Electric charge – a different approach

[Ghideon]

The introduction seems to claim that photon energy hv equals the energy given by E=mc². Please clarify how it is valid in physics to do so.

(accessing the forum by phone, I don’t have time to figure out how to quote from the pdf attached )

Edited August 1, 2022 by Ghideon
Clarified a sentence

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Glad to see you dear membres!

Meanwhile, I completed my theory, even accompanied by mathematical calculations.

Please kindly take a critical look at it.

Thank you

electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf 1.6 MB · 3 downloads

!

Moderator Note

Post the information here, as required by the rules

 

[MigL]

A new approach ???
I don't think so.

Three times you've come back, posted a PDF against forum rules, and got repremanded.

Seems like the exact same approach to me.
You don't learn very quickly, do you 😄 ?

Edited August 1, 2022 by MigL

[MavricheAdrian]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:19 PM, studiot said:

 

What a short memory you have.

You were told, right at the beginning to post the main material here, not as a link.

But here you go again.

 

Hi Studiot,

This is what I have done "choose file".

 

electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

On 8/2/2022 at 12:56 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Post the information here, as required by the rules

 

Hi Swansont, 

This is what I have done "choose file".

electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

On 8/1/2022 at 10:25 PM, Ghideon said:

The introduction seems to claim that photon energy hv equals the energy given by E=mc². Please clarify how it is valid in physics to do so.

(accessing the forum by phone, I don’t have time to figure out how to quote from the pdf attached )

Hi Ghideon,

I didn't talk about photon energy, but two different mathematical formulas describing the same thing, that is, energy.

electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

On 8/2/2022 at 1:28 AM, MigL said:

A new approach ???
I don't think so.

Three times you've come back, posted a PDF against forum rules, and got repremanded.

Seems like the exact same approach to me.
You don't learn very quickly, do you 😄 ?

Hi Migl,

This is what I have done "choose file".

electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

[Ghideon]

25 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I didn't talk about photon energy, but two different mathematical formulas describing the same thing, that is, energy.

Then please explain how it is valid in physics to state that those two equations are equal .

Edited August 4, 2022 by Ghideon
Grammar

[MavricheAdrian]

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Then please explain how it is valid in physics to state that those two equations are equal .

Both describe energy....

 

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Hi Swansont, 

This is what I have done "choose file".

!

Moderator Note

What you have done does not comply with the rules. From 2.7 of our guidelines:

Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

MavricheAdrian, you need to copy whatever you want us to look at (COPY), and then paste it here on the forum (PASTE). The members don't want to have to open documents or visit links they don't trust, so it's a rule we have. We've been all over this before, like three times. Can you do whatever you did before (perhaps read the whole thread again). It makes it much easier to address specific sections if it's posted HERE.

 

[MavricheAdrian]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

MavricheAdrian, you need to copy whatever you want us to look at (COPY), and then paste it here on the forum (PASTE). The members don't want to have to open documents or visit links they don't trust, so it's a rule we have. We've been all over this before, like three times. Can you do whatever you did before (perhaps read the whole thread again). It makes it much easier to address specific sections if it's posted HERE.

 

Hi Phi for All,

I used what is at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files...", If I do "COOPY" and "PASTE", the drawings do not load. 

[Ghideon]

18 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Both describe energy....

 

That does not answer the question.

[MavricheAdrian]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

What you have done does not comply with the rules. From 2.7 of our guidelines:

Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

 

Hi swansont,

As I was telling Phi for All, I used what is at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files...", If I do "COOPY" and "PASTE", the drawings do not load. 

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That does not answer the question.

I do not understand why?

There are two forms of energy, which can change one into the other...

I don't see where the problem is?

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

As I was telling Phi for All, I used what is at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files...", If I do "COOPY" and "PASTE", the drawings do not load. 

Try using the copy and paste functions on your computer to give us the text. Or type it in by hand, if you must. But simply attaching a file is insufficient.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I do not understand why?

There are two forms of energy, which can change one into the other...

I don't see where the problem is?

I’ll try to explain once the material is posted in a format that can be quoted. 

[MavricheAdrian]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Try using the copy and paste functions on your computer to give us the text. Or type it in by hand, if you must. But simply attaching a file is insufficient.

If I use the function of "Coopy" and "PASTE", I can't load the drawings.

However, I don't understand why there is a function at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files..."?

[Phi for All]

21 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

If I use the function of "Coopy" and "PASTE", I can't load the drawings.

!

Moderator Note

Copy from your original Word doc, drawings and all, then Paste it here. Do everyone a favor and Paste two or three pages at a time, so comments can be made before we move on to the next. There's a LOT to comment on.

 

[swansont]

22 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

However, I don't understand why there is a function at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files..."?

It’s so you can upload pictures. You aren’t obligated to use that feature. You are obligated to post material for discussion. 

Take Phi’s suggestion and do it in parts, so nobody gets bogged down.

[MavricheAdrian]

On 8/5/2022 at 8:17 PM, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Copy from your original Word doc, drawings and all, then Paste it here. Do everyone a favor and Paste two or three pages at a time, so comments can be made before we move on to the next. There's a LOT to comment on.

 

 

            Abstract:

.

              Starting from the similarity between an electric field with a gravitational field, it is demonstrated why (and how) the elementary electrical charge has this value.

              It is a parallel theory with that of quantum mechanics and is trying in an approximately-simplistic manner to describe the world of atomic processes.

 

             Keywords: elementary electrical charge; physical field; space-time; inflation – astronomy      (General relativity) ; mechanical work; oscillation(vibration); gravity; the constant of the fine structure;

 

 

 

 

   I. Introduction:

            In general we find many articles relating to (and about) electrical charge, but nowhere does it say from where it has this value, it’s being considered an intrinsic property of elementary particles.

[It will be considered as elementary particles, only those particles that have a "real existence",  namely, those which have a bigger life of, let's say, 5 min, - therefore, the electron, the proton and the neutron - the other particles live such a short time, disintegrating almost instantaneously after it's being formed,  so that we do not know if it can be considered particles or only "resonances" (oscillations) of determined energy[6].                                                                                                                                                                               "Confusion" between the action of an oscillation with the action of a "mass", we find it in Einstein's famous formulas of the energy too, namely ε = m and ε = hν. Describing the energy, they can be considered equal, namely m=hν. But we notice that on each side of equality there is a constant and one variable. So, by reducing constants, which are always the same, the variables will remain, that is m≈ ν,  which means that the action of a mass, in our case of a one particle, can be confused with the action of a oscillation, and vice versa.                                                                                                                                                                                     It is also known that the proton and the neutron have an internal structure (quarks), but its are considered in all experiments as the standalone particles [1], therefore this is how it will be considerated also in this case.]

              II.  Basic Ideas:            

             In this material is starting from the similarity between electric field and the gravitational field, and without contradicting or entering into conflicting with quantum mechanics, it will be explain "why" the elementary electrical charge has this value.

               III. Grounds for the study:

            Between the gravitational field and the electric field, both with sources at rest, we will find the following:

 - similarities:                                                               

-          the mathematical formulas of the two physical fields (of the fields forces) are similars – directly proportional with the masses (respectively with the electrical charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the distances [3];

-          the intensities of both fields are described by similar mathematical formulas;

-          and I would add, as manifestations of the fields:

- different masses (under the influence of the unique gravitational field), local, have the same   

   (gravitational) acceleration - it moves identically in the field) [2] [4];

- different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) [1];

           - electric force, it may seem described by the geometry of space-time (as well as gravity), from Coulomb's formula, as follows:

              - we have the description of electric charges from the formula of the fine structure constant:

                      ,

                    we replace in Coulomb's formula:

                         on  and we have =   ⇒ =              (I),

                   where:

                       •  it is the constant of fine structure;

                       •  it is electric charge;

                       •  it is a mathematical constant;

                       •  is the permittivity in vacuum (or free space);

                       • c it is the speed of light in vacuum;

                       •  it is Planck's constant;

                       •  it is the reduced Planck's constant  (also called the Dirac constant);

                       •  it is the electric force, “which occurs between two particles with electric charge”;

                       •  it is the distance between particles;

           From the formula (1), it is observed that what we call electric force, it also exists in the absence of any charge carrier, it (the electric force) seeming more of an "environmental manifestation". As everything happens in an empty space, means that the electric force becomes (according to formula 1) a manifestation of the space-time membrane.

 - differences:

           - gravitational forces are just attractive [2];

           - electric forces can be both, attractive and repulsive [6];

   Since the similarities between the two fields are very high, it will apply what is known about the gravitational field [2], and to the electrical field, namely, to give it to the latter, a form which will be described by space-time geometry.

   If we were to simplistically interpret the gravitational field (which is just attractive), in the presence of the masses [2], the geometric shape of the space-time curve would be (let's call it positive curvature – downward) as in fig.1.

.

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

- electric force, it may seem described by the geometry of space-time (as well as gravity), from Coulomb's formula, as follows:

              - we have the description of electric charges from the formula of the fine structure constant:

                      ,

                    we replace in Coulomb's formula:

                         on  and we have =   ⇒ =              (I),

                   where:

                       •  it is the constant of fine structure;

                       •  it is electric charge;

                       •  it is a mathematical constant;

                       •  is the permittivity in vacuum (or free space);

                       • c it is the speed of light in vacuum;

                       •  it is Planck's constant;

                       •  it is the reduced Planck's constant  (also called the Dirac constant);

                       •  it is the electric force, “which occurs between two particles with electric charge”;

                       •  it is the distance between particles;

I think some parts may be missing in the equation.

[MigL]

9 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

   the mathematical formulas of the two physical fields (of the fields forces) are similars – directly proportional with the masses (respectively with the electrical charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the distances [3];

That is a weak field limit of the gravitational field.
Newton's relation is only valid as an approximation; GR will give much more exact results, except at small scales/hi energies.

The 'similarities' are meaningless.

[MavricheAdrian]

On 8/13/2022 at 2:52 PM, Bufofrog said:

I think some parts may be missing in the equation.

Hi Bufofrog!

Yes it is true. Unfortunately, formulas are not loaded through copy-paste.

On 8/13/2022 at 6:38 PM, MigL said:

That is a weak field limit of the gravitational field.
Newton's relation is only valid as an approximation; GR will give much more exact results, except at small scales/hi energies.

The 'similarities' are meaningless.

Hi MigL!

Similarity does not mean "the same".

The 'similarities' are not meaningless, if you read the material to the end, to understand why I referred to the similarities between the two physical fields

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by MavricheAdrian