what is charge?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby davesmith_au » Mon May 26, 2008 5:29 pm

volantis wrote:It is because all objects possess the property of charge that we can explain the Universe from an electrical perspective.


Giday Dave, and welcome. Finally the most sensible thing I've read about "charge" since the start of this thread. I too see charge as a property rather than a 'dimension' or 'space' etc. Property of what, of course, is another question, but a property none-the-less. That is, it's something which is posessed, not something within which something else exists. I hope that makes some sense. It does to me, anyhow... :D

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Mon May 26, 2008 5:47 pm

I feel cheated since I have been quoteing APM, Dave
:lol:
I was sensible....I do understand it now, I certainly never came up with it....
;)
I love the three Daves, Dave Talbott, Dave Thomson, Dave Smith. They keep me in reading material...Thanks guys, I am very happy to be associated with the three Daves. You could say I am charged about APM and the EU.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby upriver » Mon May 26, 2008 8:49 pm

davesmith_au wrote:
volantis wrote:It is because all objects possess the property of charge that we can explain the Universe from an electrical perspective.


Giday Dave, and welcome. Finally the most sensible thing I've read about "charge" since the start of this thread. I too see charge as a property rather than a 'dimension' or 'space' etc. Property of what, of course, is another question, but a property none-the-less. That is, it's something which is posessed, not something within which something else exists. I hope that makes some sense. It does to me, anyhow... :D

Cheers, Dave Smith.


AToS treats charge as a linear momentum property, not mass momentum but an electric momentum that may or may not be associated with inertial mass(indeed the same electric momentum is associated with with ambipolar energy which is massfree). Aetherometry uses a meter per second system, since everything is treated as a wave. Voltage is true angular velocity of charge. Potential is a standing wave.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Mon May 26, 2008 11:03 pm

klypp wrote:StevenO:
Energy is time/space (the reverse of velocity).

Speed is length per time. If you reverse that, you'll find that time per length is an equally good expression for - speed!

Since it is the reverse of speed, 'slowness' would be a better word. Exactly what we associate with inertia (aka. mass) in three dimensions...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Tue May 27, 2008 3:38 am

StevenO wrote:Since it is the reverse of speed, 'slowness' would be a better word. Exactly what we associate with inertia (aka. mass) in three dimensions...

Nice try! :D
But I think you'll find that a speed of 10 meters per second will be exactly as slow or fast as a speed of 0.1 seconds per meter.
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 27, 2008 4:22 am

klypp wrote:
StevenO wrote:Since it is the reverse of speed, 'slowness' would be a better word. Exactly what we associate with inertia (aka. mass) in three dimensions...

Nice try! :D
But I think you'll find that a speed of 10 meters per second will be exactly as slow or fast as a speed of 0.1 seconds per meter.

You are exactly right my friend...a piece of space moving at 10m/s represents a piece of energy of 0.1s/m 8-)

Then remember that space==charge and energy==work, so it takes work to move a charge, which is the one dimensional form of Maxwell's Equations :ugeek:
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Tue May 27, 2008 7:57 am

StevenO
You are exactly right my friend...a piece of space moving at 10m/s represents a piece of energy of 0.1s/m

Then remember that space==charge and energy==work, so it takes work to move a charge, which is the one dimensional form of Maxwell's Equations

Wow!
"a piece of space moving"
Space doesn't move. An object moves in space. In this context space is an abstract, a human concept that helps us describe this movement.

"Then remember that space==charge and energy==work"
Space is not a synonym of charge, and energy is not a synonym of work. The first one should be obvious to everyone. The second one might be trickier, but a typical definition of energy goes like this:
The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/energy
The capacity to do work is not the same as the amount of work done, even if you use the same measurement for both. Remember, there is such a thing as conservation of energy, but I'm afraid there's no conservation of work done. (At least that goes for my work... :( )

It is important to use a precise language in science, clear definitions, precise formulations, consistent terminology and so on. But the weird world of Space, Time and Dimensions doesn't bother to follow such rules. Which is why it is impossible for anyone in posession of a dictionary to make any sense of it.

"the one dimensional form of Maxwell's Equations"???

My dictionary must be outdated....
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 27, 2008 8:23 am

a piece of space moving"
Space doesn't move. An object moves in space. In this context space is an abstract, a human concept that helps us describe this movement.

You would probably agree that space exists? That's not the discussion. Dimensions are the human abstracts to measure what happens in space around us. Then if you do a proper dimensional analysis of charge it is equal to a length(space) dimension. And we all agree that charge can move....(see http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp for the real and long explanation).
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Tue May 27, 2008 1:53 pm

The short version. Look at these definitions of dimension:
4. Mathematics
a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
b. The range of such a coordinate.
5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dimension

There are 3 definitions of dimension here. You should not mix them! But this is precisely what relativists generally do, and what Xavier Borg does in your link.
In mathematics you can have as many dimensions you like. Borg likes 7. So what?
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 27, 2008 2:14 pm

klypp wrote:StevenO
"Then remember that space==charge and energy==work"

Space is not a synonym of charge, and energy is not a synonym of work. The first one should be obvious to everyone. The second one might be trickier,

You say it is a word game, but language has nothing to do with it. In physics charge and length are expressed in the same units, just like energy and work (and temperature and torque).
but a typical definition of energy goes like this:
The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/energy
The capacity to do work is not the same as the amount of work done, even if you use the same measurement for both. Remember, there is such a thing as conservation of energy, but I'm afraid there's no conservation of work done. (At least that goes for my work... :( )

That is why the capacity to do work is called 'Power'. It has the dimension of inverse space. Power x Time = Work.
Amount of work done is the one dimensional form of energy (temperature, torque), two dimensional energy is momentum or impulse as well as magnetic flux. Mass is three dimensional energy.
It is important to use a precise language in science, clear definitions, precise formulations, consistent terminology and so on. But the weird world of Space, Time and Dimensions doesn't bother to follow such rules. Which is why it is impossible for anyone in posession of a dictionary to make any sense of it.

I fully agree, but actually the three you mention are the ones that are quite well defined...That is why it makes so much sense to use them to express other physical properties.

"the one dimensional form of Maxwell's Equations"???

My dictionary must be outdated....

You really should get a new one....we live in an Electric Universe ;)
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 27, 2008 2:36 pm

klypp wrote:The short version. Look at these definitions of dimension:
4. Mathematics
a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
b. The range of such a coordinate.
5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dimension

There are 3 definitions of dimension here. You should not mix them! But this is precisely what relativists generally do, and what Xavier Borg does in your link.
In mathematics you can have as many dimensions you like. Borg likes 7. So what?

I think the Physics definition (5) is exactly to the point. You are correct to observe that we are free to choose the dimensions we want, but we have to choose the ones that make sense. Xavier shows how to remove the redundant units in physics, e.g. mass can be expressed in time and space units. The reason he selects 7 is that mathematically it can be shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area:

Image
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-hds.asp
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 27, 2008 3:04 pm

davesmith_au wrote:
volantis wrote:It is because all objects possess the property of charge that we can explain the Universe from an electrical perspective.

<snip>Finally the most sensible thing I've read about "charge" since the start of this thread.<snip>
Cheers, Dave Smith.

That is a fine statement. But also all non-objects have the property of charge otherwise EM radiation would not exist...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Wed May 28, 2008 2:02 pm

StevenO wrote:I think the Physics definition (5) is exactly to the point. You are correct to observe that we are free to choose the dimensions we want, but we have to choose the ones that make sense. Xavier shows how to remove the redundant units in physics, e.g. mass can be expressed in time and space units. The reason he selects 7 is that mathematically it can be shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area:

His 7 "dimensions" is not dimensions as defined in Physics(5). He starts with a similar definition from physics, but soon slides into dimensions as they are used in mathematics. And sure enough, the mix ends up with "spacetime", "curved space" and similar absurdities.
Neither has he "shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area." Here is what he says:
The question is, how can we know how many dimensions is the universe made up from. All the arguments mentioned above can be applied to any dimension and would imply the possibility of an infinite dimension space. But mathematics shows us that there are yet unknown reasons for which an ultimate dimension may be reached. One very interesting curve is the plot of surface area of hyperspheres of different dimensions, shown below. One would easily think that as we go higher in dimensions, the surface area of the n-sphere would increase at each stage, and yet, something very strange occurs, as a maxima in its surface area is reached at the 7th dimension. Could this indicate the real ultimate dimension of the universe?.

What he has "shown" is that a hypersphere or n-sphere has maximum surface area when n=7. This is mathemathics, not the real world. This has nothing to do with the universe. He makes the "connection" by asking a question at the end of the paragraph.
Well... maybe he was hoping someone would pick it up as a proof, like you just did?
But the simple truth is, he might just as well ask if the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White indicate the number of dimensions in the universe...
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Thu May 29, 2008 1:29 pm

klypp wrote:His 7 "dimensions" is not dimensions as defined in Physics(5). He starts with a similar definition from physics, but soon slides into dimensions as they are used in mathematics.
5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

Xavier only uses combinations of lenght and time, so to me that exactly fits the definition. Mathematics only uses the space dimension, while physics uses a time dimension to observe action in the space dimension and vice versa. This is a very basic difference since in mathematics the observables are the results of functions, while in physics the observables are in the space and time dimensions itself.
And sure enough, the mix ends up with "spacetime", "curved space" and similar absurdities

It is the only concept that unifies all observables. It is a pity Einstein messed up the spacetime concept by using only one time dimension. That leads to paradoxes.
Neither has he "shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area." Here is what he says:
The question is, how can we know how many dimensions is the universe made up from. All the arguments mentioned above can be applied to any dimension and would imply the possibility of an infinite dimension space. But mathematics shows us that there are yet unknown reasons for which an ultimate dimension may be reached. One very interesting curve is the plot of surface area of hyperspheres of different dimensions, shown below. One would easily think that as we go higher in dimensions, the surface area of the n-sphere would increase at each stage, and yet, something very strange occurs, as a maxima in its surface area is reached at the 7th dimension. Could this indicate the real ultimate dimension of the universe?.

What he has "shown" is that a hypersphere or n-sphere has maximum surface area when n=7. This is mathemathics, not the real world. This has nothing to do with the universe. He makes the "connection" by asking a question at the end of the paragraph.
Well... maybe he was hoping someone would pick it up as a proof, like you just did?
But the simple truth is, he might just as well ask if the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White indicate the number of dimensions in the universe...

I'm all with you here. In the table on the same page you can see that around 5 dimensions has maximum volume, so that could also be a potential limit. Since dimensions are our own conceptions I think there is only a practical limit.
To describe a gravitional field you already need 6 space and time dimensions. That is already over the limit for me...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby Steve Smith » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:35 pm

I really didn't want to get into this discussion because it has gone down so many rabbit trails that I can't find a straight path through the thread. Forgive me if I repeat what others have said.

Dave Thomson was correct in that charge is a fundamental "property" [of matter]. Because electric charge is fundamental it's like mass or length, it's a foundational principle that's used to help explain other phenomena -- what it electric current? It's the flow of electric charge. We might as well ask "what is space" or "what is time" -- those fundamental concepts are very difficult to break into. In many ways, people get trapped into logical fallacies when trying to explain them. The arguments become circular very rapidly.

Electric charge IS material. It is not "energy" (another difficult to define term) it is a component of matter, more specifically, rather than a property of substance. When one peers into the atom, one finds that it is composed of charged particles. "Things" are made of electric charge, both positive and negative. "Things" are solid only because the electric charges in them are keeping them from falling apart; the postive and negative charges are equally balanced, attract one another and form chemical bonds.

Chemistry is electrical in nature, as are all natural processes. For instance, whenever something moves through space it is electric charge that's moving. When I walk down the street, the + and - charges in my body are moving together, so electric charge can change location. We call that "kinetic" or "mechanical" action. But, if somehow the negative charges in my body decided to move while all the positive charge stayed behind I would become the center of an electric current that would convert me into a flash of lightning.

Because atoms are composed of equal + and - charges, called protons and electrons, the outside of every atom is negatively charged because the electrons form a "cloud" around the positively charged nucleus. When the negative particles are "pulled away" from the positive center an "e-field" develops -- or what we call static electricity. The electrostatic field is not easy to define -- it's like a spring that connects the particles of charge with each other, wanting to pull them back together in a linear relationship. Regardless of the difference in mass between a proton and an electron they each possess identical electric charge.

That makes static electricity the most powerful long range attractor in the universe as well as the strongest short range repulsor.

Electric charge can be seen anytime one looks at a piece of steel or chrome, or some other metallic substance. That "metallic" appearance part IS the charge. The negative charges on the outside of the atomic components that makeup the metal are reflecting light, so the metal looks shiny and hard.

Electric charge has nothing to do with energy. They aren't the same thing at all. Electric charge is slow while the energy in the circuit is fast. In many ways I've been incorrect in referring to "electrical energy" offhandedly because the two concepts aren't related. When the power station sends me electricity, the electric charges in the wire hardly move at all, they just kind of vibrate in place. However, the energy in that transmission moves at the speed of light. Like waves in water -- and water is an excellent analogue to electric charge -- the water molecules don't move, the wave passes "through" them, leaving them right where they were. In that same way, electric charge is what the energy flows "through".

So, what is charge? Have I become circular, as well? Can it be avoided? Electric current is the flow of electric charge. It's voltage that makes current flow and (high) voltage is static electricity. Electrostatic fields are formed when the charges in an atom are not balanced. If I remove the electron from a hydrogen atom and move it somewhere else, an e-field will be created -- the "spring" that wants to pull the hydrogen atom back together again. Incidentally, that's how hydrogen fuel-cells work.

I leave it here. I'm not sure that I contributed to any understanding. It's taken me years to comprehend "coulombs" and why they aren't "joules", but that's the most elementary part of the thing.

My good friend Mel Acheson likes the word "reify". I believe that that is a principle that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion. Because we call a phenomenological group "electricity" doesn't make it real. Some one I know wrote that you can spend all night looking at the stars and you won't find any astronomy up there.
Steve Smith
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest