Dovada

The field lines in this case consist of photons. We seem to be going around in circles.

Electrical energy charge does not need to be contained within electrical particles but can be contained within electrical hypothetical field lines that extend out from those particle sources. For this reason propagation has been and still is, much of a mystery to physicists. It is better to leave this subject alone in this thread as it is going off subject. I also feel you are becoming a little pedantic.

You do not make any real sense. Any activity within the photon requires energy no matter how small. Energy suggests charge and/or mass is involved E=mc^2 yet the photon has the miraculous property of being mass-less. I do not want to continue down this mostly speculative road. I think we are getting away from the point that was first raised in this thread namely: are protons and electrons electrical charges? or do protons and electrons HAVE an electrical charge? Post

Is a photon not the carrier of the electromagnetic force? If it is, it must carry electric and magnetic forces. Namely electric charge. (This flat wrong) is not very informative, please explain why?

The subject relating to why in nature the electron and proton in atomic matter do not readily combine has created a lot of controversy, so much so, that this problem was the reason for the foundation of the quantum atomic model. The Rutherford atomic model, which is still often taught today to introduce students to the more advanced aspects of quantum mechanics, and the Bohr quantum atomic model, is conceptually quite simple. Basically the atomic model is described as being self contained and consisting of a cloud of negative electrons which move in circular orbits around a stationary and more massive positively charged central nucleus. The original Rutherford atomic model theory had inherent electrical problems, mainly because the prediction that an electron should release electromagnetic radiation while orbiting a nucleus, this would result in the negative electron eventually losing its energy and gradually spiraling inwards, and so would ultimately collapse into the positive nucleus. To overcome this difficulty, Niels Bohr proposed, in 1913, what is now called the Bohr model of the atom. He suggested that electrons could only have certain classical motions. The significance of the Bohr model is that the laws of classical mechanics apply to the motion of the electron about the nucleus, restricting motion of the electron by a strange quantum rule that is based on the assumption that the electron can only orbit the atom’s nucleus at distances governed at fixed energy levels which are defined by a single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 or n=3 and so on etc. Over the century this single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 system became entrenched in the atomic model becoming an unshakable burden that irritated many physicist including Albert Einstein. So you have definitely opened a bag of worms by asking this question.

None - Sorry to offend you. It seems strange that Universities and schools are still teaching our new physics students who are travelling at incredible velocities on a moving planet, the wonders of a stationary 3 dimensional quantum atomic model.

Assuming of course there is no time dilation of the recording second or no change to the length of the recorded meter. Changes in the timekeeping of atomic clocks can only occur if atomic resonance change frequency, so if 1/frequency is time then it is possible for time to change. Frequency does change with velocity, otherwise we could not detect the motion of galaxies. Where are your loyal measurement references. Meter - Second - Speed of light.

The photon is a concept particle needed to assist in the description of theoretical quantum reactions. It also decays into what? It is fundamentally not a real particle it even has no mass. I read that it is a short burst of wave modulation of a particular frequency. If this is true then it must have electromagnetic properties. if it has electrical and magnetic properties it must contain oscillating charge! So it is with all so called neutral mass born out of decaying matter. Some so called particles are only neutral by observation from an external point of view. For this reason I referred to real particles. Hope this helps to clarify my point.

! Moderator Note Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60170-are-protons-and-electrons-electrical-charges-or-do-protons-and-electrons-have-an-electrical-charge/ All real particles like electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of mass which contains electric charge or combinations of electric charge. The term neutral is only applied to particles that have equal amounts of positive and negative charge. It does not mean they have no charge mass. Particles do not have the ability to remain in existence without any charge, but do have the ability combine and share their charge with other particles. When this happens the properties of the particles are changed, for example the neutron decays into a separate positive proton and negative electron with some additional mass energy released into the environment in the form of an electron neutrino. Without the properties associated with electric charge some particles could never be formed or even exist. hope this helps.

Often theories can be filled with mysticism; meaning if people do not understand what causes a phenomena like the speed of light they quite easily delude themselves with claims that are unrealistic and cannot confirmed by others. This includes the common statement that the speed of light is always the same no matter what speed you are traveling at. Who has traveled at half the speed of light and tested the theoretical statement. You are better to visualize the speed of light to be a resultant of the energy structure of the environment rather than the creation of the environment. This means we should be looking at what creates the conditions that result in the speed of light being what it is, rather than the speed of light being the environment itself.

It seems the energy structure itself of space-time must be the underlying aether that Michelson Morley failed to detect. So If Michelson Morley failed to detect the aether then there must be a good reason for the failure. If any so called aether existed it must be considered to have electrical properties so as to be successfully modulated by charged atomic particles. If this is the case then any electrical aether would have to have the same electromagnetic frame of reference as the atomic structure that moved with it to avoid electromagnetic conflicts. This same electromagnetic frame of reference concept means that space-time actually needs to be physically moving at the same velocity with atomic matter within it, which would then make sense. Such movement of space-time with atomic matter would explain why the speed of light is consistent in all directions, because we would then be just modulating our moving space-time environment. Do not ignore the existence of the energy flow of time itself, as it is also a property of space and time is flowing. Consider speed of light (square root) pi = 499.178456 which provides the basis for our time energy structure. This means energy may also be expressed as a property of time, thus E = m * 499.178456^2pi and the speed of light becomes a property of time Speed of light = 499.178456^pi The time energy flow of 499.178456 suggests we have an energy environment that is moving at about c/499.178456 = 600571 meters/sec which is very close to our galactic speed. As has been expressed before in earlier posts we need to keep an open mind to get at the truth and much of what is presented in these posts is pure speculation based on our limited knowledge of the workings of the cosmos. If physicists cannot find the answer they are looking for it does not mean the answer does not exist, It just means we may lack the information or experience to find it.

For a lifetime now (over 40 years) I have been looking to resolve the connection between the physics of the current atomic model and the physics of the all powerful cosmic forces that move all the atoms everywhere within the cosmos. As you can imagine it is quite a massive undertaking. What helped me was I discovered many errors in today's atomic physics models which are still being used today and continue to block our progress in our understanding of how the atom and the cosmic universe interacts. If you are interested in hearing more on this subject please give your best answers to all or any of the following questions: 1. Do orbits exist? 2. Does the cosmic motion of atoms effect their internal energy structures? 3. Why do atoms in the United States have the same characteristics as atoms in Africa and Australia? 4. Why does the Bohr radius exist? 5. What is gravity?

Have a look here http://www.dovada.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17 it appears to be electrical in nature.