Kramer

A answer by the teacher (Sensei) please: How can photon have more energy than of two electron particles. And another please: Photons accelerate mass particles, which absorbs their energy. Is this the manner that accelerates protons in Cern?

Ajb says: You are considering classical particles, so write out the equations of motion form the particles and see what you get for their trajectories. Just use F=ma. Kramer says: Yes. I use classic Newton’s formulas, which are discarded from modern physics, even though they are generally used in every day life. But with a huge but simple concept: Perceivable mass in common particles electron, proton, photon, neutrino and their antimatter particles are structured by simple “sub particles”, which are able to create electricity and mass “only interacting” with one or two partners of the same kind. Electric and gravity force between “ two hypothetic speculative sub-particles” are: Fex = (1 / Rx^2) * (( e / (4 * Pi * ε ) ^0.5))^2 = (1 / Rx^2) * (1. 518906534*10^-14)^2 Fgx = (1 /Rx^2) * ((G^0.5) * (Ms))^2 = (1 /Rx^2) *(1.518906534*10^-14)^2 Fex = Electric force of interaction between “electric charges” that are in a what ever distance Rx. Not confound necessarily between two electron particles. Rx = Compton radius (that result from Compton wave length) between two electric charges. ”Ms - not perceivable mass” of sub-particle: Ms = Mplank * α^0.5 = 1.859389987* 10^-9 “Rs = not achievable” distance between two sub-particle Rs = Lplank * α^0.5 Fgx = Gravity force between two subs. for a what ever distance Rx. Here is used Coulomb and Newton laws for static positions. Three numerical examples: For electron particle: Fme.e = (1/(2.8179401*10^-15)^2 * (1. 518906534*10^-14)^2 = 29.05350857 N. Eme = Fme.e * Re = (29.05350857)* (2.8179401*10^-15) = 8.187104685*10^-14 J. me = mas of electron = Energy / C^2 = 9.109382486* 10 ^31 m. The same will have if we use Force of gravity potential. So the “mass of electron particle” that we perceive, is result of gravity potential between two sub particles. ” If we use in above simple formulas Rx = Rs = Lplank * α^0.5 will have the mass of Plank particle = 1.849389987 * 10 ^-9 kg. Exist or no this kind of particle, I am not sure. I speculate that “neutrino” to have: two sub particles ((-e/(4*Pi* ε )^0.5 / -(G)^0.5)) and ((+e / (4*Pi* ε )^0.5 /-(G)^0.5 which create an unstable structure ( Electric force attractive, gravity force attractive too means the radius diminished the mass of particle augmented ( The flavor change ha!) until Plank size ?????)” “ Why “stabile common elementary particles” are the only “electron particle” and “proton particle” I have vague ideas, may be this is linked with status of anti matter sub particles. (Where they are?) But I have doubt that you show any interest on the above tirade, and have discarded it in total. ------------------ Swanson says: ------No, absolutely not. I am encouraging you to learn physics. How can that be construed as thinking advanced concepts are only for the elite? What is does men, however, is there is no way you are going to be able to construct a working model of an advanced concept if you don't understand the basics, much like you would not be able to drive a racing car if you have never driven before. ------ Kinetic energy in an orbit is not equal to the gravitational potential energy. But again, this is something you should be able to demonstrate yourself rather than have it shown to you, if you have any hope of developing any concepts that are more involved than this. Also, it puts you in no position to critique the advanced science, which you clearly do not understand. ------------- Kramer say: -----I am not trying to create an working model, I know who I am. I only display some speculative thoughts that may be used by “ anyone able driver” to be free and use them to go further and maybe create a model that link “the corrected classic physic” with it’s branch “quantum” stripped by weird aspects of “metaphysics”. ----- ---- I only give an example with system Earth - moon. Ek.m = ((G * Me) / (dis.e.m.)) * Mm = Vm^2 * Mm = = (1018.206068) ^2* (7.36* 10^19) = 1.985024161* 10^17 m^2. kg.S^-2 Eg.e.m. = ((g.e.m. )* (Mm)) * Distance = ((G*Me / (dis.e.m.)^2) * (Mm.) * (dis.e,m,)) = = (7.016242707 * 10 ^-12 ) * (7.39*10^19 ) * (384400000 ) = 1.985024161* 10^17 m^2 kg s^-2 That seems to me equal Ek.m =Eg.e.m ! Moderator Note And, regarding your hypothetical sub-particles, we've been over this before. If you don't have a model, or evidence to present, or a way to test your hypothesis, then don't broach the topic. You've been told this too many times for you to plead ignorance or feign surprise at this warning. ----If you want to get rid from a nuisance for moderators, it is your prerogative.

Ajb If the forces balance then the two particles would be free and just continue moving according to their initial velocity. ----- Kramer say: The two hypothetic sub particles, supposed free from other out side sources, which may have caused any movement on subs. This means they have only two options: or they will be in rest toward each other, or they will go around in the both geodesics of partner. But if will be true the second option, the first option will be true too (relative to each other), only if they go around with the same velocity. And this is speculation about the structure of common particles: sub-particles go around each other (after free fall concept) always. Studiot My thoughts are that you are overthinking this, when you should be listening harder to what others are telling you (that is the easy way). Merry Christmas. ------- Kramer say: The dummies learn from others knowledgeable people easier by examples. For this I make question, for this I participate in this forum. Unfortunately I had not any forward answer for my question. ------- Swanson say: Gravitational potential energy is only dependent on position. Another introductory physics concept you would know if you learned basic physics. Without which you will never understand these advanced concepts. ------ Kramer say: A vise man said: If ones has clear concept in his brain, it easy to explain those concept in other people: if this “other people is a scientist” --- with high math, if the other is a plain intellectual --- with numerical and unities examples, if is a low educated --- with rubber sheet, balloons, peas, etc. Do you think that advanced concept are only for the elite to understand? We see that the elites between them have disarrays concepts, and concept disarray every day. This gave people to think that something wrong in the some “basic”. Now you tell me why I am wrong if my simple math. show me that, in free fall of a body, kinetic orbital energy is equal gravity energy , even though that direction of them are perpendicular? Why if there is something doubt in basic? -------

Kramer says: ---- We were speaking about gravity potential energy. I thought that gravity potential energy depends by movement: The gravity that create a mass body (Mb) in the unity of mass (M1) of 1 kg mass in a distance D from Mb is: g = G*Mb. / (Rb+D)^2 = (G*Mb / (Rb+D)* (Rb+D)) = Vg^2 / (Rb + D) m / s^2 Here Vg is velocity of test body. (Caused by gravity of Mb or is self of test body velocity) which is the question of OP.Now Vg^2 * M1 is kinetic energy = Ek of test body, equal unity mass of system. Now g * M1 is potential gravity force, of Mb on Unity of mass M1 in distance (Rb +D). Here g*M1 = g*1 kg.m. / s^2 = Fg . So gravity potential energy of body Mb toward test body (1kg) will be : Fg*distance = g*1* (Rb+D) = (Vg^2 / (Rb + D) )*1*(Rb +D) = Vg^2 / (Rb+D) = Ek =Eg So potential energy depends by velocity as kinetic energy. Any mess I have created? ------- Studiot says: So a body can circle at a constant radius, speed up or slow down whilst circling and its kinetic energy will change, but its potential energy does not change. ------- Kramer says -----If body is under the field of gravity and its velocity is only under the command of gravity field, I think the potential energy is equal kinetic energy. If you ads some outside forces, this is another problem. Depend by the direction of force, but in this case always you ads in the body energy from out side. But maybe I have wrong concept. To clear it, I give two questions. Two question example: 1) To hold a satellite pending upon one point radial on earth, does needed a constant correction of its velocity, or is used a special radius of orbit? Or let it be whatever orbit but you made a correction of speed of satellite once and for ever, without change of distance from earth? 2) Can you orbits one satellite, for example North South or West-East and hold it without adding energy from outside source? Kramer say: Ajb. Thanks for your patience in our conversation, and for your meticulous responses. I take from your responses only two of them, which interest me more. ------------- Ajb says: I think you are starting to probe metaphysics. We know how to describe mathematically the motion of physical systems (in principal anyway). We see that things are in motion and that is that. ------- Kramer says: Was not my aim to probe metaphysics. I am interested for my speculative idea to know this crucial issue. I make this hypothesis: Let have two “ speculative fundamental sub particles” that have, each of them, the same electric “ Charge - e” and a mass Mu = Mplank*scrt(α), in the space that have electric constants ε and magnetic constant μ, with a distance toward each other Rx. If suppose they are free from influence of outsider (or absence of them) they will interact with each other with electric force repulsive and gravity force attractive. Fe = e^2 / (4*Pi*ε* R^2) = (μ/(4*Pi)* ( e* v )^2 * (2*pi* α^-1)^2*R^2 = And Fm = G * Mu^2 / R^2 = Their forces are equal, the two subs will be in equilibrium, the distance between them will be R (unchanged) . What is your opinion about my conundrums:? 1) Will subs to go around each other in fields of each other with out taking any push from out side? 2) Will be orbit in a plane or in sphere? I mean, will electric force create orbit in the same plan with gravity force? 3) Has this post to do with metaphysics or physics? --------- 2) 3) Ajb says: You are free to pick various units and write things in terms of Planck units. Such units help you think about scales at which quantum gravity are expected to be important, but they tell you no more than this ------ Kramer says: The formula of general relativity has two symbols that I thought have to do with some frequency and with magnetic constant of space. As formula contend Plank force (G / C^4) = 1 / ((G*Mu^2) / ( Ru^2)) I thought to use it. In my speculative thought about fundamental particles, gravity acts as a tiny, so called black hole, for the distance Ru. But it acts as a common particle for radiuses < Ru. I thought that that for energies of common particles, formula of which contend frequency , magnetic constant of space and a radius formula of general relativity may help for spatial configuration of common particle: Two numerical examples: 1) With energy of common particle named electron: Gνμ = (( 8*Pi*G) / ( C^4)) * Eme = ((8*Pi*Ru) / (G*Mu^2 / Ru)) * Eme = Gνμ = (( 8*Pi*Ru) / Emu)) * Eme = (8*Pi*Ru) * (Eme / Emu) 2) For particle Eme will have: Gνμ =(8*Pi*Ru) * (Emu / Emu) = (8*Pi*Ru) *1 This means that structure of electron particle (me) has the same structure as particle mu ( black hole) that has for radius = Ru. But with a radius which is bigger by ( Re / Ru) Now if you see my post boring, wrong, uninteresting don’t respond. I will not be offended. Readers --- Merry Christmas!

Studiot Kramer, There are tools in this forum to help lay out your answer so others can more easily see what was said by someone else and what was the reply. Kramer, Using those tools to look at the comments and replies we can more readily see that you are mistaken in your assumptions. ----- I am embarrassed, but I can’t find the tools, you mention, in my old computer. I used the red color for riders response and the black for my on them. I don’t know why they are faded when posted. Motion is not connected with Potential Energy in any way. ---- Maybe I am wrong but I think differently. Potential energy must be connected with movement.. If you are in the position 100 m plus radius of earth you are in a tangential lesser velocity (V = scrt ( G*Me / (R+100)), and in a lesser gravity, which I suppose must be : g = V^2 / (R+100) So your potential energy must be Ep = G * Me*ms / (R + 100) = ((G*Me/(R+100) ) *ms = V^2 / (R+100). Can you tell me where I am wrong As regards your response to me Do you think the tax man would let you off filling in the last 53 boxes on the tax form just because you wanted it simplified? ---- Isn’t this a dodge for my simple and forward question in my post? C'mon Lagrange 1736 to 1813, Hamilton 1803 to 1865 so the mathematics is hardly modern. As to its relative level I don't know what maths you know so I can't comment, but you can understand it with an old fashioned British A level in maths. ---- You are pushing me for a new post: ”Doesn’t expansion of space undermine the validity of math?” Lagrange and Hamilton use Cartesian system. The zero point and the axes “of space” are supposed dimension-less. What if this supposition is not valid? The point zero is not zero but a sphere, the axes are not dimension - less lines but cylinders and they all bulge every second via expansion of space? As to its relative level I don't know what maths you know so I can't comment, but you can understand it with an old fashioned British A level in maths. ----I don’t hide my ignorance in both physic and math, but I can’t suppress my curiosity to know what intelligent people think about issues that I fail to grasp in my meditation. I can’t chew on the other side, the assertion, of intelligent people, that without math is impossible to understand physics phenomena. Strange You may have some interesting comments or questions. But as you are too lazy to use the quote function and make your posts readable, I am not going to waste any more time on it. Maybe others have more time to waste on you. ---- Above, I responded about it. It ‘s not about laziness. Your will, I value your time. Ajb It is intrinsic in the sense that no massive body can be considered at absolute rest. Other than that you are really starting to probe metaphysics. ----If not in absolute rest, means “always” in relative movement. It is an intrinsic property of matter in “what ever status”, am I right? I am not probing metaphysics. I see the movement of matter as an important issue in physics. If you don’t mind, I would like to have further your opinion about some ifs. It is a composite system, but as the Earth is much smaller than the Sun you can reasonably assume that the Earth is a 'test particle' moving in the gravitational field of the Sun. So, I would say that the Sun's gravitational field is the key player here. ----- So do I. But I can’t give an answer why the velocity of ‘test particles’ near the gravity body or on the surface of it, have so high discrepancy with simple calculi. You should try to get to grips with some basic ideas in Newtonian mechanics as well as the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism. From there you should also look into the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. ---- This is a repetitive refrain…. by all moderators. Doesn’t that means: don’t go in opera if you have no idea about sol-fa, about construction of musical instruments, about laws of harmony? Or don’t bother us with your nasty so called song? Okay, it does involve some knowledge of differential geometry.. The are not constant but rather tensors on space-time. ---- My mistake. I intended “physics unities” instead of constants. About constants I wanted to know what is ν and μ, if they are physics concepts what are their physics unities. Tensors are the right way to encode anything 'physical' as they transform nicely between different reference frames. Basically what the field equations tell us is 'Local Geometry = Field/Matter Content' ---- I hope I don’t bother you if I beg some further explanations: 1- Local Geometry. Is this about non uniformity of space time, I mean change of “density” of dispersed “physics space” over Euclidian space? And with it change of profile of landscape like “geodesics” but here in volume not in surface. And in different geodesics move “test particles” with different “constant” velocities? This deformation of space time is caused by field “devided /?” by Matter Contend? 2 – Field. Is expressed by: 8 * Pi * G / C^2 * C^2 . Now please don’t take this as a joke. If I transform this with 8 * pi * G / (G * M / R)^2 = 8 * Pi / (G * M^2 / R^2) = 8 * Pi / Plank force has it any physics meaning? 3 – Matter contend is this like (M*C^2 + (P*C)^2) like some W The local geometry is described by the Einstein curvature Gνμ and the mater content by the energy-momentum tensor of the fields/matter Tμν. As we are talking about motion, we also need an equation analogous to the Lorentz force. This is provided by the geodesic equation which we take to be the equation of motion for test particles. ---- Any numerical example? Or is it too much, for the lazy man that want free lunch. Swanson Intrinsic ability? Sure. Everything can be moved. But they do not cause themselves to be moved, it is cause by outside factors. ---- “Everything can be moved”- that ‘s right. Moved by “what”, moved by “who”, because this “what” or “who” must move itself to causes movement to ‘non moving’ others. And when we intend creation of things, the question is what or who gave them movement, on the moment of creation? What happens after first movement, like things cause movements on each other, this is different issue. Using "ability" makes for awkward phrasing – the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. ---- No. As Einstein showed, merely having mass (at rest) means you have energy ----I think there is no rest. Even the elementary particles that have mass have structure, by subs that move in circular movement.

My question is very simple: Is it the movement an “intrinsic ability of particles of matter”, or it “is caused by out-side factors”? The answer will be senseless, if we use equivoques. In Newton era was in mode concept of “ winding of cosmic clock “. This means that an outsider action create the motion. In modern era we have theory of Big Bang about creation of cosmos. I think that “winding factor” is on table for dispute. There is a third option: The matter is eterne. It has not been created it will never disappear. The matter consists from “atoms (figurative)” that possess in them selves: “ability to move in space” in relativity velocity to each other. etc.. Stranger I don't think there is any answer to that. Why are there three dimensions? Why does electric charge exist? ----You think that movement with C velocity is intrinsic nature of mass-les particles? --------- The definition of acceleration is a bit different in GR. For example, someone in freefall is not accelerating. You can tell this is the case because when you are accelerating you feel a force - for example, when your car accelerates you are pushed back in your seat. But when you are in freefall, you feel no force. However, you do feel a force when standing on the ground. That is when you are accelerating! ----What about idea that in free fall you are floating in space with constant tangential velocity 7909 m/s and with a radial acceleration 9.82 m/s^2.The change of velocity in total is not to much. You feel the big change when collide with earth, which move with tangential velocity 465m/s? Am I wrong? Sure. I am disappointed that you are still too lazy to understand the very simple quote mechanism: http://www.sciencefo...-several-parts/ --- I have tried a lot but have not find anywhere any satisfactory answer for my questions. Studiot f you want to look more deeply into why things move rather than how they move, I suggest you study Hamilton's Principle of Least Action, which offers mathematical analysis of why rather than Newton's Laws which offer analysis of the how. Hamiltonian-Lagrangian mechanics carries over into quantum theory and relativity and works for sub atomic particles as well as supra atomic ones. ---- Eh. I am sure that if I travel in the jungle of modern high math, I am lost. So I thought that maybe experts in math maybe simplify the essence and satisfy my curiosity. Ajb None of us have been very technical here, so the above is okay. A body does not need a net force acting on it to be in motion. Yes, but a force is not needed for an object to have a velocity (as measured by some inertial observer). Forces... it depends on the description of the mechanics you are using, but external forces are at play when we have an acceleration. ---- I understand better with simple examples: The velocity of earth toward the sun is: V orb.= (G * Msun / Ds.e.)^0.5= 29718m/s The radial acceleration is: g = Vorb.^2 / Ds.e. = 5.9*10^-3 m/sec^2 Till now we have nothing to do with earth as object (it may be an atom) , but we have to do with a distance earth - sun = Ds.e. , and the mass of the sun. Who is responsible for orbital velocity of earth? Earth, or gravity of sun? -------- Or you have fictitious forces which are due to non-inertial observers. That is you are picking coordinate frames for which Newton's laws do not hold. To 'fix' Newton's laws you add extra forces. Good examples here are the centrifugal force and Coriolis force, which are to do with rotation. (I will come back to this) --- Okay ----- As this involves a scattering of photons it is best described in terms of quantum electrodynamics. Things here become more complicated and the photon and electron are no longer 'small balls' and you cannot really think of them colliding. Also remember that (as measured by an inertial observer) any photon (in vacuum) travels at the speed of light c. This does not depend on the energy or frequency of the light. ---- I am curious about movement and acceleration of elementary common particles. Because I think that real ultimate particles of mater, the blocks of every thing, must have C velocity as own ability. All kind of velocities we perceive, are result of interactions between particles via electro -- gravity. I continue to think so. -------- We start to get into technical semantics with the distinction between forces and fictitious forces. In general relativity gravity is seen as the local geometry of space-time. Test particles follow geodesics which are the straightest possible curves on a space-time. The fact that these geodesics are usually not straight lines as defined on R^n we have a force. There is change in acceleration and so a force. However, this force is usually stated as a fictitious force as it really comes from the fact that we are unable to find inertial coordinates on a general space-time. There is no 'external force' here. However, you can always in a small enough region about a given point find inertial coordinates. This is is essentially the equivalence principal in a mathematical form. ---- About General relativity of gravity I have that vague idea of popularized rubber sheet. The simple “elegant” formula of Einstein for me is not so simple. In contrary it is too complicated. Can you give me any data please what are the physic constants of Gνμ and Tμν . Please. Michel123456 Motion is one of the expressions of conservation of energy. ----It is always linked with energy I think. ------- Swanson Energy need not be conserved. There would be motion if we could create energy, too. ---- Isn’t motion prerequisite of energy? -----------

DevilSolution Balance. The sub atomic movement is dance of balance within the atom. --- The balance of what, of force? The force acts in radial direction. The velocity of movement is tangential. In a dance you may attract or repel your partner, but that has very little to do with movement of feet of both dancers. Stranger Massive particles are caused to move by “some force”. Massless particles always move at the speed of light. ---- “That some force” is caused by “something” that is moving? Yes or no? What is the cause of “that something” for to move? What cause mass-less particles to move at speed of light? Ajb. So, movement is not really tied to forces, acceleration is. To my mind, the only answer to the opening post is that Galilean relativity tells us that we cannot consider any massive particle to be at absolute rest. As there is no absolute rest things must be 'in motion'. The same holds in Einsteinian relativity. ----Acceleration is the change of velocity of things that move, this mean it is tied with movement. What causes accelerations, if not some things that are moving with different velocities and interact with each other? For example: an electron in relative rest status is collided by a photon. Electron from relative rest status is put “in motion”, this is some kind of acceleration. Photon change direction, but move with the same velocity, even though has a change in frequency. (If not absorbed totally). What happens between them in moment of collide? As for Einsteinian relativity I am confused: we have acceleration of gravity, but we don’t have force.

What is the cause of movement of mass and mass-les particles? Is it the movement an intrinsic ability of matter, or it is caused by out-side factors?

Stranger You haven't previously asked many questions, apart from general ones like "does it make sense?" (no). By the way, have you noticed the "Quote" button below each post? http://www.sciencefo...-several-parts/ It is very hard to separate what you are saying from what you have copied from others. 1) No. 2) Only that they explain what it is a measure of. The permittivity (I assume that is what you mean) can be expressed in several ways, which of these do you think is significant: where F=farad, A=ampere, V=volt, C=coulomb, J=joule, m=metre, N=newton, s=second, W=watt, kg=kilogram, Ω=ohm, H=henry. 3) No 4) Yes. If there were antimatter particles throughout space, they would interact with and be annihilated by the matter particles thatw e know are there and we would see distinctive gamma ray spectra from this. 5) Electric charge is an inherent property of certain particles. 6) Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time by mass (and energy). 7) Not yet. The CERN Alpha project is preparing to measure this. But there are good theoretical reasons to think that antimatter must have the same gravitational effect as ordinary matter. ---- Thanks Stranger for your categorical answers, about my questions. They, for the most of them, reject any my willingness to debate with you further about them, taking in to account they are from an expert, and so, the certainty of them is undisputable. E pur si muove. Damn your insistence, Kramer. Swanson Then you need to be more proficient in asking quality questions. ---- If not being proficient --- does it is wrong, to make suppositions, hypothesis, questions, rebuts, in the speculation forum? And elaborate the substance of post in whatever level, even though naïve ( which by the way is easier to discard--- and earn some green points)?

Swanson But this is a science forum. You must reason within the known physics rules, or be able to justify whatever new physics you propose. That's not satisfied by making a few terms arbitrarily equal to each other. ---- My post is about issues that I have vague concepts. Maybe wrong ones. May be right ones. Is for this that I beg helps, from knowledgeable persons, in form “of questions”. If any of my sentences seems like assertion, or as boasting assurance that I am right, I am very sorry. The cause is my lack, not only in physics, is it most in my English language. For this, I post in short sentences, that may seems like assertions. Now about this post: Here are some questions, not new physics, for which I hope any kind of answer by specialist: 1) Has or not any electrostatic potential the space itself? 2) Have or not any physic meaning the unities in “electric constant of space”? 3) Is really earth, and maybe every cosmic body, an immense reservoir for free electric charges? 4) Is it “so absurd” the idea of antimatter sub-particles in space as the matter sub-particles in cosmic bodies? 5) Is it electric charge an entity embedded in mass, or a byproduct of electric field? 6) Is it gravity a property of mass, or field? 7) Is it excluded for sure the possibility of antimatters antigravity? And now about my posts in general: Are any criterions in rules, about what graduation, what profession, what standard of education must have the poster, what may post and what not, when must be closed the post and how long it may it continue, what kind of experimental proofs needed to discuss a theme for?

Sensei Electrons want to be as far as they can from other electrons, causing movement of elements. Earth has radius 6370 km, Area A=4*PI*r^2, so A=4*3.14159265*6370000^2=5.099*10^14 m^2 You have Qearth=5.146043764 * 10 ^ 14 C That's ~1 C per 1m^2 of Earth surface.. ------ Wright! And this is only a cubic root of the “total electric charges” that posses 1 m^3 Earth. Am I wrong? But you may say that there doesn’t exist any electric charge --- with your math: +1 –1 = 0 And that make sense. But you can’t explain the facts of every day reality where gravity is defied only by electric counter-acting, for a stabile status. Why not in the cosmic arena? To try for finding an explanation is not wrong. I asked for experts if there exist any electric potential between space and earth. I not intend “that”, which is created by ionosphere. I intend something else, different, as the property of itself space, consistent with its electric constant. Can you give any clue? Something like “skin effect” on earth that may create potential toward space’s… . Sure this is out of box. Swanson Is there a physical basis for this, or is it just pulled from “where visible photons are rare?” ---- Physical basis, is the equivalence of all kind of energies, other way expressed -- the law of preservation of energy. At least in Plank area this is obvious. And in the concept that stability, equilibrium is based in the equality of electric and gravity energies, in equality and opposite of their forces. I can’t grasp “where visible photons are rare?”. If you see this as a clue please elaborate for me. Why would you think that? How would electrical insulation work if this were the case? In copper it's one electron in the conduction band per atom. ----- If we reason with strict known physics rules, without any exception or deviation, it is futile to dig in unknown territories for any hopeful new discovery. So let see this way: Where is anti matter and its constituents? The physic didn’t give any all approved basic explanation. I think it is a big mystery, maybe linked with Dirak sea….. And side way with this post. And I am curious to know how many electrons plus, may we inject in one kg cooper? I don't know what "Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force" means I don't deny electrical interaction. I question the magnitude of it. ---- I thought that electric interaction between cosmic bodies exist but maybe not in the strength I suggested, and asked your opinion. As for 90 grads of interaction, it is a vague guess that gravity has to do with orbitals and electric interaction with spins of planets. So everything repels. And is contradicted by basically all classical physics observations. ----- On one hand repels, and on the other hand attract. Result is equilibrium. Like book over the table. Only distances are different. Which, as I have indicated, is a ludicrous assumption, even if one assumes electrons in the conduction band. ---- Wright, if we are strict with what we know. And reject any try for unkown. −

Kleinos Not really. You need to define your tend more clearly. Where did Nsun come from? ----- Nsun = Mass of sun divided by Plank mass constant * sq.rt. alpha.., I thought that “about” one third of all electric charges that are in a body must be free, or as they are called, vagabonds charges. What astonished me was the equivalence of energy and force, created by those electric charges, with energy and force created by gravity. I admit that this post is a mean for me as a poster to understand some key concept about role of electricity in cosmic space One question is about electric constant of space. The space has in fact one electric constant, which for me is mysterious. In units of this electric constant are Farad / m = C / U * m. Does this mean that space has electric charges, and electric potential on its own? The theory asserts that space posses ability in every point for creating spontaneous pair of electric charges of opposite signs in very short of intervals. That seems to me weird. But I think this is not the point of post. My tend is to find --- maybe the space is the post for the antimatter, as are the cosmic bodies the post for mater and that they interact with each other differently as we thought. One other question: The earth is the place with zero electric potential. But in the same time is an immense deposit for negative electric charges. Doesn’t the earth create any potential toward space that depends by distance? Swanson If the electrostatic force on the earth from the sun were equal to the gravitational, then the orbit would be noticeably different; you've doubled the force. If they cancel, there is zero force and there is no orbit. ----- Good points for discard this post. Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force? Or you deny whatever electric interaction between cosmic bodies? But those aren't the only two bodies in the solar system. What charge do the other planets have, and also their moons? You need to reconcile all of those motions with either greater or smaller forces, depending on their charge. ---- The same rule for all, about amount and about distances.. The same rule of interaction for electricity as it is for gravity. And all of these bodies having this excess charge: where did all that charge come from? ---- This “exces” is about one third of all number of charges of the body, but i think, able to interact even out side the body. −

Can’t be possible, a parallel “ gravity -- electric” interaction between Cosmos bodies? (One speculative question) Let suppose that cosmic bodies possesses electric negative charges free. And in amount proportional with their mass as below: Qx / e = Mx / Mun. = Nx Here Qx is the amount in Coulomb of electric free charges. Mx is the mass of cosmic body. Mun. = Mplank * sqrt(α^0.5) = 1.859389987 * 10^-9 kg. Nx = Proportion Then forces of electric and gravity interaction will be: Fe = Q1 * Q2 / (4*pi*ε * (D1-2 )^2) = G * M1 * M2 / ( D1-2)^2 For example: The electric and gravity forces between sun and earth. Qsun = e * Nsun = 1.706963894 * 10 ^20 Coulomb Qearth = e * Nearth = 5.146043764 * 10 ^ 14 Coulomb Dsun earth = 149.6*10^9 m Then: Fe= Qsun *Qearth. / (4 * pi * ε * (Dsun-earth)*2) = 3.5275731*10^22 kg.m.sec^-2 Fg = G * Msun*Mearth / (Dsun-earth)^2 = 3.5275731558*10^22 kg.m.sec^-2 Does it make any sense?

Sensei No, you need to: - learn how to use quote function in posts, - learn how to make Latex equations in posts, - learn physics This is all you can say for my post? I am sorry for you Sensei, because you don’t understand the aim and the essence of my posts. How many things, phenomena, stand without answers from scientists, and they asks for ordinary people: no why, no what, no how? --- Because have not any satisfactory explanation! Or their answers are covered with weakly terms like change of flavor or color and with absorbs or releases of quanta. But how is the mechanism of those? And if an ordinary person, give a “naïve and radical” mechanism for some questions that stand without answer, give for discuss in a ‘speculative forum’, --- this cause irritation. I think that nobody has a certain idea what is an elementary particle, mass or mass-les. What have they in common and what divide them. How they change their status in each other. What cause movement, acceleration, how mass particles disappear and appear in thin air. Etcetera! Etcetera. And you, have nothing to say, except giving suggestions for trivial problems.

About radius of “electron particle” and the possibility of having it a structure. “ The Standard Model of particle physics is known to be incomplete. Extensions to the StandardModel, such as weak-scale supersymmetry, posit the existence of new particles and interactions that are asymmetric under time reversal (T) and nearly always predict a small yet potentially measurable, (on electron particle ?), of electric dipole moment (EDM), in the range of 10^-27---10^-30 e*r.” This extract is taken by the link given by moderator, in the case of one of my closed post. I am confused because, didn’t this means that range of radius of particle is r = 10^-8----- 10^-12 (cm?), and the authors presuppose even r =10^-20 cm. but are not able to measure. In this case why classic radius = 2.8 *10^-15 m (used in formulas by me) is ruled out? This is the fact that I doubt in certainty of experiments: seems to me that, the performers of experimentations are themselves not sure. Duality “wave - mass” of particles is an argument plus in the favor of “unique sub particles hypothesis”, as the only brick structure of matter, in the case---for electron particle. For example: The electric energy Eme of an electron particle, if supposed to be created by interaction between electric charges “of the same particle”, is equal with the mass energy Em created by (so called me) “unity mass of unique sub. particle”. Ee.me = [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] = = ( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε) ^0.5)) ) / Re (Here Ee.me is electric energy of “electron particles”, and Re its radius.) Em.me = (G/G) * [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] = G*(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε *G) * Re) = = G*( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε*G)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε*G) ^0.5)) ) / Re = = G * Mu.s*Mu.s / Re = G * (Mplank*α^0.5)^2 / Re = à me * C^2 (Here G is gravity constant, which is the same for mass bodies and for the space. Mu.s. is the fictive mass of “unique sub=particle”, which gave mass on all particles interacting with the same sign of a mate. Mplank is plank mass. me = is the mass of electron particle.) If this post has at least one reader interested in the topic, about reconciliation of gravity with quantum, and want to discus ideas with somebody that is not expert for both the branch of physics, please don’t close this post. I need help by a partner.

Swanson IOW, you haven't bothered to check your prediction against theory. ---- A smirk— but anyway. Because I know the only thing of predictions: electron particle has a zero space dimension. My speculation say: the dimension is the main property of an elementary particle, from which depends other properties as mass, energy, frequency etc.. Gabrielese measured the upper limit as 1 x 10^-18m, limited by they type of experiment he did. This number assumes all experimental uncertainty is due to the electron having a size. http://gabrielse.phy...bstructure.html (He also points out that if the electron had structure, the constituent particles would have masses of at least 177 GeV/c^2) There are other experiments that put the limit below 2 x 10^-20 m ---- I am not sure how are convincing the results of dimensions, as I know the scientists doubt. And in my speculation (not theory) the particles are structured by very tiny “subs”, tiny but not zero, in spherical chests created by movements of very fast subs. In this case the only measure are wavelength, and frequency. But I am not sure if experimentations have possibility to measure frequencies let say: fe = 1.2355906*10^20 Hz. Thanks for the link. So you can't even remember what you wrote, or look back to a previous post. Post #10 "I have used the radius of proton wave-length in calculation of energy of proton, or its voltage." ------Another smirk. O come on, Swasont. Don’t pretend that don’t understand. “Calculation of energy or voltage” doesn’t means that they are the same, but that they depends both by radius. Yes. Your numbers do not reflect what experiment shows. The classical electron radius was calculated using classical physics, which doesn't work on these scales — it's wrong. ------ Well. I think that radius is the most important variable in the supposed structure of particles. They have a link with other properties which are measurable with certainty, and that fit. And? What is a Compton wave, much less a stationary Compton wave? ------ In my lay-mans vision about stationary Compton wave length, is the electromagnetic phenomena embedded in a particle. And, --- that electro-“magnetic” phenomena are linked with movement in circle of “electric charge”. And,--- that movement in circle out of concept of radius, is absurd. That the Compton wave length exist, I assume that they must be real. Other ways why they are near every particle in CODATA? What is the predicted photon dipole moment, if it's comprised of two charges? What is the predicted electron dipole moment, if it's comprised of three? ------ I see ! You want That a lay – man to answers on your questions as a physician? For most of your questions as I know, I am not able to answer. But even in your question stand a strong argument against my “radius speculation” like magnetic moment anomaly, may be a specialist can give an answer, or can justify the anomaly with movement in spherical trajectories. And my question for specialist: How explained magnetic moment in an electron with which has zero diameter, and has not any insider movement? Why can't I split up an electron (or photon) into its constituent particles? What's the binding energy of the systems? ------- You tell me if you know. Maybe possession of electron particle ‘me’, in the same time in disposition, with what ever kind of energy and force: Ee = Em =Ef = Eem…….. They split only in the moment when exchange their constituent with their antimatter mate, in the process of ….?! Annihilation. Ha? Sensei That's up-side-down quantum physics... More mass-energy from decaying smaller mass-energy particle.. ? That's instant violation of energy conservation.. f.e. muon is elementary particle in Standard Model, but the all particles mass-energies it is decaying to, are smaller than rest-mass of muon, 105.66 MeV/c^2. f.e. The all known particles ALWAYS decay to particles with less mass-energy than they have prior decay, to conserve energy.. ------ As I know, electron and proton are not decaying particles. Their antimatter positron and antiproton, I speculate, are absolute decaying particles, via “gravity attraction” of subs, which is some less than their “electric repelling” of +e charge. They fill space with un-engaged antimatter subs. Sorry I over speculate.

Swanson h, I misread your equation. So you predict a radius 1836x smaller than the classical electron radius, or ~ 1.5 x 10^-18 m. Still disagrees with experiment. ----- For sake of clarity, and for help --- may I know experimental value? Since the mass is the reason for the Compton wavelength, you are correct. It's the cause. Energy is not the same as voltage. They are different things. ----- Where I have write this mistake? It doesn't give the right answer. The experimentally determined proton radius is about 0.9 x 10^-15 m. That's only about a factor of 3 smaller than the classical electron radius. ---- Not clear for me. I say: classical radius for electron is Re = 2 .8179401*10^-15 m and radius of proton Rp = 1.534698155* 10^-18 m. You say experiments have found: Re = about 0 --- and Rp = 0.9 *10^-15. Right? e / (4*pi*e / ( U * d)) = U*d = 1.43994393*10^-9 V*m but nowhere have you explained what U and d are, or where they come from, or where you got the formula — it just appears out of thin air. But doesn't U*d cancel? e / (4*pi*ε / ( U * d)) = (e*U*d)/(4*pi*ε) so this is the same as saying e/(4*pi*ε) = 1, which is clearly false. Meaning I have no clue how you are getting any of these values. ----- Here is the speculation: E1 = (- e) * [ (-e) / ((4*pi*ε)*1)] = (-e) * U1*1/1= (-e)*U1 Let see this part of eq. [ (-e) / ((4*pi*ε)*1)] = (-e) / (+e) / (U1*1) = 1.43994393*10^-9 V*m it is unity potential of two electric charge in 1 m distance. Here U1 is the potential created between (must be) electric charges (-e) and +e in a distance in space =1m ( Which is the unity of distance in system m, kg, s, A). The electric charges are unperceivable because shadow each other, but exist and form stationary Compton wave. The potential of Compton wave interact with perceivable (-e) and determine the electric energy of an perceivable electric charge in a sphere 1m. E1.= (1.43994393*10^-9) V*1m * e / 1m = 2.307044*10^-28 joule. And Ee = (1.43994393*10^-9) V*1m * e / Re = 8.186988333*10^-14 joule Ep = ((1.43994393*10^-9) V*1m * e / Rp = 1.50325604*10^-10 joule What I suspect what you did was start with the Compton radius (which depends on mass, and thus the mass energy) and did some manipulation and recovered the mass energy. There's no new physics there. But without showing your work, I can't be sure. ----- I will try to explain that in elementary common particle all laws of physic (about energy) are applicable with the same value. Even Newton law. At least so seems to me. Sensei I don't understand why are you saying 'no'. If we have -1e in center of electron, and photon that has -1e and +1e, then it's exactly like in mine post above. Then why're you saying 'no'? Doesn't make sense to me. Photon has neutral charge 0e My equation was for Q, electric charge inside of electron or positron. Qelectron=-1e-1e+1e=-1e ----- You say Photon has electric charge 0. But here is the speculation. Photon has two electric charges, unperceivable because have different sign, and seems like they don’t exist in photon, because they shadow each other. Electron has three electric charges: one is perceivable, two are unperceivable because they shadow each other when exist in Compton wave of particle. Qpositron=+1e+1e-1e=+1e Then photon has to have Qphoton=+1e-1e=0e That's the only way to not have instant violation of electric charge conservation, within your framework from post #1. ------ Maybe we say the same but confuse each other. If you are against my speculations let continue debate. By the way Sensei can you calculate the energy of Compton wave of electron by its length? I want to compare yours with my calculation of this energy which seems to me weird.

Swanson No, not in the least. ----- As always. At least to have tried a bit to give for me, where I have flawed. It works for a proton? The proton is ~1876x more massive, so the radius should be correspondingly larger. That will give you a number around 5 x 10^-12m. The actual proton radius (from experiment) is ~5000 times smaller. That's "exact"? ----- And here we differ in reasoning. I say: the more massive a common particle is, the smallest is the radius. This is, in fact, “the cause” why common elementary particles have different Compton wave-length. And I have used the radius of proton wave-length in calculation of energy of proton, or its voltage. So it fails for a proton and an electron. Failure is the only pattern so far. ----Maybe is a failure. But I have impression that you have not read with attention. t's absurd because the formula is wrong. Wrong formulas give wrong answers. Did you consider that? ----- Why is wrong the formula, if it gave right answer? Why you don’t give the dimension of electric charge, or you think that electric charge is only the “ excitation of field” without any dimension? Sensei If I recall correctly your older theories, you're postulating existence of sub-particles each with -1e and +1e (and they're not electron/positron). So, to have electron with -1e for outer observer, there is needed -1e -1e +1e sub-particles inside of electron, to have -1e total.. Right? -----No. To have a “me” needed (as you say) –1e+-1e +1+e’ subs to have in total: (-1e + 1(photon stationary)) So, positron will have exactly reverse configurations: +1e +1e -1e to have +1e total? -----That right Sensei with above correction. This is my point in this post, but I think you are moving a little fast, creation of photons is another issue. In this post I am speaking about “stationary particles”. Not about interaction, annihilation, creation of photons. If you think that this is an argument against essence of this post, let me know. Now, what happens during pair-production? Photon has energy 1.022 MeV or more, and 0e charge, ---- Please explain me (you know I am a lay –man) how photon has obtained 1.022 MeV, when one electron and one positron in, “stationary” situation, create (or they may aren’t able?) “two” photons with overall 1.022 MeV. Or I am out? After this I am ready to debate about this issue. And please remind that the issue isn’t easy: You need to explain what happens with acceleration of particles. ----- after collision there are made electron and positron pair. y + 1.022 MeV -> e+ + e- So photon had to have all these 6 sub-particles inside, right? So far it holds, sort of. But now there is annihilation of newly produced electron-positron: e+ + e- -> y + y (each with 510998.928 eV) If electron has +1-1-1 and positron has -1+1+1, there is no such configuration in which there could be created 2 neutral photons from them.. Possible output configurations are: -1-1-1 = -3e -1-1+1 = -1e -1+1+1 = +1e +1+1+1 = +3e 1836.15x more mass/energy (938.272046/0.510998928 = 1836.15267) ----- ?? Strange That sounds a bit like some of the preon models (1), in particular Sundance Bilson-Thompson's (2) work (3). ----- As I know, preons are “bit” of electric charge. Strange you are a great catalog. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon (2) Best name ever? (3) http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503213

Swanson What evidence can you present that the electron is composite, or what model can you present that would give predictions of what we should see? -----The formula and my interpretation of physics units are not convincing? I insist in this formula because I think is a universal, applicable for all common particles. It fit exact in the case of proton, and maybe in all particles that have Compton wave- length. Seems to me, it is like a pattern. The only variable in this pattern is radius of particle, and indeed the combinations of signs of charges. That's the electron self-energy according to classical physics (hence the name "classical electron radius"). But we know from experiment that the electron radius is not this value. The upper limit is much, much smaller. You are using a relation we know to be wrong. ----- I don’t pretend that have invented or discovered the formula. My interpretations aims to defend nature of matter as particular, based it in the fact that electric charge “e” is a physics concept of something that exist and is exact measurable, as a unity. I think that “electric charge” is the ‘hub of the mater’ of all physics phenomena, together with concept of mass with which is not separable. About “radius” or distance between two “electric charges”, you say is not the value. Seems to me that Radius extracted by Compton wave-length is not a fact convincing. Let see this way: Now I have displayed in my formula that e / (4*pi*e / ( U * d)) = U*d = 1.43994393*10^-9 V*m This is a universal formula. Divide this value with whatever radius and you will have the second component of energy ----“U”. example: U*d / 1.5346088165*10^-18 = 938264829,8 V for proton. After your concept of electric charge as point with zero dimension, result U = infinite. Which is absurd. That not right. The smallest dimension of electric charge is: “Rmin.” = 1.380543856*10^-36 m. If you don’t want to violate: v < C ! With this kind of dimension of electric charges, that “structures” with their movements toward each other the spherical form of common particle, I doubt about results of experiment.

Swanson What is the difference between the two different positively charged particles? (assuming these are distinct particles Or are you claiming the electron is a composite particle? ----Yes. I think that electron particle is a composite particle. As are all common particles. I say, only, that electric charge must not be confounded as identical “electron particle”. Electric charges are the main components of electron particle. They structure “electron particle”, they are cause of electric static field of “electron particle”, they are the cause of stationary electromagnetic wave and, even this sounds crazy, they posses ability for creating mass, in presence of gravity constant s.c.r.t (G). I am not sure if this is a second own property of “electric charge” or an outsider. Yes, electric charge has a limited dimension. That means it is not zero. Ajb Electromagnetic theory would be very different with three kinds of electric charge. In essence we know about theorires with more than one kind of charge, for example we have Yang-Mills theories. ----- You know Mr. Ajb, that I am not a physicist. My post is based in data: electron particle posses electric field, posses electromagnetic phenomena even though in static status, exist in space (which has an electric constant) – and has a measurable dimension. Formula gave a precise amount of energy equal with other kind of energies. E = me * C^2. = h*(C / ((2*pi / α) * Re )). For me they are enough for a superficial cognition. This superficial cognition gave me a thought that matter and energy of “common particles” are result “only if interaction” happens between at least two subs. I am not able to discuss about theories that flourish every day, and that became always more and more complicated.

It is an interesting topic for who is interested. So seems to me.

The electron particle must have three electric charges! (A speculation from a layman) The energy of a “static” electron particle is equal: Ee = (-e) * (-e) / (4*pi*ε0* Re) =8.187104679*10^-14 joule …… II-1 “Re” is classic radius derived by Compton wave-length of electron. Am I wrong? My friend S… will say: Yes you are, I see only two electric charges in your formula. And “electron particle” has in fact only one electric charge. Let see the physic’s unity in my formula: Joule = C * C / m *F*m^-1 = C*C / C*(U*m)^-1 *m = C*C*C^-1*U*m /m= C*U The speculation consist: 1- The third electric charge must exists in space in the so called Dirak’s sea, and must have positive sign 2- The second charge is associated with the Dirak’s charge and has created Compton electromagnetic wave. 3- There is not any annihilation of charges, only a shadow from each other. By three electric charges, two of them that posses different signs create a spherical wave around the first negative charge. Now, shoot for an easy win of green points.

I am waiting with dip curiosity the answers of experts of our site on the challenge of Mr. professor Patrick, about his work in a very intriguing theme. I don’t suppose that a “DETERMINIST approach of quantum mechanic” has not triggered the alert on the defenders of contemporary viewpoint about quantum. A layman, as I am, cannot be able to understand where is hidden “the determinism” of the work, if Copenhagen’s viewpoint and Heisenberg’s uncertain principle are okay. Or maybe an ignorant layman is not able to extract underlying meanings, in the tons of equations and formulas. For myself I am convinced that if a theory is based in “point” electric charge, or “point” mass, this theory has a shaky basement, the same as Quantum.

----- Its amazing the relief I feel. Apologize for your lost time

Swanson I'm having difficulty figuring out how you can continually remind everyone that you are a lay-man (three times in this thread alone) and then get upset when people take you at your word and agree with you. …..Here is nothing strange. You all have difficulty to understand the laymen, because your visualization for laymen is analphabetism and ignorance, and you consider them like sheep that must go where you lead them, and swallow whatever you serve to them. I don’t say that a layman like me, intend to compete with moderators about questionable issues in threads. But has the right to dispute the explanations that seems to him not convincing. And especially about statements of physics that cause suspicion not only in the verity of statement but even in some hidden aim. If this irritate the moderators and the staff of the site and gave answers like: [Do you really mean you have never heard of things like kg and pounds and other units of mass? Or: The majority of the mass of the proton is the strong nuclear force. ---- Mass --- equal force?? And response: you don't understand the relationship between force and energy. ] ---- Sure you don’t see them irritating for me. As opposed to this, which is an actual insult. ----I don’t know who is insulter and who is insulted. Insulter was awarded with green medal [As always with your threads. ---- I see the muster of insulting.” ]