar does relate to
its charge carrier mass, m_e, the electron mass.
These very same observations, when measured on the macroscopic
scale yields the old result of the classic Faraday experiment
e = F * A / N_A,
which states that the current of 1 Amp (A) discharges / transports
1 mole (= N_A) elementary electric charge *(e) in 9.6..E^4 seconds.
This long-winded exercise is here to demonstrate that when we talk
about the charge behavior of [e], the elementary charge of electricity
we can demonstrate with the old Bohr model quite reasonably most
charge aspects on the atomic level.
But, when we chose systems where charges or charge units [q] have an
arbitrated (= any chosen) size or value, other than the elementary [e]
unit we run into all kinds of conceptual problems most of them
probably stemming from the vast magnitude of N_A, Avogadro's # at
6.02..E^23 charges/mole, here connected to the Ampere [A].
>
[Fredi]
> > Then how do we reconcile the Topaz experiment that seems to
> > indicate that there is complete elementary bare
> > charge concentrated in a space smaller than 10^-18 meters?
> > FrediFizzx
>
> [EL]
> Remember the uncertainty rules set by Heisenberg.
> We cannot hold the electron in position and in orientation while
> measuring it without affecting and altering the measurement of its
> charge. Nevertheless, the distance of measurement at less than
> 10^-18 meters does not set the electron "naked" but probes
> the heart of the "tornado" rather than the "winds" caused remotely.
>
[hanson]
Topaz's 10^-18 m AFAIC talks about "the electron and positron
are within 2 billionths of a billionth of a meter (2 x 10^-18 m)
(= 2 x 10^-16 cm) from each other", which maybe taken as an
indicator of low large the size of the action-quantum [h] may be,
but it say nothing about how large the e-charges are by themselves.
Since we do know from long time ago that the charge carrier for
[e], namely m_e the electron mass (or the positron mass) happens
to have the classical electron radius (r_e) which is nothing more then
the H-Bohr radius r_H times the Fine structure constant a^2 =
r_e = r_H * a^2 = 2.81...E-13 m = 2.81..E-15 cm.
So, if these e-charge carriers, the electron and the positron are
having sizes of ~3.. E-15 cm, then it is not unreasonable to assume
that they can get to each others center within ~ 1/10 of their
radius or close to about ~2.. E-16 cm, considering their "fluffy",
aetheric behavior.
Astonishingly, this 10^-16 cm domain may just be the beginning,
for there are speculations which say that the 'hard core" m_e radius
may actually be down in the Planck-realm, as I have indicated in....
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
which may now be interpreted to say:
A rotating [pi*sqrt(3)/3], collapsed mass of ( m_e * G/c^2), even
when surrounded with a mantle from charge & radiation properties
[a/(f_L*F)], it has already ONLY a dimension of 1 Planck-length unit
as classically defined by [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]. So, the electron's core
with its charge may just have a one Planck length radius.
Such a Plank length unit spans only ~1.6 x 10^-33 cm. Hence, there
will be MANY, MANY surprises to come in the search from 10^-16 cm
down to 10^-33 cm........
>
>
[EL]
> This brings us to the original question;
> What Is Charge (not as a particle this time but as a force-field)?
> EL
>
[hanson]
The charge - force-field connection can be easily seen in the cgs
system from
e^2 = h *a* c /(2pi),
e^2 having the dimensions of gr*cm^3/s^2, emerges literally as
a Force Field, where said Force Field is the product of a Force in
[gr*cm/s^2] times the Field in [cm^2], together = gr*cm^3/s^2.
Parameters used above are in cgs:
pi = 3.1415
a = 7.29...E-3, Fine structure constant
c = 3...E+10 cm/s, Light velocity
e = 4.803... E-10 gr^(1/2)cm^(3/2)/s, Electron charge
h = 6.62...E-27 grcm2/s, Planck's constant
All this has be known since ~1895, but again, whether it sheds
a new light on or brings new insight about "what is a charge"
remains to be doubtful. It hasn't done so for a century.
So, this "charged" mystery continues to persist persists.
The above equation e^2 = h *a* c /(2pi),
only highlights the relationship between one "inactive" (!!!)
charge-PAIR [e^2] and its [action (h)] times its [velocity (a*c)]
product equivalent , or it may be seen as the product of the
energy equivalence [gr cm^2/s^2] times the separation distance
[cm] that divides the 2 (inactive = mutually "cancelled") charges,
where energy [gr cm^2/s^2] shows up numerically as
m_e*a^2* c^2, and the separation distance [cm] as
r_H, the H-Borh radius.
e^2 = m_e*a^2* c^2 * r_H,
Now, let's get a bit more fanatic in this quest and we'll find all
kinds of interesting connections between a SINGLE charges (e) and
gravitation (G) as for instance in:
e = m_e * sqrt(3*G/a) *(f_L*F/pi)
e = m_e * sqrt(3*G/a) *(c*Roo*F/(pi)
e = m_e * sqrt(3*G/a) *(F/(4*pi^2*tau)
e = m_e * sqrt(3*a*G) *(f_90*F*a/(2*pi)
where, with all units in cgs, m_e = mass of electron, F = Faraday
const., f_L = Lyman series limit, G = Newton's, a = Fine structure,
Roo = Rhydberg, f90 = Compton frequency,
tau = atomic time unit, c= lightspeed.
So, considered that all the above, ancient Bohr-Planck-Hartree
equations, ~100 years old, still leave the question wide open about
"What is an elementary charge" ....AHAHHAHAHA.......ahaha
hhaha.......AHAHAHAH... and the charges.....like tiny, pesky gnats
on a summer's eve will be continuing to fuck with your brains......
....ahahahah... ......hahahaha..........SERVES YOU RIGHT....
ahahahahaha.....ahahahahanson
PS: I personally have a way out of the dilemma. An easy one.
But every time I mention it, everybody gets berserk and throws
shit at me.......therefore... you guys must suffaaaaahhhhhh..
ahahahhaa...........ahahahahanson.......
Ole D. Rughede
>ahahahahaha.....ahahahahanson
[Ole] Thank you hanson for this fine review. I think you are right
as regards the speculations about form and volume of elementary
charge, why I in posting 3.10.2003 simply call it "the natural
quality of all existing matter showing its origin from EM radiant
energy, which in the particles is conserved, configured as standing
waves, of which the electrical component is predominant as electric
positive or negative charge e ...". In our simplifying models we are
apt to view the invisible in simple geometric manifestations, but
without the slightest evidence, except we know something about
efficient area and position of interaction. Just one thing is sure:
we have no right at all to postulate real existence of point-masses
and point-charges.
I like your picture of a summer night's swarming gnats. Think man!
They have brains and are much clever flying pilots than we are.
What a wonderful world of creations! I privately like to imagine
the electron in the picture of those small wings as if appearing and
disappearing all the time while moving in space, and though those
little fellows do not eat when swarming, I nevertheless complete
my fantacy to let them take and give all the time for the sake of
conserving energy.
>
>PS: I personally have a way out of the dilemma. An easy one.
>But every time I mention it, everybody gets berserk and throws
>shit at me.......therefore... you guys must suffaaaaahhhhhh..
>ahahahhaa...........ahahahahanson.......
>
[Ole] Also I have, and have pointed, to a way out of the dilemma,
which really is most simple and easy. Probably also should be
considered as aspect of definitions. So I would certainly not throw
shit at you, neither (though of viking blood) go more beserk than
fit for my normal daylily temper (unless you continue screeming
your shrill "suffaaaaahhhhhh.. ahahahhaa.....ahahahahanson).
So please tell me why someone would look out for dirt and shit,
and if you prefer to do so privately, send me a direct mail.
Respectfully,
Ole
hanson
> "hanson wrote in message
<TOeca.20142$gF3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
" <han...@quick.net> writes:
> >So, considered that all the above, ancient Bohr-Planck-Hartree
> >equations, ~100 years old, still leave the question wide open about
> >"What is an elementary charge" ....AHAHHAHAHA.......ahaha
> >hhaha.......AHAHAHAH... and the charges.....like tiny, pesky gnats
> >on a summer's eve will be continuing to fuck with your brains.....
> >......ahahahah... ......hahahaha..........SERVES YOU RIGHT....
>
> and point-charges.
>
> I like your picture of a summer night's swarming gnats. Think man!
> They have brains and are much clever flying pilots than we are.
> What a wonderful world of creations! I privately like to imagine
> the electron in the picture of those small wings as if appearing and
> disappearing all the time while moving in space, and though those
> little fellows do not eat when swarming, I nevertheless complete
> my fantacy to let them take and give all the time for the sake of
> conserving energy.
> >
> >PS: I personally have a way out of the dilemma. An easy one.
> >But every time I mention it, everybody gets berserk and throws
> >shit at me.......therefore... you guys must suffaaaaahhhhhh..
> >ahahahhaa...........ahahahahanson.......
> >
> [Ole] Also I have, and have pointed, to a way out of the dilemma,
> which really is most simple and easy. Probably also should be
> considered as aspect of definitions. So I would certainly not throw
> shit at you, neither (though of viking blood) go more beserk than
> fit for my normal daylily temper (unless you continue screeming
> your shrill "suffaaaaahhhhhh.. ahahahhaa.....ahahahahanson).
>
> So please tell me why someone would look out for dirt and shit,
> and if you prefer to do so privately, send me a direct mail.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ole
>
Dear Professor D. Rughede,
I have no certain proof, but I do have immeasurable amounts of
homeo-relativistic (homeo not homo) suspicions why certain
"some-ones" would be on the look out for excrementables.
But leaving all those throwing efforts aside for the moment, I am
ecstatic to hear that you no longer do **sufffaaahhhh** because
of the effects from the shrillness perpetrated onto your delicate
auditory system neither by me nor by those mentioned pesky gnats.
In deed, it appears to have become music to your ears, and yours
is a fine parable to compare the flapping wings of your gnats with
particles popping into and out of existence.
More-over-so, re the brains of these gnats it must be pointed out that
during the cold war a Soviet Nobel laureate recruited the brain power
of these gnats for very evil purposes.
Prof Janosh Vlad Dshugazhvili intended to paint a dot of Pu239 onto
the back of each gnat. Billions of'em. Then he'd release them from his
U-boat off NY Harbor. A KGB operative just prior to this gnat
flight-take-off event would open an empty, not in use, 7500 gallon
boiler in the WTC. Into it he had poured 5 gallons of Delta 11
pheromone gnat sex attractant and he'd spray further less concentrated
amounts of Delta 11 around in the neighborhood as a homing beacon.
Alas, those Pu 239 laden gnats then would sniff it and get horny over
the pheromone, seek, descend, congregate and having a gargantuan
orgy in this boiler until there were so many that the assembled mass
of the Pu239 would go critical.....
Imagine, gnat brains assembling a nuclear bomb.....what a creation.
Imagine that last arriving gnat, "the gnat which broke the camel's
back"
.........amazing........
The nation's finest Intelligence Magazine, the National Inquirer
reported this ca 1979-85.
I was so scared about these prospects that I bought a 55 gallon drum
of DDT for defense purposes.
And for that the environmentalists hate me ever since.
They had some avarian, avian or ovarian "potential" issues with it.
ahahahhahha.........ahahhahahahanson
Ole D. Rughede
>"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
>news:3e71cb25$0$141$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> "hanson wrote in message
><TOeca.20142$gF3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>" <han...@quick.net> writes:
>>
>[hanson]
>Dear Professor D. Rughede,
>I have no certain proof, but I do have immeasurable amounts of
>homeo-relativistic (homeo not homo) suspicions why certain
>"some-ones" would be on the look out for excrementables.
I'm sorry to learn about this which might suggest some sort of
mental illness that perhaps may be healed, or at least bettered,
by a homoeopathic cure, you probably could let be best applied as
instillations of the curing dillutions in very small doses, where
and whenever such illnesses are observed.
Relativistic delusions are unfortunately often seen. It's a shame
because, though most imperfectly interpretable, the sound core of
the general theoretical apparatus should be very useful especially
in the aether physics within any **finite space**, provided the
so-called cosmological constant Lambda be redefined as a local
variable in relation to the spatial aether density u.
>[hanson]
>But leaving all those throwing efforts aside for the moment, I am
>ecstatic to hear that you no longer do **sufffaaahhhh** because
>of the effects from the shrillness perpetrated onto your delicate
>auditory system neither by me nor by those mentioned pesky gnats.
>In deed, it appears to have become music to your ears, and yours
>is a fine parable to compare the flapping wings of your gnats with
>particles popping into and out of existence.
[Ole]
Allow me the minor correction to your analogy that, as I don't see
any regular "popping particles", but on the other hand am convinced
that say the electron mass is just a statistical mean quantity m_e,
which by interaction of energy exchange with the aether may lose
and gain different random amounts of mass Sigma[+/- m] = 0 over
rather short intervals of time t < 1 sec, and since such contributions
could not even be called "sub-particles", and *not at all "quarks"*,
they might perhaps better be called the "m_e mass/energy-variance
necessary for conservation of the electron mass"?
[hanson]
>More-over-so, re the brains of these gnats it must be pointed out that
>during the cold war a Soviet Nobel laureate recruited the brain power
>of these gnats for very evil purposes.
>Prof Janosh Vlad Dshugazhvili intended to paint a dot of Pu239 onto
>the back of each gnat. Billions of'em. Then he'd release them from his
>U-boat off NY Harbor. A KGB operative just prior to this gnat
>flight-take-off event would open an empty, not in use, 7500 gallon
>boiler in the WTC. Into it he had poured 5 gallons of Delta 11
>pheromone gnat sex attractant and he'd spray further less concentrated
>amounts of Delta 11 around in the neighborhood as a homing beacon.
>
>Alas, those Pu 239 laden gnats then would sniff it and get horny over
>the pheromone, seek, descend, congregate and having a gargantuan
>orgy in this boiler until there were so many that the assembled mass
>of the Pu239 would go critical.....
>Imagine, gnat brains assembling a nuclear bomb.....what a creation.
>Imagine that last arriving gnat, "the gnat which broke the camel's
>back"
>..........amazing........
>
>The nation's finest Intelligence Magazine, the National Inquirer
>reported this ca 1979-85.
>I was so scared about these prospects that I bought a 55 gallon drum
>of DDT for defense purposes.
>And for that the environmentalists hate me ever since.
>They had some avarian, avian or ovarian "potential" issues with it.
>ahahahhahha.........ahahhahahahanson
[Ole]
It's an awfull example of "travelling stories" about stupid russian
scientists that should have never heard the sad story of the New York
girls, who more than 70 year ago licked their pencils when painting
clock-hands and hour-numbers with radium-salt paint, - and worse than
that about exporting democracy to the Irakians with new MOAB bombs
in violation of the existing weapon embargo.
However, dear Dr. Hanson, I appreciate your correspondance very much
and hope to have a word from you now and then. Take my kindly meant
advice to have your DDT drum sent with the boys to the Middle East for
immediate destruction, and I'm sure that you will find comfort and relief
from mad environmentalists and worried relativitists fearing your poison.
Kind regards,
Ole D. Rughede