Kramer Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 “THREE ELECTRIC CHARGES” PARTICLE. (speculation ---- from Lay-man) Even thought I am sure that nobody will share my idea, which is totally in contradiction with everyday physic, I can’t help myself without give out what torments me at night.Have somebody asked himself why electron particle is associated with Compton wave? The same I can say about the proton? And what is a Compton wave, the kind that stands in a limited volume of space? Here is my thought: Exist a series of equations about energies of “particle of matter”: Ex = (e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * Rx) = mx * C^2 = h * ( C / (2 * pi / α) Rx) = h * fx ….’ Which are numerically the same, if we use the same radius. Where the energy of “whatever kind”, depends only by radius. I don’t understand why the idea of equivalence is categorically throw down, why the idea of interaction of two charges in one particle is refuted, why all kind of energies of a particle downgraded, except E = h / dt. if debate is about energy. The moderators of forum have throw down the idea of electric charge as unities that exist in a particle, and consider them as a property, not as a main constituent that define the structure of particle. In contrary I thought: In an elementary common particle exist three unities electric charges (“e”), one of anti mater, borrowed by space, and two of mater interacting with each other and with the “space” (the antimatter electric charge that exists in space).So if we see “ ε0 “ not only as a constant of nature, but as a compound of some physics sub-unities : F / m = C / ( U * m) where C = 1.602176…*10^-19 coulomb ( the electric charge “e”), and U * m as another physics sub - unity equal = 1.43996…* 10^-9 = V*1m ( the potential created by two electric charges in distance I meter), then: Ex * Rx = e * ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 ) = e * e / ( 4 * pi * e / V*1m) = e * V* 1m / 4*pi and Ex = e * V* 1m / 4*pi*Rx here Rx = λx / (2*pi / α) is Compton radius. I am eager to know where are my flaws, before I decide to continue further in my speculation.. So shoot.
Strange Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Ex = (e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * Rx) = mx * C^2 = h * ( C / (2 * pi / α) Rx) = h * fx I assume e is electron charge, rather than Eulers number? And C is c? What are Ex, Rx, mx and fx? And how did you find / derive these equations? I only recognise mc2. F / m = C / ( U * m) What are F, m, C and U? What is the derivation of this equation? Ex * Rx = e * ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 ) = e * e / ( 4 * pi * e / V*1m) = e * V* 1m / 4*pi What is V? here Rx = λx / (2*pi / α) is Compton radius. What is λx ? Is it one thing or λ * x ? What is the derivation of this equation? Is "Compton radius" the same as the classical electron radius? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
swansont Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 The moderators of forum have throw down the idea of electric charge as unities that exist in a particle, and consider them as a property, not as a main constituent that define the structure of particle. That would be the physics community which has done this, in which a subset of the resident experts and other contributors at SFN have membership. (Status as a moderator really has no bearing on this.) If you have evidence that "pure charge" has ever been observed, please share it. If you have a way of testing your hypothesis, please share it. And by "please" I mean that this is a requirement of the rules — you must have evidence or something that is (even if just in principle) testable. Doing this is a requirement for the conversation to continue.
Kramer Posted October 9, 2014 Author Posted October 9, 2014 StrangeI assume e is electron charge, rather than Eulers number?---- Yes. And C is c?---- Velocity. What are Ex, Rx, mx and fx? ---- x is index for the kind of particle. For electron particle index x = e Ee, Re, me, fe, means that they belong to electron particle. As are Ep, Rp… for proton. And how did you find / derive these equations? I only recognise mc2. ---- And why is imperative using of differentials or integrals as convincing arguments?You use them to show the road you go from beginning status to end status. But if you have beginning status and the end status why needs the road you have passed?Prove the equations. If they doesn’t are real discard them.You recognize only “m*C^2” ! Do you really know why this is true and the others not? And why is this in the form we use always? Only because was Einstein that formulate it, and the experiments have confirmed to be right. But why “m” and “C^2” ? What are F, m, C and U?----- F for farad, m for meter, U for volt. (the unities of electric charges, distances, electric potential. I am sure you know very well, but want kidding me. What is the derivation of this equation?---- And why needs a derivation. Have you any rebuttal, that they are not real? What is V?------ The unknown potential of two electric charges between one meter distance. Seems that this is an universal constant of space……?! What is λx ? Is it one thing or λ * x ?------ x is an index. For ex. λe Compton wave - length for electron particle. What is the derivation of this equation? ------ No needs for it. Is "Compton radius" the same as the classical electron radius?----Yes. And for all kind of elementary particles, derived from theirs Compton wavelength. http://en.wikipedia....electron_radius Swansont That would be the physics community which has done this, in which a subset of the resident experts and other contributors at SFN have membership. (Status as a moderator really has no bearing on this.) ------ This means that moderators have own physics view-points, in conformity of that of community and the subset, and against my speculations. Does that means that I must quit? Hum and haw….…. Have this to do with the asteric in my posts? If you have evidence that "pure charge" has ever been observed, please share it.----- Nope. Only that this “pure charge” exist in electron particle the same as in proton, pion , kaon …….. Which means that must be “pure” . If you have a way of testing your hypothesis, please share it. ----- For testing my hypothesis I have not any way, except that they fit about equivalence of energies. For throw down my hypothesis are enough, Alpha, Alpha2, and other programs of CERN that will pinpoint the absence of antigravity. If you have any simpler, please shoot. And by "please" I mean that this is a requirement of the rules — you must have evidence or something that is (even if just in principle) testable. Doing this is a requirement for the conversation to continue.------ Well, if requirement is so strict, that not permit even please, then cut the “conversation”
Strange Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Strange QUOTE BUTTON! ---- And why is imperative using of differentials or integrals as convincing arguments? I didn't mention differentials or integrals. You use them to show the road you go from beginning status to end status. But if you have beginning status and the end status why needs the road you have passed? Because I can't understand where the equations came from without a derivation. It is completely unhelpful to just write an equation down without explaining it. Do you really know why this is true and the others not? Because of the way it was derived. And because it has been tested by experiment. And why is this in the form we use always? Only because was Einstein that formulate it, and the experiments have confirmed to be right. It is nothing to do with Einstein. Anyone could have derived it. As you say, the experimental data is the important thing. You don't have either a derivation or any evidence. Therefore there is nothing to consider. But why “m” and “C^2” ? That is just the way the universe works. Why is a philosophical question. What are F, m, C and U?----- F for farad, m for meter, U for volt. (the unities of electric charges, distances, electric potential. I am sure you know very well, but want kidding me. I wasn't kidding. I thought it might be force, mass and velocity. Without any context it could have been anything. (We use V for volts where I live.) And why needs a derivation. Have you any rebuttal, that they are not real? With no derivation and no evidence, I assume you just made it up so there is nothing to rebut. You might as well have written F = λ + x2 * pi / h *c3 Just random symbols. ------ The unknown potential of two electric charges between one meter distance. Seems that this is an universal constant of space……?! That doesn't make sense. What is the derivation of this equation? ------ No needs for it. No need to take it seriously then. ----- For testing my hypothesis I have not any way Then it isn't science.
swansont Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 ! Moderator Note Insisting that others derive equations that you presented, or prove you wrong, is unacceptable. The burden of proof is on you. Further, you admit to having no evidence and no method of testing You don't fulfill the requirements of speculations. Closed.
Recommended Posts