The Nature of the Electron

[TrappedLight]

!

Moderator Note

The paper linked in this OP, 'http://physicsworld....rons-in-a-twist

http://phys.org/news182957628.html

external ref.

The origin of the Planck scale may be attributed to as

[math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math]

It is the classical or upper limit of both the gravitational and electromagnetic force, it is the grand unified force of black hole physics.

[math]F_P = \frac{c^4}{G} = 1.21027 \times 10^{44} N[/math]

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant

I also noticed, that if one wants full analogies of equations in Gaussian units, it changes the definition of the classical gravielectric fields.

 

 

 

 

I have noticed in my work, we have some gravitional analogue of electromagnetic laws appearing from the equations. I gave some of these examples in the OP. There are more and they help us define some new fields.

We will be working in Gaussian units for this part of the work and notice that under this system, the elementary charge is related to the gravitational charge as simply

1. [math]e = \sqrt{G}m[/math]

We know that the electric field is defined as

2. [math]\mathbf{E} = \frac{F}{e}[/math]

The gravitational analogue of this is

3. [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}m}[/math]

where [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] plays a role of the classical gravielectric field.

It isn't the gravitational constant, it is a new quantity I define for this work.

The Gravitational field of a stationary charge of [math]\sqrt{G}m[/math] is

4. [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{\sqrt{G}m}{r^2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}[/math]

We find an argument from this case by rewriting Newton's force law as5.

5. [math]F = \frac{\sqrt{G}m_1 \sqrt{G}m_2}{r^2}[/math]

and note that if one defines the gravitational charge as [math]\sqrt{G}m[/math] then one can say the charge is the source of a gravitational field

6. [math]\frac{\sqrt{G}m}{r^2}[/math]

Motz http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

You can also find a relationship of a type of gravimagnetic coupling by setting the coriolis field equal with the Lorentz force

7. [math]e(v \times \mathbf{B}) = 2m(\omega \times v)[/math]

where [math]\omega[/math] is the angular velocity, the quantity [math](\omega \times v)[/math] is the coriolis acceleration, it is in fact a determinant.

Dividing the gravitational charge on both sides yield

8. [math]v \times \mathbf{B} = \frac{2(\omega \times v)}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

Likewise, in Gaussian units, the Lorentz force associated with a gravitational charge would be

9. [math]F = \sqrt{G}m(v \times \mathbf{B})[/math]

You can combine this equation with the coupling of the charge with the gravimagnetic fields

10. [math]F = \sqrt{G}m(\frac{2(\omega \times v)}{\sqrt{G}})[/math]

Because there is a strong gravity assumed throughout this work, there might be a real coupling of gravitational and magnetic fields - a so-called frame-dragging is such a field.

This means we are considering the full poincare group (involving torsion [math]\Omega[/math]) for quantum systems where there is a presence of a strong gravitational coupling. Actually the torsion [math]\Omega[/math] appears in the theory taking the role of the angular velocity component [math]\omega[/math]. Usually this would appear as

11. [math]F = M(v \times \Omega)[/math]

The mechanical energy of a system with a spin in a torsion field is

12. [math]E = \frac{1}{2} \hbar \cdot \Omega[/math]

http://serg.fedosin.ru/tgpen.htm

I have changed the definition of [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] if anyone noticed. Normally the gravielectric field is given as

[math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{m}[/math]

However, the quantity which we define is

[math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}m}[/math]

As a full analogue of [math]\frac{F}{e}[/math] in Gaussian units. This means in Gaussian units, the full analogue allowing [math]e = \sqrt{G}m[/math] treats [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] not as a gravitational acceleration. Instead, it looks more like a gravimagnetic field than anything else with units of [math](v \times \mathbf{B})[/math].

The gravitational four force can be given as

[math]F_{\mu} = \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} u^{\mu} p^{\nu}[/math]

where [math]\Gamma[/math] is playing the role of the Christoffel symbols which play the role of the gravitational field. The quantity on the right

[math]\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} u^{\mu} p^{\nu}[/math]

has units of energy over a length. The upper limit of the force is calculated as

[math]F = \frac{Mc^2}{(\frac{Gm}{c^2})} = \frac{c^4}{G}[/math]

I actually speak about this quantity in the next paper, as the origin of the Planck scales and is an important quantity for the special case of the theorem. If the numerator describes the gravitational self-energy, this would have an order

[math]\frac{\hbar c}{(\frac{\hbar}{Mc})} = Mc^2[/math]

Edited October 9, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine

[TrappedLight]

Alright... it's been a while.. can I ask why it is in speculations?

I understand why many would speculate the idea involved. I do not understand why the general idea is not witheld.

The idea is hardly your general speculation, nor pseudoscience. I am by far apart the differences involved.

[swansont]

Alright... it's been a while.. can I ask why it is in speculations?

 

Is this mainstream, accepted physics, or at least widely discussed in mainstream journals?

[TrappedLight]

 

Is this mainstream, accepted physics, or at least widely discussed in mainstream journals?

 

 

The idea of a non-zero radius for an electron has been discussed for many years. I mean, I can see why part of the work is speculative, but none of the threads in the speculations section entertains a rigorous mathematical model. It's not all speculative. In fact, it's more of a hypothesis really.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

The idea of a non-zero radius for an electron has been discussed for many years. I mean, I can see why part of the work is speculative, but none of the threads in the speculations section entertains a rigorous mathematical model. It's not all speculative. In fact, it's more of a hypothesis really.

 

And that's why it's in speculations. Having it here is not meant to detract from your work, it's simply that it is not a part of mainstream science.

[ajb]

In fact, it's more of a hypothesis really.

You link the electric charge and Newton's constant via what you call the Heaviside relation. I think this is just a bastardization of the Planck charge. You have a system of units that numerically relates the electric charge to Newton's constant and try to draw out more meaning from this. Rubbish.

[TrappedLight]

You link the electric charge and Newton's constant via what you call the Heaviside relation. I think this is just a bastardization of the Planck charge. You have a system of units that numerically relates the electric charge to Newton's constant and try to draw out more meaning from this. Rubbish.

 

 

That particular equation is a consequence of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math].

 

[math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

The two terms [math]\hbar c[/math] and [math]GM^2[/math] are completely equivalent.

Edited September 19, 2013 by TrappedLight

[ajb]

That particular equation is a consequence of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math].

 

[math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

 

The two terms [math]\hbar c[/math] and [math]GM^2[/math] are completely equivalent.

Here M is the Planck mass and e the Planck charge right?

 

 

Again all you have really done is pick some convenient units and tried to extrapolate more meaning from them that you really can.

[TrappedLight]

It can be the Planck mass, it doesn't always need to be defined in such a way. For instance, the gravitational constant can be defined proportional to a pion mass

 

[math]G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^{2}_{\pi}}[/math]

 

And I haven't just ''picked out some units,'' I've already explained to you, [math]\hbar c[/math] and [math]GM^2[/math] are completely equivalent. Therefore

 

[math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}[/math]

 

must be a true statement if the equivalence is to hold.

Edited September 19, 2013 by TrappedLight

[ajb]

Absolute rubbish.

 

Look [math]\hbar c[/math] has some numerical value in some chosen units. [math]G[/math] has some numerical value in some chosen units. If you put these together as [math] \hbar c = G M^{2}[/math] then all you can do is fix the mass viz [math]\frac{\hbar c}{G} =M^{2}[/math]. Looks like the Planck mass to me!

 

The same for [math] e \propto M[/math]. If you set [math]e[/math] to be the fundamental charge then you have to fix [math]M[/math] accordingly. Or indeed of you set [math]e[/math] to some other value of charge (in whatever units) then you will fix [math]M[/math] in these units. Best just set [math]M[/math] to the Planck mass and get the Planck charge.

 

This just gives you a convenient unit system, one that is probably useful in Einstein-Maxwell theory.

[swansont]

It can be the Planck mass, it doesn't always need to be defined in such a way. For instance, the gravitational constant can be defined proportional to a pion mass

 

[math]G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^{2}_{\pi}}[/math]

 

But it isn't true for the pion mass.

 

[math]\sqrt{ \frac{\hbar c}{G}}[/math] is of order 10^19 GeV. Pion mass is under 140 MeV. There's 20 orders of magnitude difference!

[TrappedLight]

 

But it isn't true for the pion mass.

 

[math]\sqrt{ \frac{\hbar c}{G}}[/math] is of order 10^19 GeV. Pion mass is under 140 MeV. There's 20 orders of magnitude difference!

 

 

I knew I had it written down somewhere:

 

 

[math]\frac{ hc}{M_{\pi}^{2}} = 3.2 \times 10^{30}m^3kg^{-1}s^{-2}[/math]

 

 

This is a strong gravitational constant, written in terms of the pion mass.

Absolute rubbish.

 

Look [math]\hbar c[/math] has some numerical value in some chosen units. [math]G[/math] has some numerical value in some chosen units. If you put these together as [math] \hbar c = G M^{2}[/math] then all you can do is fix the mass viz [math]\frac{\hbar c}{G} =M^{2}[/math]. Looks like the Planck mass to me!

 

The same for [math] e \propto M[/math]. If you set [math]e[/math] to be the fundamental charge then you have to fix [math]M[/math] accordingly. Or indeed of you set [math]e[/math] to some other value of charge (in whatever units) then you will fix [math]M[/math] in these units. Best just set [math]M[/math] to the Planck mass and get the Planck charge.

 

This just gives you a convenient unit system, one that is probably useful in Einstein-Maxwell theory.

 

 

That all heavily depends on what mass you are using, or even what gravitational constant you are using. Nothing is fixed.

[swansont]

 

 

I knew I had it written down somewhere:

 

 

[math]\frac{ hc}{M_{\pi}^{2}} = 3.2 \times 10^{30}m^3kg^{-1}s^{-2}[/math]

 

 

This is a strong gravitational constant, written in terms of the pion mass.

 

 

I see. This ends any discussion of why this is in speculations, then.

[TrappedLight]

 

I see. This ends any discussion of why this is in speculations, then.

 

 

Well, I did say that I was using a model where gravity gets strong at smaller and smaller levels - one of the main reasons for doing this was so that the gravitational field inside of the particle would act as a Poincare Stress.

[ajb]

That all heavily depends on what mass you are using, or even what gravitational constant you are using. Nothing is

Not so much the mass then, but you have a variable G theory. That clearly puts your thread in speculations.

 

Even so, I am not really convinced there is any physics in the Heaviside equation.

[TrappedLight]

Not so much the mass then, but you have a variable G theory. That clearly puts your thread in speculations.

 

Even so, I am not really convinced there is any physics in the Heaviside equation.

 

 

Oh there is definitely real physics involved with the Heaviside equation. For instance, the fine structure constant can be defined from the equation by making it into a meaningful and physical dimensionless subject

 

[math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

 

Or if you want to speak about it in terms of the gravitational charge

 

[math]\frac{GM^2}{\hbar c}[/math]

 

When in the special condition of talking about Planck units, the latter has an important meaning [math](t_p \omega_C)^2[/math] where we are dealing with the Planck time.

 

The dimensionless case appears very frequently in strong gravity cases http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-06.PDF

[ajb]

Oh there is definitely real physics involved with the Heaviside equation.

So where does the Heaviside equation come form?

 

It looks to me to really be a simple combination of things such that the units match.

[TrappedLight]

So where does the Heaviside equation come form?

 

It looks to me to really be a simple combination of things such that the units match.

 

First of all, the Heaviside relationship is

 

[math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c[/math]

 

 

We are understanding first of all, that the equation

 

[math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon GM^2[/math]

 

is a consequence of finding an exact equivalence of

 

[math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math]

 

This condition is reached from the Weyl Principle of Gauge invariance.

[ajb]

First of all, the Heaviside relationship is

 

[math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c[/math]

 

That is the Planck charge right? Everything on the right is given in terms if fundamental constants. The choice of e here is poor as this cannot be the fundamental charge, unless the RHS is not what it looks like.

 

We are understanding first of all, that the equation

 

[math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon GM^2[/math]

 

is a consequence of finding an exact equivalence of

 

[math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math]

Again, this looks just like the Planck mass, but you have stated that we now have a variable G, but you should give some indication of what it depends on. The physics here is unclear to me.

 

This condition is reached from the Weyl Principle of Gauge invariance.

This you will have to explain to me carefully. What has your relations and a variable G got to do with gauge invariance?

[TrappedLight]

 

 

That is the Planck charge right? Everything on the right is given in terms if fundamental constants. The choice of e here is poor as this cannot be the fundamental charge, unless the RHS is not what it looks like.

 

 

Again, this looks just like the Planck mass, but you have stated that we now have a variable G, but you should give some indication of what it depends on. The physics here is unclear to me.

 

 

This you will have to explain to me carefully. What has your relations and a variable G got to do with gauge invariance?

 

 

It doesn't need to be a Planck Charge. We notice that when we study

 

[math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

 

here [math]e[/math] is almost never defined as the Planck Charge in the fine structure constant. In fact, [math]e[/math] is defined as an electron charge in almost all cases I have seen.

 

 

''Again, this looks just like the Planck mass, but you have stated that we now have a variable G, but you should give some indication of what it depends on. The physics here is unclear to me.''

 

When you say ''we now have a variable G'' you make it sound like I am making this up as we go along. I have always had a variable [math]G[/math] in my theory, you just never bothered to read my work.

 

 

''This you will have to explain to me carefully. What has your relations and a variable G got to do with gauge invariance? ''

 

 

You know... I don't have to do all the work for you. If you had followed the work, read the links given, I wouldn't need to explain this.

 

The equation [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] is noted by Motz as being derivable from the weyl principle of Gauge invariance, ref http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

 

 

I used to have the paper in which it was derived, but I no longer have it. I only have this original paper reference. I also know of a few other papers which refer back to this exact condition.

 

 

It doesn't need to be a Planck Charge. We notice that when we study

 

[math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

 

here [math]e[/math] is almost never defined as the Planck Charge in the fine structure constant. In fact, [math]e[/math] is defined as an electron charge in almost all cases I have seen.

 

 

''Again, this looks just like the Planck mass, but you have stated that we now have a variable G, but you should give some indication of what it depends on. The physics here is unclear to me.''

 

When you say ''we now have a variable G'' you make it sound like I am making this up as we go along. I have always had a variable [math]G[/math] in my theory, you just never bothered to read my work.

 

 

''This you will have to explain to me carefully. What has your relations and a variable G got to do with gauge invariance? ''

 

 

You know... I don't have to do all the work for you. If you had followed the work, read the links given, I wouldn't need to explain this.

 

The equation [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] is noted by Motz as being derivable from the weyl principle of Gauge invariance, ref http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

 

 

I used to have the paper in which it was derived, but I no longer have it. I only have this original paper reference. I also know of a few other papers which refer back to this exact condition.

 

The physics of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] is changed in this theory so that the gravitational constant plays the role of strong gravity, we therefore can adjust the mass term for other particle masses as was seen above, you can derive a proportionality between the constants and the pion mass.

 

[math]\Gamma = \frac{\hbar c}{M_{\pi}^{2}}[/math]

 

where gamma is playing the role of the strong gravitational constant.

 

The mass term will become the Planck mass term in the special condition of high energy physics where black hole particles are taken into consideration.

Edited September 20, 2013 by TrappedLight

[ajb]

It doesn't need to be a Planck Charge. We notice that when we study

 

[math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math]

 

here [math]e[/math] is almost never defined as the Planck Charge in the fine structure constant. In fact, [math]e[/math] is defined as an electron charge in almost all cases I have seen.

Sure, but that is not what you quoted earlier. You set some fundamental constant equal to each other. This is why I scratch my head!

 

When you say ''we now have a variable G'' you make it sound like I am making this up as we go along. I have always had a variable [math]G[/math] in my theory, you just never bothered to read my work.

Okay, you have a variable G. This by itself does not seem to me to motivate your use of the Heaviside equation, but I accept I could be missing something here.

 

 

You know... I don't have to do all the work for you. If you had followed the work, read the links given, I wouldn't need to explain this.

You only mention that you pick a circular gauge, that is all.

 

 

So, if you don't want to discuss this then that is fine, but this is meant to be a discussion forum.

[TrappedLight]

You only mention that you pick a circular gauge, that is all.

 

 

So, if you don't want to discuss this then that is fine, but this is meant to be a discussion forum.

 

 

Yes but much later, when I try to look at the gravitational charge in terms of electromagnetic properties, the same way one can only reason that if all particles are actually made up of electromagnetic energy, then their gravitational charge terms will be also a product of electromagnetic features of the theory.

 

I am fine with discussing it, but I need a bit of effort from both sides. Remember how you entered my thread, it wasn't particularly nice, but that's life. Now you understand that this isn't so much the mass, or being constrained by Planck Parameters. We have a bit more of a complicated theory involving a strong gravitational constant at smaller distances of space and time. This was vital in my theory to be a mechanism or origin of the Poincare stresses which are vital because they are absolutely needed in my theory, indeed, any semi-classical model of the electron would require it.

Edited September 20, 2013 by TrappedLight

[ajb]

Remember how you entered my thread, it wasn't particularly nice, but that's life.

I simply pointed out that you seem to have written nothing but the Planck charge!

 

Now you understand that this isn't so much the mass, or being constrained by Planck Parameters.

So you allow a variable G. You must understand that this will get questioned.

[TrappedLight]

So you allow a variable G. You must understand that this will get questioned.

 

There are some really nice perks with having a variable gravitational constant.

 

For starters, we can be biased about a particular scale property of G. The value of G would depend on either a cosmological scale or a particle scale. It's a nice feature of the theory for two reasons

 

1) That it explains why gravity is normally detected very weak on our scale of things

 

2) It takes on a massive value [math]\frac{\hbar c}{M^2}[/math] inside of particles, to orders of [math]G \cdot 10^{40}[/math] neutralizing the internal coulomb stresses.

 

Not sure how this would implement into my theory, even if it could, but this source claims [math]G^{-1}[/math] is a scalar theory of gravity which doesn't need to be constant

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/scalar-tensor

 

Of course, I need to be careful what the change is in respect to the theory. The change of G for strong gravity depends on getting to smaller and smaller spacetime distances/intervals. It probably isn't the same kind of varying G as found, for instance, here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-rupert-sheldrake/how-the-gravitational-constant-varies_b_2479456.html and even here http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf but of course, if G varies in those circumstances, why can't there be a varying of G as distances are reduced to particle scales?

Edited September 20, 2013 by TrappedLight

[Kramer]

 

The opinion of a lay -- man.
I eagerly hopped a break throw, I am sorry to tell that I am disappointed.
Even I sensed that all this is nothing else but the old try to throw out of scene the concepts of mass - radius and to explain them with mean of pure energy (light), in your paper you continue to play with G*M.
So like that you or not, the elephant stay in room.
Some question from an ignorant:
With who will interact your photon (h -- even with tire), to change direction in it’s movement? With it self ? And you think that this may create a particle?
In fact you allude about a huge G. It comes from where?
But maybe this is very subtle for a lay -- man. So I hush in this direction. When there are some hundred kinds of fields why not a Huge?
I understand that my post will irritate you,
I sincerely hopped that you may have an idea “to pacify” two extreme: h and Mplank (extrapolated toward fact electric charge). I hoped because your paper seems crafted by a specialist.
And to give you a case to joke with an idiot like me , listen my suggestion:
Try an equation of interactions between three photons the frequency of which are :

fe = ( fplank * fg)^05 . here ---- fg = (G*mx / rx ) / ((2*pi/α) *rx) is a crazy speculation.
Maybe the solving of this equation will give all kind of particles.