Magnetic Field as distance between charges=0

[Hami Hashmi]

Hi,

I have been recently looking into a thought experiment of a theoretical material which is composed of negative charges (electrons) fused together (with r=0) and positive charges (up quarks) fused together (r=0) so that the magnetic field would equal infinity.

The idea with this material is to have the electron-electron pairs and up quark-up quark pairs be placed in orbit around each other and to have the orbits synchronized so that the same charged pairs can accelerate their counterparts up to a greater orbital speed (therefore increasing the magnetic field). Also the pairs with the same charge will have their spins synchronized as well so that they speed up each others spins to increase the magnetic field.

The electron pairs and the up quark pairs will both be held together by the weak force (which becomes larger then electromagnetic force at ultra high energies).

Material.docx

 

 

So what I was wondering about this is if two point particles merged (as stated above) would they form another point particle or a miniature black hole?

Edited August 17, 2018 by Hami Hashmi

[mathematic]

Your hypothetical particles can't be made!

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

 Material.docx

!

Moderator NoteI take this to mean you have some sort of proposal, but you should not be asking for people to open a document from an unknown source, and rule 2.7 states, in part, "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links"

IOW, you need to post your hypothesis here.

 

 

Quote

The electron pairs and the up quark pairs will both be held together by the weak force (which becomes larger then electromagnetic force at ultra high energies).

Why on earth would they do that? Is there any evidence that this actually happens?

[Hami Hashmi]

Ok here is the document.

 

 

 

 

Material

Material Type: Electromagnet

Material Magnetic Flux Density: ∞ Tesla

Material Saturation: ∞ Tesla

Material Permeability: ∞ H/m

Material Susceptibility: 0 emu

Material Energy Loss: 0 Mw/Kg

Material Force: ∞ kPa

Material Entropy: 0 J/K

Material Entropy Increase Rate: 0 J/K/yr

Material Atom Spin Sequence: Up: Down:

Material Atom Electron-Electron Separation: 0 m

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark-Electron-Electron Separation Radius: 1 fm

Material Atom Electron-Electron Separation: 0 m

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark-Electron-Electron Separation Radius: 1 fm

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Separation: 0 m

Material Atom Electron-Electron Acceleration: ∞ m/

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Acceleration: ∞ m/

Material Atom Electron-Electron Accelerator: Electron-Electron Pair

Material Atom Electron-Electron Accelerator: Up Quark-Up Quark Pair

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Accelerator: Up Quark-Up Quark Pair

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Accelerator: Electron-Electron Pair

Material Atom Electron-Electron Motion: Circular

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Motion: Circular

Material Atom Electron-Electron Nuclei Orbit Radius: 1 fm

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Electron-Electron Orbit Radius: 1 fm

Material Atom Electron-Electron Pairs Orbit: Synchronous

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Pairs Orbit: Synchronous

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Spin: ∞

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Spin Accelerator: Up Quark-Up Quark Pair

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Pairs Spin Rates: Synchronous

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark North-North Poles: Aligned

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark South-South Poles: Aligned

Material Atom Electron-Electron Spin: ∞

Material Atom Electron-Electron Spin Accelerator: Electron-Electron Pair

Material Atom Electron-Electron Pairs Spin Rates: Synchronous

Material Atom Electron-Electron North-North Poles: Aligned

Material Atom Electron-Electron South-South Poles: Aligned

Material Atom Electron-Electron Electric Dipole Moment: -∞ e/cm

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Electric Dipole Moment: ∞ e/cm

Material Atom Electron-Electron Magnetic Dipole Moment: -∞ A/  

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Magnetic Dipole Moment: ∞ A/  

Material Atom Electron-Electron Electric Polarizability: 0

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Electric Polarizability: 0  

Material Atom Electron-Electron Electric Charge: -∞ e

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Electric Charge: +∞ e

Material Atom Electron-Electron Mass: 1.82×  kg

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Mass: 8.20×  kg

Material Atom Electron-Electron Magnetic Polarizability: ∞

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Magnetic Polarizability: ∞

Material Atom Up Quark Radius: 0 m

Material Atom Up Quark Mass: 4.10×  kg

Material Atom Up Quark Electric Charge: +  e

Material Atom Up Quark Colour Charge: Yes

Material Atom Up Quark Spin:

Material Atom Up Quark Weak Isospin: LH = +     RH = 0

Material Atom Up Quark Weak Hypercharge: LH = +       RH = +  

Material Atom Electron Radius: 0 m

Material Atom Electron Mass: 9.10×  kg

Material Atom Electron Electric Charge: −1 e

Material Atom Electron Electric Dipole Moment: 10^-38 e/cm  

Material Atom Electron Magnetic Moment: −9.28×  J⋅

Material Atom Electron Spin:

Material Atom Electron Weak Isospin: LH = −     RH = 0

Material Atom Electron Weak Hypercharge: LH = -1      RH = −2

Material Atom Separation:  m

Material Atom Chemical Bond Strength: ∞ N

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Electron-Electron Attraction Force: Electromagnetic Force

Material Atom Up Quark-Up Quark Attraction Force: Weak Force

Material Atom Electron-Electron Attraction Force: Weak Force

Electromagnetic Field Carrier Particle: Photon

Photon Mass: 0 kg

Photon Charge: 0 e

Photon Spin: 1

Photon Parity: -1

Photon C Parity: -1

Weak Force Carrier Particle:  Boson

Weak Force Carrier Particle:  Boson

Weak Force Carrier Particle: Boson

 Boson Mass: 1.43112×  kg

 Boson Charge: -1 e

 Boson Spin: 1

 Boson Weak Isospin: -1

 Boson Weak Hypercharge: 0

 Boson Mass: 1.43112×  kg

 Boson Charge: +1 e

 Boson Spin: 1

 Boson Weak Isospin: 1

 Boson Weak Hypercharge: 0

Z Boson Mass: 1.62336×  kg

Z Boson Charge: 0 e

Z Boson Spin: 1

Z Boson Weak Isospin: 0

Z Boson Weak Hypercharge: 0

Material Atom Nuclei Up Quarks: 2

Material Atom Electrons: 2

Material Melting Point: ∞ K

Material Hardness: ∞ Mohs

Material Yield Strength: ∞ MPa

Material Tensile Strength: ∞ MPa

Material Toughness: ∞ J/

Material Stiffness: ∞ MPa

Material Density: 1 kg/

 

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator NoteI take this to mean you have some sort of proposal, but you should not be asking for people to open a document from an unknown source, and rule 2.7 states, in part, "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links"

IOW, you need to post your hypothesis here.

 

 

Why on earth would they do that? Is there any evidence that this actually happens?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162514/what-would-happen-if-two-electrons-fuse/162582#162582

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-strong-nuclear-force-stronger-than-the-weak-force.932685/#post-5890231

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

Ok here is the document.

That list of impossible properties makes little sense.

 

As you are apparently proposing a physically impossible thought experiment, then you can make up any results you want.  It is pure science fiction.

I think the most likely outcome is that dragons will fly out of your nose.

39 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162514/what-would-happen-if-two-electrons-fuse/162582#162582

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-strong-nuclear-force-stronger-than-the-weak-force.932685/#post-5890231

Neither of those provide any support for your claims.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Strange

[Hami Hashmi]

Ok just forget the document i posted, doesn't make much sense.

If you just take my first post is the material i gave in there theoretically possible?

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

If you just take my first post is the material i gave in there theoretically possible?

No

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/162514/what-would-happen-if-two-electrons-fuse/162582#162582

Not sure how a bunch of explanations that free electrons will never bond is evidence of your claim.

[Strange]

18 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

negative charges (electrons) fused together

You can't do that.

18 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

positive charges (up quarks) fused together

There are some mesons (particles formed from a pair of quarks) with a positive charge. But in this case, only one quark can be up, the other would have to be strange or bottom (to end up with unit charge). A few other combinations can produce a net positive charge (of +1). But these are all highly unstable.

I suppose it might be possible to form a very brief "pseudo atom" of an electron orbiting a meson (such a thing doesn't appear here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom) but it would have a very short lifetime.

19 hours ago, Hami Hashmi said:

so that the magnetic field would equal infinity

I don't see why that would be the case.

This might be the closest to your concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

[Hami Hashmi]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't do that.

There are some mesons (particles formed from a pair of quarks) with a positive charge. But in this case, only one quark can be up, the other would have to be strange or bottom (to end up with unit charge). A few other combinations can produce a net positive charge (of +1). But these are all highly unstable.

I suppose it might be possible to form a very brief "pseudo atom" of an electron orbiting a meson (such a thing doesn't appear here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom) but it would have a very short lifetime.

I don't see why that would be the case.

This might be the closest to your concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Well if the distance between the particles equals 0, then the electric field equals infinity as well as the magnetic field (since E is dependent of r and magnetic field is dependent on E).

I remember reading somewhere that the weak force becomes greater than the electromagnetic force for distances less than 10^-18 m so what I was thinking is if the particles could be smashed together that close, then the weak force would take over and contact the particles together, like gravity does to the particles in a singularity.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Hami Hashmi said:

Well if the distance between the particles equals 0

Well, it can't do. (After all protons are pretty large and yet they only contain three zero-sized marks.) For all sorts of reasons. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that the momentum would be infinite if the distance was zero. (See the thread about why an electron doesn't fall into the nucleus for more info.)

1 hour ago, Hami Hashmi said:

I remember reading somewhere that the weak force becomes greater than the electromagnetic force for distances less than 10^-18 m so what I was thinking is if the particles could be smashed together that close, then the weak force would take over and contact the particles together, like gravity does to the particles in a singularity.

The weak interaction is not really a force and it doesn't hold things together. And it wouldn't be able to overcome the massive kinetic energy you would need to give things to get them that close together. And any such system wouldn't be stable (after allow don't see any of this around us).

And gravitational singularities do not really exist.

 

But apart from every single aspect of it being impossible . . .

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Well, it can't do. (After all protons are pretty large and yet they only contain three zero-sized marks.) For all sorts of reasons. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that the momentum would be infinite if the distance was zero. (See the thread about why an electron doesn't fall into the nucleus for more info.)

The weak interaction is not really a force and it doesn't hold things together. And it wouldn't be able to overcome the massive kinetic energy you would need to give things to get them that close together. And any such system wouldn't be stable (after allow don't see any of this around us).

And gravitational singularities do not really exist.

 

But apart from every single aspect of it being impossible . . .

 

Strange, +1 for qualitative answers, in particular referring to the electonand the nucleus thread.

We could, of course, put some numbers to this, but avoiding the dreaded division by zero.

The De Broglie wavelength of an electron of mass m moving at velocity v is h/mv.

For a given (small ) region of space of size s, this wavelength must be smaller than s to say that the elctron is definitely within that region s.

For instance the nuclear radius is 1.5 x 10^-14 metres.

So to say that the electron is within this space means puts a lower limt on mv.

The value of h is 6.6 x 10^-34 joule-seconds and the mass of the electron is 9 x 10^-31 kilogrammes.

 

I will leave it as an exercise for hami to insert into the relationships and find the required velocities for any given small space s.

Prepared to be suprised.

[Hami Hashmi]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Well, it can't do. (After all protons are pretty large and yet they only contain three zero-sized marks.) For all sorts of reasons. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that the momentum would be infinite if the distance was zero. (See the thread about why an electron doesn't fall into the nucleus for more info.)

The weak interaction is not really a force and it doesn't hold things together. And it wouldn't be able to overcome the massive kinetic energy you would need to give things to get them that close together. And any such system wouldn't be stable (after allow don't see any of this around us).

And gravitational singularities do not really exist.

 

But apart from every single aspect of it being impossible . . .

How do gravitational singularities not exist?

Edited August 18, 2018 by Hami Hashmi

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

How do gravitational singularities not exist?

They are a consequence of "naively" extrapolating general relativity to an area where we are fairly sure it doesn't work. It is almost certain that a quantum theory of gravity will cause gravitational singularities (in both black holes and the Big Bang) to disappear.

[Hami Hashmi]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Strange, +1 for qualitative answers, in particular referring to the electonand the nucleus thread.

We could, of course, put some numbers to this, but avoiding the dreaded division by zero.

The De Broglie wavelength of an electron of mass m moving at velocity v is h/mv.

For a given (small ) region of space of size s, this wavelength must be smaller than s to say that the elctron is definitely within that region s.

For instance the nuclear radius is 1.5 x 10^-14 metres.

So to say that the electron is within this space means puts a lower limt on mv.

The value of h is 6.6 x 10^-34 joule-seconds and the mass of the electron is 9 x 10^-31 kilogrammes.

 

I will leave it as an exercise for hami to insert into the relationships and find the required velocities for any given small space s.

Prepared to be suprised.

I understand about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but if the particles in a black hole can bind together into a singularity then what about two point particles? 

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193954/do-black-holes-violate-the-uncertainty-principle

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

They are a consequence of "naively" extrapolating general relativity to an area where we are fairly sure it doesn't work. It is almost certain that a quantum theory of gravity will cause gravitational singularities (in both black holes and the Big Bang) to disappear.

Oh ok. But they have not actually been eliminated right?

Edited August 18, 2018 by Hami Hashmi

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

I understand about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but if the particles in a black hole can bind together into a singularity then what about two point particles? 

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193954/do-black-holes-violate-the-uncertainty-principle

 

I didn't mention the uncertainty principle.

Are you afraid to do the simple calcs?

 

Here is a simpler example.

 

My car is 17 foot long and my garage 12 foot long.

 

Could I close the door if I drove the car inside the garage?

Edited August 18, 2018 by studiot
spelling

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

I understand about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but if the particles in a black hole can bind together into a singularity then what about two point particles? 

1. They can't.

2. Under extreme conditions some things can occur that would not normally be possible. That is why I linked to degenerate matter and neutron stars earlier. 

4 minutes ago, Hami Hashmi said:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193954/do-black-holes-violate-the-uncertainty-principle

Yet more evidence that we need a theory of quantum gravity.

[Hami Hashmi]

Ok I see.