What actually is 'charge'?

[querious]

Gravity acts on mass and only acts on mass, without mass, there is no gravitational effect.

What about when light bends around the sun?

[querious]

Irregardless, when you start delving into the " particles" and "virtual photons", i wonder if you might even perhaps define those ?
-seasmith

Wikipedia has a decent intro to virtual particles... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Again, i like the table of "System Analogies" (are you an/the author ?).

- I'm not an author.

One naturally wonders how and why though, on the fundamental quantum level referenced by your formula:

"a", as in the fine structure constant. -querious

voltage-current/velocity-force and current-voltage/velocity-force equivalencies may both be valid?

On a fundamental level, they're not; only mathematically. Charge can't be momentum AND displacement at the same time; in reality, it's one or the other. That's why I think choosing the right topology is the key to the question "What ACTUALLY is charge?". I've wondered the same thing for many years. I personally am convinced it's momentum.

We have definite quantities for mass (leptons), velocity (c), angular momentum (h). The obvious fundamental quantity missing from the list is momentum (Q). By the way: h=mvr, and h=charge x mag. flux.

Querious

[Michael V]

querious,

What about when light bends around the sun?

Are you suggesting that light does not have mass?

Michael

[Michael V]

tharkun,

Why is Equivalence Principle incorrect? You state it, but do nothing to support or explain this statement. Are you saying someone in Einstein's theoretical spaceship WOULD be able to tell the difference between a 1g acceleration up due to an engine and a 1g acceleration down due to gravity? How and why?

You do realise that a gravity well would only accelerate you at 1g at one specific distance (i.e. value of r). Acceleration in a gravity well increases with decreasing distance, so it is not a constant acceleration. Obviously the equivalence scenario assumes a rocket's ability to simulate this, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

No, I don't suppose a poor pathetic human would easily tell the difference. Gravity is caused by a random particle field - there is no other possible explanation. As such, there is a difference in the application of accelerative force: a rocket pushing the spaceship relies on the structural integrity of the ship's construction to convey force to the entire spaceship; a gravity well is pushing every single sub-atomic particle as a separate entity. There is are an inertial difference. In a gravity well the contents of the spaceship are all being separately accelerated by the field - the accelerative force is coming directly from the field in which each and every part of the spaceship is travelling.

Gravity as magic or as a causeless geometrical curvature of nothing with no inertial motion inherent in the mathematical construction of said imagined curvature of nothing might be equivalent. Gravity with a physical cause would not be equivalent.

"Any principle of relativity prescribes a symmetry in natural law: that is, the laws must look the same to one observer as they do to another."

Why would anyone ever believe this to be true? What have "observers" got to do with the operation of the universe? How incredibly foolish.

Michael

[querious]

querious,

What about when light bends around the sun?

Are you suggesting that light does not have mass?

Michael

Are you suggesting it does? If so, what is your evidence?

[Michael V]

querious,

Of course it does.

Evidence 1: it exists
Evidence 2: it has energy, which is measured in work units such that E=1/2mv2, without mass there can be no energy. Momentum, force and energy are all defined by mass (and velocity).

Michael

[querious]

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

Protons attract due to the residual strong force, not gravity.

[querious]

Gravity as magic or as a causeless geometrical curvature of nothing with no inertial motion inherent in the mathematical construction of said imagined curvature of nothing might be equivalent. Gravity with a physical cause would not be equivalent.

I really don't understand how you can be so down on GR when Einstein was able to compute the perihelion of Mercury, or the right amount of deflection of starlight around the sun (TWICE what Newtonian gravity alone would predict), or even more amazing, predicting the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment (try doing THAT with a particulate theory!)

Querious

[Michael V]

querious,

The most dense atomic material is Osmium at 22,570 kg m-3 . The density of a proton is 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg m-3 and neutron density 292,373,784,320,375,000 kg m-3. The strong force is gravity - the gravitational effect between nucleons.

SR is logically flawed at a very deep level. The concept of mass energy equivalence is superstition. GR and Riemannian spacetime are equally bogus.

Einstein was able to compute the perihelion of Mercury

Fudged result made myth.

the right amount of deflection of starlight around the sun

Unconfirmed and unproven with no details of a physical cause or explanation.

(TWICE what Newtonian gravity alone would predict)

Newtonian gravity doesn't predict any bending of light - so twice nothing.

or even more amazing, predicting the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment

I am unconvinced by the relativistic interpretation of the data.



Michael

[tharkun]

F is not the same as g, what are you talking about? g is an acceleration, g is the same as a.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood the post. I thought you were arguing that gravity was not an acceleration but a force. Forces and accelerations are measured in different units and some argue that gravity is a force rather than an acceleration.

So its a mathematical fudge of convenience that is entirely the opposite of the physical process.

Michael

How is it a mathematical fudge to reverse a vector sign for convenience? Signs are irrelevant when we’re analyzing the absolute values. And how do you know that it is “opposite the physical process”? There is no way you could possibly know this, only assume it.

You do realise that a gravity well would only accelerate you at 1g at one specific distance (i.e. value of r). Acceleration in a gravity well increases with decreasing distance, so it is not a constant acceleration. Obviously the equivalence scenario assumes a rocket's ability to simulate this, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

Of course I do, but it has nothing to do with my question to you.

No, I don't suppose a poor pathetic human would easily tell the difference. Gravity is caused by a random particle field - there is no other possible explanation.

Really?!? You have experimentally falsified every other possible mechanism for gravity? Where is your research published for perusal and critique? How does a ‘random particle field’ produce attraction?

As such, there is a difference in the application of accelerative force: a rocket pushing the spaceship relies on the structural integrity of the ship's construction to convey force to the entire spaceship; a gravity well is pushing every single sub-atomic particle as a separate entity. There is are an inertial difference. In a gravity well the contents of the spaceship are all being separately accelerated by the field - the accelerative force is coming directly from the field in which each and every part of the spaceship is travelling.

Poppycock, whether the rocket is moving at 1g through space or sitting on the rocket pad with 1g pulling down, both rely on structural rigidity of the ship to convey the force by way of the sub-atomic particles. Otherwise you would experience acceleration on some parts and not others (F = ma, after all) The Equivalence Principle is correct as Einstein conceived it; there is no difference between a dynamic 1g acceleration up or a static 1g acceleration down. Gravity is an acceleration that causes forces, but is not a force itself. We may not be able to measure gravity absent from mass and the resulting force that they together create; but that’s not the same as saying gravity is a force. Newton’s Gravitational equation is a unified field equation and doesn’t define solo gravity (which is why it looks so much like the Coulomb equation – both contain charge and gravity combined). Since accelerations are dependent only on distances, and gravity is an acceleration, gravity must also only be dependent on distances. The mass applies to the density of the charge field and not gravity.

Gravity as magic or as a causeless geometrical curvature of nothing with no inertial motion inherent in the mathematical construction of said imagined curvature of nothing might be equivalent. Gravity with a physical cause would not be equivalent.
wiki wrote:"Any principle of relativity prescribes a symmetry in natural law: that is, the laws must look the same to one observer as they do to another."

Why would anyone ever believe this to be true? What have "observers" got to do with the operation of the universe? How incredibly foolish.

That, I can agree with. I don’t follow the mathematical/geometric excuse for gravity either.

tharkun

[seasmith]

WHATBCHARGE ?

querious wrote:
Wikipedia has a decent intro to virtual particles... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

A rather wiki dodge there...

. Charge can't be momentum AND displacement at the same time; in reality, it's one or the other.

Didn't say simultaneously.

I've wondered the same thing for many years. I personally am convinced it's momentum.

We have

definite quantities for mass (leptons), velocity (c), angular momentum (h). The obvious fundamental quantity missing from the list is momentum (Q). By the way: h=mvr, and h=charge x mag. flux.

Starting to go helicic now,

Momentum, force and energy are all defined by mass (and velocity). querious

and finally full circular reasoning-
Momentum, break it down, it encompasses duration so already it is secondary, or maybe tertiary anon.

Not trying to throw you off that mass point with the foundational questions.
But it was worth an ask. Want to give your h=charge x mag. flux" some transparency ?

que ri s

[querious]

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

and...

The most dense atomic material is Osmium at 22,570 kg m-3 . The density of a proton is 584,077,213,866,672,000 kg m-3 and neutron density 292,373,784,320,375,000 kg m-3. The strong force is gravity - the gravitational effect between nucleons.
Michael

Assuming a separation of 2 proton radii, the gravitational attractive force between 2 protons is only about 6 X 10^-35 N, while the repulsive electrical force is about 75 N.

As you can see, they don't quite match.

[querious]

. Charge can't be momentum AND displacement at the same time; in reality, it's one or the other.

Didn't say simultaneously.

I was pointing out that you were correct to "naturally wonder why both equivalencies may both be valid?" My point was that, because we never DEMAND understanding of the fundamental quantities involved, we can happily apply both analogies. But if we desire an answer to the question posed by this forum topic, we have to pick one of the analogies and follow where it leads. One leads to charge as momentum (the force-current analogy), and the other leads to charge as displacement (the force-voltage analogy).

Choosing "charge as momentum" one can use the same circuit topology in mechanical and electrical systems. With the hypothesis that charge is some kind of "potential momentum", one can ask what relativistic mass that implies. It happens to be very close the lepton unit mass.

[querious]

Momentum, force and energy are all defined by mass (and velocity). querious

Michael said that, not me. I actually think momentum is at least as fundamental as mass. Heck, the only reason some particles have mass, and not pure momentum like photons, is they interact with the Higgs field (as far as current understanding goes).

Want to give your h=charge x mag. flux" some transparency?

See the 2nd entry here for the Magnetic Flux Quantum.

I just rearranged it so h was by itself. Since we know both h=mv X r, AND h/2=charge X mag. flux, it's one more piece of evidence we're on the right track, but I guess it could be considered circular.

Dave

[Michael V]

querious,

Assuming a separation of 2 proton radii, the gravitational attractive force between 2 protons is only about 6 X 10^-35 N, while the repulsive electrical force is about 75 N.

I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to explain how you derived those values. Despite my assertions below, I am genuinely most interested in the exact method of your equational calculations.

There are many disastrous superstitions presently paraded by the (un)scientific establishment as "fact". Amongst the very worst is: The Newtonian gravitational constant is valid at the sub-atomic level.
Atomic matter is 99.999999999984% empty space with the mass "carriers" (electrons, protons and neutrons) occupying the remaining 0.000000000016% of the volume. Clearly, atomic matter contains very little mass for gravity to act upon, and gravity only acts on mass. Why, oh why, oh why, do intelligent people allow themselves to believe that the Newtonian gravitational constant is valid at the sub-atomic level, where the mass density that gravity can actually act upon is so much larger.

I also take issue with your reference to repulsive "electrical" force. The notion of "electrical" as a spooky kind of magic is another of the sins of the (un)scientific establishment. There is no such thing as "electrical" - all action is purely kinetic:
Everything that exists or happens in the entire universe, at every level, can be defined in terms of:
Mass, distance & duration giving velocity, mass & velocity giving momentum, force is the act of collision and transfer of momentum. Everything that exists has mass, that is, it is made of physical substance. The amount of mass relates exactly to the amount of physical substance that interacts, by collision, with other physical substance. Everything that happens is a result of mass-in-motion-and-collision. All forces are the result of interaction between physical substance.

What actually is 'charge'?:
Charge is a result of the physical emission of physical sub-particles from physical electrons and protons.

Michael

PS I really am most interested in your calculations. Thank you.