stephaneww

Hello, New question: can the reasoning of this post be used for charges of a plane electromagnetic wave that vibrates in phase, using the classical conventions for the plane/axis (?) of electrical charges and then for the plane/axis of magnetic charges. If I understood well in this case the sign of the electric charge would be identical to the sign of the magnetic charge. With these assumptions and it would seem, in my opinion, that we can apply the reasoning of the post cited above. What is not correct this time or needs clarification? Intuitively I would add that it could have something to do with the speed of light and the power density of the relation seen here which gives the energy density of the cosmological constant

Um, I'm not sure I got it all figured out. Here's what I'm getting at: Thank you both.

about this: who can explain to me why Dirac's "sea" of negative-energy electrons is false? In other words, what are the facts that make it incorrect and cannot be applied to my quotation above? source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Dirac_hole_theory Thank you in advance edit I don't fully understand this paragraph and its implications.

or not, of course...

To be honest, I am unable to argue alone with my knowledge of the two posts above. I note however that the author of this document (first version already seen diagonally [and approved(?)] by Mordred here) has known developments, notably eq(XI-34) page 73 in V3 which claims as me that Fc=Fg (making the same mistake on the sign of the charges as the viXra document) ie by adopting my "new personal convention" on the signs of the charges. I am not able to understand what allows the author to arrive at eq(XI-34) page 73. Only a diagonal or in-depth examination, by one or both of you, will be able to say that the author's detailed argument is consistent in responding to your objections.

if it's wobbly it's not pure science like QM or Relativity, it's still at the research stage for the moment

unless I'm mistaken, they're incomplete or speculative for some part Both Academia and viXra are not very reliable sources.

gravity ? edit : oops we haven't a theory of quantum gravity

of course I have forgot something to be clear: FG=FC=N1N2 [math]\frac{\hbar c}{r^2}[/math] N1 and N2 are quantifications of masses and charges but with our conventions, as N1 have the same sign than N2 , FG =-FC , ie FG is attractive and FC is repulsive, so -FC is attractive too. _____________________________ in the new convention of the paper quoted : to have same sign for FG and ...FC.. we need to inverse our charges signs of our convention (+ -) in (+ +) or (- -) for the two charges, signs of N1 and N2 are absolute values for FG so our charges of same sign will become (- +) or (+ -) if N1 have the same sign than N2 , FG =FC , ie FG is attractive and FC is attractive too, and -FC is repulsive for two opposite sign charges, with FG attractive

what happens to that statement then? in the electrically neutral quantum vacuum my ++ (or (- -) ) problem, becomes (+ -) and the two charges repel each other with the paper convention mentioned above. Let us now consider two planck particles N1 and N2 whose Planck charges [math]e_p[/math] are of opposite sign with their two masses [math]m_p[/math], (electrically neutral on a macro scale) we set [math]d=1m[/math] or any other value: [math] F_C=k_e (e_p^{+}e_p^{-})/d^2=-3,16152*10^{-26} N /d^2[/math] [math] F_G=G (m_p m_p)/d^2[/math] [math] {F_C}= {F_G} = {k_e (e_p^{+}e_p^{-})}= {G m_p^2}[/math] [math]-3,16152*10^{-26} N=(-1)*G m_p^2[/math] [math]-3,16152*10^{-26}/G \text{ } kg=(-1) m_p^2[/math] the -1 indicates that one will have a repulsive force with the new convention so [math] m_p= 2,17647*10^{-8} kg[/math] ie the exact value of planck's mass planck's mass is found from his charge using Coulomb force and gravitational force. The Coulomb force tells us that this force is repulsive between the two charges according to what was initially proposed.

🤬🤬🤬🤬 correction in this quote… sorry I hope that's ok this time 😴

I have contacted the author, who agrees that the issue of the signs of the charges needs to be corrected, while saying that it is trivial. I'm agree with him

I put the equalites beween (7) and (9) here and try to be more clear : [math]F_G=F_C=N_1 N_2\Large{ \frac{ \hbar c}{r^2}}[/math], [math]N_1[/math] and [math]N_2[/math] are quantifications of masses and charges but with our conventions, as [math]N_1[/math] have the same sign than [math]N_2[/math] , [math]F_G[/math]=[math]-F_G[/math], ie [math]F_G[/math] is attractive and [math]F_C[/math] is repulsive. to have the equivalence between [math]F_G[/math] and [math]F_G[/math] we need to inverse our charges signs convention (+ -) in (+ +) or (- -), so our charges of same sign will become (- +) or (+ -)

I may have found something to support my idea. I don't usually go on viXav, but after reading the beginning of this paper, I do not think that everything should be rejected. The equalities (7) and (9) show that there is "equality" between [math]F_G[/math] and [math]F_C[/math], cf (10) :[math]F_G/F_C=1[/math] But this assumes, for the Coulomb force, that [math]N_1[/math] and [math]N_2[/math] are opposite charges, in other words, if I understand, it reverses this usual convention between the signs of the two charges, for the determination of an attractive or repulsive effect, (with our convention we have [math]F_G/F_C=-1[/math] ) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law . with the convention of the paper we would have,for FG , the product N1.N2 is positive, for FC , the product N1.N2 is negative and the direction of the force on N1 is given by r̂21; the charges repel each other. (opposite to the attraction FG/FC=-1, from (10) )

I have just forgot to add the [math]\Lambda^2[/math] appears here in [math]B[/math] to give a mathemathic solution of the problem of the cosmological constant come bak to the Coumb force.. : do you want to mean that the direction of Planck force is unknown as second difference ? Ok , you talk about, identical charges, I believe it's not a problem

lol, yes edit, I have finish thinking 😊 : What do you think of that? Could this be interesting for a string theory? [math]\Lambda^2/16=G^2/c^{10}[/math] with this numerical value of [math]\Lambda=1.10242*10^{-52}[/math] calulated here note : we would have 10 length dimensions for [math]c[/math]

erased : I haven't enought think

ie electrically neutral at macro scale with this convention

hum, if we reason in terms of pressure: [math]P=\frac{F}{S}[/math] for the matter (we will then assume that the two charges of matter are opposite for the charge of Coulomb force, gravity opposes at the force of the pressure on a surface in a Newtonian context) For the pressure of the cosmological constant [math]P_\Lambda=-\frac{F}{S}[/math] the two vacuum charges are the same? (this would only be a question of a convention on the charges that could be reversed). Hence the often encountered presentation of a cosmological constant as an "antigravity" and the parallel between the two laws in inverse square of distance ...Coulomb force (F=P*S) would be positive for matter because two "charges of atom of matter" would be opposite (before by convention, identical) and Coulomb force woukd be negative for vaccum because two "charges of vaccum at Planck scale" would be identical (before by convention, opposed) ???? but I wonder if I'm not displacing my problem ???? https://www.toutcalculer.com/mecanique/pression-force-surface.php (the opposite of pressure comes from G in a Coulomb force context with "two opposite charges") and the pressure of the cosmological constant is negative in a Coulomb force context with "two identical charges". https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constante_cosmologique#Interprétation_physique (sorry but I haven't found a source in English)

yes, I have again forgot the problem of the charge … do you want to mean that the direction of Planck force is unknown as second difference ? uh, in this particular case, their values are equal, right?

You didn't stop me in my tracks, your answer corresponds exactly to what I expected so +1 I never said otherwise and I would never say the opposite. We are agree. as : … And that I find the same values with my assumptions, can we conclude that in macro world, they are the same thing ? I have a doubt because the directions of the vectors is unknown. Okay, I'm persuaded. I still perhaps have to try to formulate a confusing thing that goes through my head.

Thank you very much (+1 ), it's very detailed and it makes me ask myself a lot of questions.... The first one (1.) What is the " format " of the force measurable above with Planck's units? A vector? A vector field? A scalar? A scalar field? The next one (2.) : I remember reading that Planck's force was the maximum value of a force in nature according to some physicists. Is that enough for it to have an effect on the micro scale of Planck? Your answers could stop my enthusiasm ... to be continued perhaps ...

I'm not going to be stubborn, you and Mordred say that the Coulomb's force with Planck's units approach is not possible Thanks to both of you edit: a reason for my abandonment on this subject has disappeared, but I fear that the reason is still valid

Um, something may be relevant this time: on French wikipedia electromagnetic page: translation : it seems, if I understand correctly that classical electromagnetism cannot be directly applied to the quantum scale and if this statement found on wikipedia.fr is correct the QED issue remains to be resolved: are there any vector fields? My research did not allow me to find/understand the answer. edit : source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field does this mean that there is no vector field in the quantum approach ?

Um, okay. Attempt to try to save my approach : Source , around the begining of page 76 Can the Coulomb force with Planck’s units can produce the Planck force for the observer whitout he can have access to the quantum EM field ?