What actually is 'charge'?

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

You have no clue as to my understanding. You have not studied the Matter is made of waves site and there is no way I can impart the insights presented there to you as long as you are intransigent.

I have not studied the site in detail; in that you are correct.

Quotes from http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_aether.htm :
"This site does not explain how the aether works mechanically. Any medium capable of transmitting regular longitudinal waves could do the job. In order to keep things simple, one should postulate that the aether is perfectly homogeneous and that it preserves energy without any loss."

"...one should answer this simple question: how does a photon work, from a mechanical point of view? Surely, nobody ever proposed an acceptable explanation. The point is that, as long as this question remains unanswered, nobody is entitled to believe that photons really exist. Up to now, it was just a convenient word hiding one's ignorance. Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence of photons inside radio waves."
Goldminer, perhaps you may have separately devised an explanation for the lack of "amplitude" in light waves. In established descriptions of light "amplitude" is replaced by intensity. It would appear that the lack of a convincing argument of particulate light is matched by the lack of a convincing argument for light "waves".

The wave delivers the acceleration via the aether. No "mass" is involved in the transfer. The energy appears as "mass" after being absorbed by the atom.

It's quite lucky that this aether of yours is not bound by any laws of physics; one might say, magical.

The aether has properties which your intransigent mind cannot comprehend. No sub aether is required.

OK, you carry on and give your aether as many properties as you feel it may need.

One last question: Are you able to describe in detail the construction and propagation of a wave form?

Michael

[querious]

querious,

I had a look at your first post and I did not understand - the jumps of reasoning were too large for me to follow.

What step did I lose you at?

Also, what is N c s2?

N=Newton, c=speed of light, s2=sec2
- that should clear things up for you, keeping in mind that u0 has units of N/A2

[Michael V]

querious,

What step did I lose you at?

Well, right at the start really.

I don't understand why "current is force" and "voltage is velocity"? The force of what? and the velocity of what?

A little dimensional analysis then reveals charge to be (potential, field) momentum. Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

So what particles are you suggesting are exchanging momentum? what is a virtual photon? surely if its virtual is doesn't exist, in which case it is nothing, has no physical properties, can't "carry" anything and has no right being included in the first place? - either they're real or they don't exist!

Are you able to give some detail of said dimensional analysis that suggests to you that Coulombs are a measure of momentum?

Michael

[querious]

querious,

What step did I lose you at?

Well, right at the start really.

I don't understand why "current is force" and "voltage is velocity"? The force of what? and the velocity of what?

Since force(current)=momentum(charge) per unit time, measuring "current" is actually also a measure of the net virtual photon flux, which carries the momentum. Each virtual photon interaction creates an impulse on the charge. The surface charges surrounding the conductor set up a net impulse flux in the direction of the current.

Since velocity(voltage)=displacement(mag. flux) per unit time, measuring "voltage" is actually a measure of the net displacements between charges created by virtual photon interactions. In a foil electroscope, the foils are brought near an external charge which, through induction, causes the foil ends to have like charges, and repel. The displacement between them is a balance between their inherent stiffness, and the constant displacements caused by the virtual photon impacts pushing them apart. Since there is no NET momentum flow (ie current), only voltage, no energy flows (= no power). Sort of like heat trapped in a mirrored vacuum vessel.
For power to flow, you need current X voltage, Power=current X voltage.

A superconducting loop demonstrates all current & no voltage (no power, momentum only)
A gold-leaf electroscope demonstrates all voltage & no current (no power, displacement only)

A little dimensional analysis then reveals charge to be (potential, field) momentum. Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

So what particles are you suggesting are exchanging momentum?

Charged particles (electrons) emit/absorb virtual photons, thereby exchanging momentum.

what is a virtual photon? surely if its virtual is doesn't exist, in which case it is nothing, has no physical properties, can't "carry" anything and has no right being included in the first place? - either they're real or they don't exist!

You're taking the word "virtual" as if to mean non-real. Sorry, that's just what they're called, and too bad it's such a misleading label. I can't help that. The force between charges isn't some magic action-at-a-distance.

Are you able to give some detail of said dimensional analysis that suggests to you that Coulombs are a measure of momentum?

In SYSTEM ANALOGIES read pg 3 starting at Mechanical Analogy II: Through/Across.
If you still have questions after reading that, hit me.

querious

[Goldminer]

querious,

What step did I lose you at?

Well, right at the start really.

I don't understand why "current is force" and "voltage is velocity"? The force of what? and the velocity of what?

Since force(current)=momentum(charge) per unit time, measuring "current" is actually also a measure of the net virtual photon flux, which carries the momentum. Each virtual photon interaction creates an impulse on the charge. The surface charges surrounding the conductor set up a net impulse flux in the direction of the current.

Since velocity(voltage)=displacement(mag. flux) per unit time, measuring "voltage" is actually a measure of the net displacements between charges created by virtual photon interactions. In a foil electroscope, the foils are brought near an external charge which, through induction, causes the foil ends to have like charges, and repel. The displacement between them is a balance between their inherent stiffness, and the constant displacements caused by the virtual photon impacts pushing them apart. Since there is no NET momentum flow (ie current), only voltage, no energy flows (= no power). Sort of like heat trapped in a mirrored vacuum vessel.
For power to flow, you need current X voltage, Power=current X voltage.

A superconducting loop demonstrates all current & no voltage (no power, momentum only)
A gold-leaf electroscope demonstrates all voltage & no current (no power, displacement only)

A little dimensional analysis then reveals charge to be (potential, field) momentum. Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

So what particles are you suggesting are exchanging momentum?

Charged particles (electrons).

what is a virtual photon? surely if its virtual is doesn't exist, in which case it is nothing, has no physical properties, can't "carry" anything and has no right being included in the first place? - either they're real or they don't exist![/color]

You're taking the word "virtual" as if to mean non-real. Sorry, that's just what they're called, and too bad it's such a misleading label. I can't help that. The force between charges isn't some magic action-at-a-distance.

Are you able to give some detail of said dimensional analysis that suggests to you that Coulombs are a measure of momentum?

In SYSTEM ANALOGIES read pg 3 starting at Mechanical Analogy II: Through/Across.
If you still have questions after reading that, hit me.

querious

Good job straightening Michael V out! Although, Voltage is the force, which is present whether energy is delivered or not; and "current" only appears in a closed circuit. "Current" is superfluous without some minimal voltage. Voltage is relative, the correct description is voltage drop. Superconductors have no voltage drop. Interestingly enough, in a dynamic circuit, a voltmeter's operation measures the tiny current across a very high resistance placed in parallel with a circuit, whereas an ammeter is placed in series in the circuit under investigation.

Would you guess that there is a tiny flow of current as the electroscope is "charged?"


Both of you insist that "photons" virtual or not are the only plausible means of interaction. Soliton standing waves in the form of electrons and protons can likely oscillate in the manner discussed here, thereby setting the aether surrounding them to transmit said force to their neighbors also transmitting said oscillations to the aether. Interacting harmonics providing attraction and repulsion make more sense than "photon" momentum that can only provide repulsion. The existence of "photons" is just as ethereal as the Neutrino.

The "hydrodynamics" being discussed here are merely an analogy to electric and magnetic attraction and repulsion (similar to hydraulic analogies of voltage to pressure and current to flow.) Not the "mainstream" insistence that disregards electric plasma interactions.

[Michael V]

querious,

I got it now. There are two main problems though:

1) Electricity in a wire does not involve travel or displacement of charge emitters. Your virtual photons, i.e. charge particles and quantum aether particles, are mediating the interaction between the free-electrons.

Current is measured as the magnetic effect caused by the B-field charge particle (virtual photon) emissions. Regardless of whatever you choose to theoretically assign to "current", ammeters are designed to measure the magnetic effect caused by the B-field. (Of course, you may argue that it is not the B-field oriented emissions that are causing the magnetic effect that drives the action of the ammeter.) Voltage is assigned to the E-field, but it is not measured directly; Voltage as with "current" is measured with an ammeter and is a measurement of the B-field - although there is a small component of the E-field that aligns with the B-field. A voltmeter adds an enormous resistance into the ammeter and measures in parallel, the resulting action of the residual B-field that moves the ammeter needle is inferred to represent voltage via V=IR. This is the reality of the measurement of Amps and Volts, the rest is interpretation through theory.

Two hundred odd years ago it was the original theoretical interpretation of electricity as a "flow" that put the concept of "current" into electrical theory. The electron was discovered much later and was deemed a suitable candidate for the thing that "flows". Despite a realisation that a physical flow of electrons cannot sensibly be entertained as the real mechanism for electricity, the concept of flow and current has endured - as is often suggested, how many contradictions does it take to falsify a theory. Clearly, the effect of charge must involve an emission of sub-particles, i.e. charge particles; without this we are left with action-at-a-distance and logical scientific enquiry becomes irrelevant. A continuous emission of charge particles is only possible with a continuous supply of charge particles, hence the inescapable admission of the universal quantum aether field - this further removes any sensible motivation for a flow from A to B.

2) Momentum is NOT equivalent to force. Force = Mass x Acceleration, Momentum = Mass x Velocity. Your suggestion that force is momentum over time is a mathematical fudge. The physical reality is that force is a transfer of momentum through collision. An object with mass and constant velocity has momentum, but it does not possess force. Force can only be experienced by the interaction of two objects.

Michael

[querious]

querious,

I got it now. There are two main problems though:

1) Electricity in a wire does not involve travel or displacement of charge emitters.

Do you mean current isn't a flow of electrons, or do you mean electrons aren't charged, or what?

2) Momentum is NOT equivalent to force.

I said force=momentum per unit time, which is different, and happens to be true.

Your suggestion that force is momentum over time is a mathematical fudge.

I don't know what you mean by "fudge", but I'm not going to argue basic physics. Open any physics book and look up impulse.

An object with mass and constant velocity has momentum, but it does not possess force.

Quite right.

Force can only be experienced by the interaction of two objects.

As long as you include virtual photons in the definition of object, I'm with you. When 2 billiard balls collide, transferring momentum, they don't actually touch, of course. They are repelled by charges on a microscopic scale, which means virtual photons mediate their interaction.

querious

[seasmith]

~

... also transmitting said oscillations to the aether. Interacting harmonics providing attraction and repulsion ...

Well said, Goldminer
May i suggest a better descriptor than "virtual photons" is probably needed...


and a Force w/o Momentum !??

[querious]

Although, Voltage is the force, which is present whether energy is delivered or not

You would be perfectly justified, mathematically, in preferring that analogy. I simply prefer the equally valid analogy where mechanical and electrical circuits can be represented using the same topology... System Analogies

Would you guess that there is a tiny flow of current as the electroscope is "charged?"

Of course.

[querious]

So if we take seriously for a moment that charge=momentum, then by the de Broglie relation mag. flux is a wavelength: h/p=h/e=4.13567 x 1015 m.

1) Assume this is some sort of "fundamental" wavelength.
2) Assume that quarks in a proton, ON AVERAGE, form a triangle with sides equal to this wavelength, so that each quark sits on the node of 2 waves.

From the center of the proton's quark-triangle to the center of each side, you'd get a radius of 1.19387 x 1015 m, which is just the standard 1.2 fm figure cited in many tables of nuclear radii.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nucuni.html#c4

querious

[querious]

There's already a Theory of nuclear structure governed by the "quarks in a triangle" model!

What's amazing is that my CALCULATED radius fully matches both this new model AND experimental results...



However, in a recent study, Koehler and his colleagues found that the protons and neutrons seem to move in a collective way that can't be explained by any known model of nuclear structure. ...“The new results suggest that the roughly 200 nucleons inside the platinum nuclei studied act in unison to exhibit regular rather than chaotic properties,” according to a news article from ORNL's website. “Given the relatively high energy and large number of nucleons involved, such collective behavior is totally unexpected and unexplained.”

querious

[querious]

Looks like I messed up with the 4.13 fm quark-spacing idea. If the lattice model is right, the spacing between all quarks is actually about 1.86 fm.

[querious]

[url=evanescent wave is a near-field standing wave with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay with distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one third of a wavelength from the surface of formation.[/url]

So if we have an Evanescent standing wave between quarks, h/e=-15 m, with exponential decay exp(-1)=0.367879..., you get a quark spacing of -15 m x 0.367879 = -15 m.

From the center of the triangle to one of the quarks use -15 m / 3.5 = 0.878 x 10-15 m to get the proton radius, compared to the [url= measured value:

[img]

[querious]

I don''t know why previous post had links deleted. Please use this one...

An evanescent wave is a near-field standing wave with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay with distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one third of a wavelength from the surface of formation.

So if we have an Evanescent standing wave between quarks, h/e x exp(-1) = 1.5214269 x 10-15 m is the quarks' lattice spacing.

From the center of the proton triangle to one of the quarks use 1.5214269 x 10-15 m / 3.5 = 0.878 x 10-15 m to get the proton radius. Compare that to the CODATA measured value:

[Michael V]

querious,

The discovery of quarks:
- "What if electrons and protons don't possess a magical action-at-a-distance property called charge, but instead there exists strange and curious particles, lets call them quarks for a laugh, that live inside the actual particles, and it is the quarks that possess the magical action-at-a-distance property of charge. Also, because they don't really exist, we can assign them as many properties as we like, in order to make the maths work."
- "Yeah, also it means we can just do maths and not worry about the physics. And because it doesn't make any sense, no-one will ever be able to make sense of it. It's a brilliant idea. Two more beers please!"

wiki quote from QCD page:
"Confinement - which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches"

So the maths has been purposely designed to say that the force does not diminish as they are separated - so this definitely not a physical theory of physical things. Furthermore, because this magic force is so strong, the quarks can never be separated, and because they cannot be separated, they cannot be detected as separate particles. The completely inability to detect these particles is accepted as a proof that they must exist and simultaneously that the force does not diminish with distance. Obviously all aethereal particles are by definition undetectable so maybe we shouldn't laugh too easily, but there are endless mathematical details of properties and changes of properties based on particles whose sole proof of existence is the fact that they haven't been detected.

Quarks, the basis of present quantum mechanics, are ludicrous inventions of imagination, given form as mathematical constructs. There is no logical physical basis for their existence - they are a black hole and an EM wave and a unicorn - they do not exist.

"confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches"

So black holes, inflation field, dark matter, fairies, pixies, electromagnetic waves, leprechauns, dark energy, quarks, unicorns, etc, etc, etc, must ALL exist. Apparently, a complete and utter inability to find something is the only requirement for acceptable proof of its existence. I beg to differ.

Michael