The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is charge really an inherent property of protons and electrons?  (Read 5836 times)

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.
That's OK I can keep my side, mainly due to lack of time and many other interesting things to think about.
I must say however, if he turned his mind to mainstream he is a much more connected thinker than jccc or Box. It's just that he is starting with a disadvantage, many school textbooks and most web sites have to summarise information and try to make it 'accessible' (hate that word, same with 'dumbing down') and quite often their explanations are somewhat lacking. This is even more so in the history of science, they rarely give a good explanation of why thinking has moved on.
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.
This is even more so in the history of science, they rarely give a good explanation of why thinking has moved on.

That's a very astute observation, Colin2B. Clerk Maxwell was aware of this tendency way back when. When he refereed a paper and sent it back for corrections, he would see that it was published with the mistakes and corrections, as opposed to a redone "clean" version, precisely so that future historians of science could see the step by step progression. Very commendable.

PmbPhy; I doubt that you and I are going to agree about much of anything. That's fine.
Unfortunately I doubt that you and I are going to agree about much of anything also. That's a pity. I always read the New Theories as it would be exciting to be in on the beginning of something radical. You have obviously put a lot of work into your paper and it is a cut above the standard pseudoscience as it avoids esoteric, meaningless word strings (see MichaelMD, Michdelf and TonyLang) and does include some maths!
However, I find it full of misunderstandings about physics. To go through all the misunderstandings would take considerable time, so I will briefly go over some examples, from the Light chapter, that are easy to explain.

Surely you must realize, Colin2B, that if some new theory came along that was correct, it would naturally, at least at first, be branded as radical or heretical, as it would be in disagreement with the current dominant paradigm, the one that the current crop of practitioners were taught. So naturally we would not agree on much. It's to be expected.

I'm not saying that my model is correct, only that it presents an interesting alternative. And, all due respect, but it might take someone who was not taught the current system to see something familiar from a different angle. As I say in the prologue and the epilogue, there are sure to be mistakes and contradictions in a work of such scope, especially if written by an uneducated nobody like me.

I appreciate your input immensely.

Phaedrus.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
New "heretical"models are welcome in science only if they can account for an observed phenomena that could not be explained by canonical theories, or if the new theory can produce the same answers more easily....
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4126
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Phaedrus
The aether... is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second. Which is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.

Historically, we didn't have to wait until the Michelson Morley experiment was repeated vertically, or even to the Moon to detect any "downward" flow of the aether.

It was performed on the site of today's Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, which is at Latitude 41.5 degrees North. The original apparatus was sensitive enough to detect the orbital motion of the Earth through the supposed aether.

At this latitude, "lateral" points in different directions at different times of the day. Even if the Aether were undetectable because it was coming straight down 9am, due to the rotation of the Earth, it would be coming in horizontally at 3pm, and a moving aether would be quite measurable.

To be undetectable, they would have had to conduct the experiment at the North or South poles - and the aether would have to be traveling in a North-South direction.

Maxwell's equations (now 150 years old) were originally interpreted assuming some aether, but we now know that they work perfectly well in a vacuum.

Quote
Is charge really an inherent property of protons and electrons?
Historically, charge was studied long before the invention of the high-voltage vacuum tube.

It was known to the ancient Greeks that if you rubbed amber on cloth, it could attract small pieces of lint. This is the original definition of electric charge.

We now know that this action results in transferring electrons from one material to the other, leaving a deficit of electrons (or, equivalently, an excess of protons) on the other material. (This method does not produce muons, positrons or other charged particles - you need cosmic rays, a radioactive material or a particle accelerator to produce these...)

So we can say that historically:
  • electrons and protons are inherent in charge, and that
  • charge is inherent in electrons and protons 
« Last Edit: 05/05/2015 21:22:12 by evan_au »
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
New "heretical"models are welcome in science only if they can account for an observed phenomena that could not be explained by canonical theories, or if the new theory can produce the same answers more easily....

Produce the same answers more easily; that's what the flowing aether model does.

 It relates gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism as different aspects of the same thing.

 It provides a basis for light propagation.

 It explains the large scale structure of the cosmos.

 It eliminates the need for any and all kinds of bosons, or force carriers, as there are no voids to conduct forces across. No "action-at-a-distance." All is connected, or contiguous.

 Dark matter and dark energy are rendered moot. The universe is not expanding. It is eternal and infinite. There was no big bang.

 Redshift is explained in a simple manner, one that Hubble would have endorsed. Hubble was never comfortable with the notion of receding galaxies.

The particle zoo is reduced to protons, electrons, their anti-particles, and neutrons.

Indeed, what makes this model hard to prove is that it predicts basically the world as it is currently perceived, but does so in a far more simple way. Occam's Razor and all that.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Too bad the particle zoo already includes neutrinos muons and many types of quarks (and their antiparticles), all of which have been observed directly. You can't just assert that protons and neutrons are elementary particles and the other particles don't exist, when there is so much experimental evidence of other particles and of the internal structure of hadrons.

I am open to theories that rely on some sort of aether, but I don't see this particular theory (as presented thus far) as a realistic alternative to currently accepted physics.

Occam's Razor alone will not suffice...
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Quote from: Phaedrus
The aether... is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second. Which is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.

Historically, we didn't have to wait until the newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment [nonactive] was repeated vertically, or even to the Moon to detect any "downward" flow of the aether.

It was performed on the site of today's Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, which is at Latitude 41.5 degrees North. The original apparatus was sensitive enough to detect the orbital motion of the Earth through the supposed aether.

At this lattitude, "lateral" points in different directions at different times of the day. Even if the Aether were undetectable because it was coming straight down 9am, it would be coming in at a considerable angle by 3pm, and would be quite measurable if the Earth was passing through it.

To be undetectable, they would have had to conduct the experiment at the North or South poles - and the aether would have to be traveling in a North-South direction.

You're missing the point entirely, evan_au. The aether is flowing into the Earth radially, normal to the surface. Latitude and time would have no effect. Spin might have a small effect. The Earth is not moving "through" the aether. This was one of the main problems with all those earlier aether theories.

Incidentally, Bernhard Riemann postulated an inflowing aether just like mine, only he had his eventually flowing into another dimension, whereas mine flows into "charged" particles, providing their "charge," and at the same time creating the electromagnetic field associated with that particle.


"Maxwell's equations (now 150 years old) were originally interpreted assuming some aether, but we now know that they work perfectly well in a vacuum."

Those are Oliver Heaviside's equations. Maxwell firmly believed in the aether, and his equations were formulated to reflect this. Heaviside (and others) did not like the potential functions; they made calculations more difficult, and so they "killed" them. Bruce Hunt explains all this in his book "The Maxwellions."

Re your last thought, about charge, my main theme, and the focus of the thread, is that charge requires a "cause." To say that "it just is" says nothing. Might as well say god is responsible.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2015 19:54:32 by Phaedrus »
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Too bad the particle zoo already includes neutrinos muons and many types of quarks (and their antiparticles), all of which have been observed directly. You can't just assert that protons and neutrons are elementary particles and the other particles don't exist, when there is so much experimental evidence of other particles and of the internal structure of hadrons.

I am open to theories that rely on some sort of aether, but I don't see this particular theory (as presented thus far) as a realistic alternative to currently accepted physics.

Occam's Razor alone will not suffice...

To the best of my knowledge, no sub-atomic particle has ever been observed directly. They are all inferred.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
I suppose we could get into a semantic argument about what "direct observation" is, but I would say that the detectors in particle accelerators/smashers that can measure the mass to charge ratio and some can also measure kinetic energy (can calculate mass from this) or charge, represent fairly direct observations of these particles.

for instance, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
To the best of my knowledge, no sub-atomic particle has ever been observed directly. They are all inferred.

No tree has ever been observed directly. You infer its existence from the activity in your brain (which has never been observed directly) caused by the impingment of photons (ditto) reflected from the tree, on your retina (likewise). Except that the origin of the photons must be the sun, which has never been observed directly.....and of course you don't believe in photons.

Or you could abandon philosophy and get interested in science. It's much more fun.
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com

Atoms are "doing" stuff all the time. Spinning; orbiting; vibrating; whirring; pulling; pushing.

No they aren't. We describe some properties of atoms using words that also describe mesoscopic actions and properties, but 

[quiote]Is it unreasonable to assume that energy is being continuously expended? [/quote] no it isn't.

Quote
That also smacks of perpetual motion.
Nothing wrong with perpetual motion of an unconstrained particle in an infinite universe. It's only objectionable when you try to extract energy from such a system, because energy is, as far as we can see, conserved.   

Quote
Hydrocosmica overturns both of these assumptions and shows how they both have a part in a universal cycle of energy transport and transformation. The aether is presented as an entirely different level of reality. It is what charged particles and hence the world of things is made from. It is the substrate of what we call reality. All is energy.

Why make things more complicated than they are? One objective of physics is to provide the simplest explanatory and predictive model we can. That distinguishes physics from philosophy and religion, which are the constructs of human vanity.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2015 18:32:59 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Goodness gracious; how on earth did you come to the conclusion that I don't believe in photons? I devoted an entire chapter to them. They're as real as anything else.


« Last Edit: 06/05/2015 18:40:23 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Because photons don't require aether, and nothing else does either, so if we apply a litle Occam, you can't rationally believe in the existence of both. But in my world you can see photons, ergo no aether.
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
What's going on here? My post #35 was taken down or edited beyond recognition by alancalverd. That's not at all what I wrote. Post #20 has also been edited. What is this, 1984?

I give up. You win. Keep your silly world.

Phaedrus.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2015 22:26:21 by Phaedrus »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Not guilty re #20 - nuffink to do wiv me, guv. But in attempting to reply to #34 I pushed a wrong button somewhere and ended up deleting a chunk of it.

Humble apologies, and if you'd care to restore it, I'll be delighted to respond. 
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
And, all due respect, but it might take someone who was not taught the current system to see something familiar from a different angle.
I understand what you are saying, but where do such people come from?
Although for new science there are always early adopters and followers (to use the marketing terms), all have tended to come from the science community. As ChiralSPO says, the ideas rarely came from nowhere but were part of the discussions between leading figures. Galileo supported Copernicus; Kepler, a student of Tycho Brahe, wrote to Galileo, they were at the heart of the science community and had been educated in the old geocentric theories. Bear in mind that even for educated people the heliocentric view was not fully accepted until 200 yrs later, mainly due to religious ideology. Even today surveys show between 16 and 20% of people in Western countries believe the geocentric model.
If you look at the OPs in New Theories, very few have the background in maths, fluid dynamics, cosmology, wave and particle physics to understand the points you are making (JefferyH and David Cooper are exceptions).
The aetherists await a messiah who will bring them a fixed aether through which light and astronomical bodies move. They will consider you a heretic with your relativistic aether moving within the frame of reference of a mass.
Me, I'm an engineer so I will use what works to help me design, change or fix. If it doesn't work I ask the physicists why. If something else comes along which is better, I'll use that. My experience of scientists is that they have a similar outlook, just don't try to fob them off with something that is clearly wrong.

Maybe your best hope is to use this forum to refine your ideas. My previous comments were based on obvious issues and, as I said, there are many more that would take too long to go over in detail. I will however, give bullet points on a few of them (I'll stick to light as I know a small amount about EMR):
- You have shown the interactions between your helicoid and dielectrics and this can explain diffraction, reflection, faraday effect etc and these explanations are similar to those of accepted theory, however you do need to go deeper into these to refine your ideas.
- Your use of 90 phase shift between E&M fields should be measurable in radio waves or should explain or predict an effect, I've never seen it. I have no problem with the current view, similar in my mind to the 0 phase angle between Voltage and Current in an AC cct, they are in phase for resistive loads despite the fact the volts are the motive force for the electrons - no lag except in inductive loads.
- Your rejection of photon spin -1 means you only have the equivalent of RH Circ light, so you need to explain LH and plane polarisation.
- You need to explain the power loss between a vert polarised Tx antenna and horiz Rx.
- Review your comments on least action, to me at its simplest it's just a neat maths way of saying light travels in a str line, a restatement of Newtons Laws, the photon travels in str line until something makes it do otherwise, it doesn't need to see ahead!

One final comment, I never view anyone as a nobody. Also, education comes in many forms including experience and reading. I would never have taken the trouble to write this or the previous post if I didn't think you capable of understanding. But, don't let your emotional responses steer you away from clear thinking.
Maybe we will see you back with a revised paper?


 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Colin2B;

Thank you for the kind words and the thoughtful input. Since I first wrote Hydrocosmica a little over a year ago I have been revising it continuously, mostly the math part. The version you have is less than a month old. It's far from finished.

I do have answers to most of your bullet points, however, I won't be airing them on this forum or any other. I'm kind of a sensitive person, and I have found this whole experience to be both degrading and humiliating. Also I had no idea that one's post could be altered at will by others. I can't remember all of my post #35 that alancalverd deleted, but the gist was that I bungled the phraseology of the thread title; I should not have used the word property, as that implies a dualism, whereby I believe that "charge" and "charged particle" are actually the same. So I sowed confusion with my poorly worded title.

I can remember the part of #36 that alancalverd deleted. It was a reply to his admonition that I quit philosophy and get interested in science, as science is more fun.

My reply was: "Science without philosophy is just measurement. All the great scientists were also philosophers. And no, I don't include myself in this group. I'm just a simple carpenter."

Why would he delete that?

And, all due respect, but it might take someone who was not taught the current system to see something familiar from a different angle.
I understand what you are saying, but where do such people come from?
Although for new science there are always early adopters and followers (to use the marketing terms), all have tended to come from the science community. As ChiralSPO says, the ideas rarely came from nowhere but were part of the discussions between leading figures. Galileo supported Copernicus; Kepler, a student of Tycho Brahe, wrote to Galileo, they were at the heart of the science community and had been educated in the old geocentric theories. Bear in mind that even for educated people the heliocentric view was not fully accepted until 200 yrs later, mainly due to religious ideology. Even today surveys show between 16 and 20% of people in Western countries believe the geocentric model.
If you look at the OPs in New Theories, very few have the background in maths, fluid dynamics, cosmology, wave and particle physics to understand the points you are making (JefferyH and David Cooper are exceptions).
The aetherists await a messiah who will bring them a fixed aether through which light and astronomical bodies move. They will consider you a heretic with your relativistic aether moving within the frame of reference of a mass.

You ask: "Where do such people come from"?

In my case, I had been seeking an alternate interpretation of redshift for a decade or more. I read anything I could get my hands on. Then one day, out of the blue, I had an epiphany. I read, or heard, or maybe dreamed (I can't remember), that the total energy of all the charged particles in the Earth was equal to the Earth's gravitational potential, and I just saw it; the flowing aether. It was like stepping through the looking-glass. An inverted perspective. It dovetailed perfectly with the theory of "tired light."

Then just a few weeks later I was struck with the notion that if the aether consisted of opposite polarities, electromagnetism could be accounted for. At this point I had the feeling that some superior intelligence had taken over my brain. I was possessed. It became an obsession. I have been living off my savings for the past 18 months, working on this project full-time. Along the way I had to acquire and learn how to use a computer (I was a total Luddite), learn how to type, learn how to use a word processor, learn the internet, and learn the metric system, all this at 60 years of age. I have never written anything before this. I wrote the first version down in about 6 weeks, on paper, right out of my head (except for quotes). I haven't had a chance to revisit the bulk of it because of the continual refining of the math part.

So there's a synopsis of where this person comes from. I'm in way over my head, but I can't let go.

Like I said, I won't be posting here any more, but if you would like to email me I would be most gratified.

Phaedrus


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Greetings. I am not a physicist

Say no more. Over and out.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
You can PM me when next draft is ready.
I can't promise to agree with you but I'll be interested in your reasoning.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
One question: If all this aether is continuously flowing into the Earth, is it building up or is it going somewhere?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
One question: If all this aether is continuously flowing into the Earth, is it building up or is it going somewhere?
I'm not sure he is coming back. Probably upset that lots of comments but no one read his paper. Although PmbPhy said he did skim.
I went through it and my interpretation is that the aether goes into matter to provide the energy to run atomic particles eg charge on electron etc. His assumption is that charge etc requires energy to keep it running. His aether is not the std fixed, but flows down the geodesic into mass, so a bodies movement through aether does not affect direction of aether flow.
What was interesting is that his view of the photon is of a helical movement with E & B 90 out of phase. I don't know if this is something he worked out or borrowed from circ polarised light, but E & B are 90 out of phase in the near field for radio waves, I assume it is the same for light but need to read up.
I will be interested in his reasoning as he develops his ideas - just as an exercise in thinking. Personally, I don't see any advantage in abandoning spin -1 for the photon, but we'll see what he makes of it all. At least he is thinking, unlike most other New Theorists - JefferyH and David Cooper excepted!
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.
That's OK I can keep my side, mainly due to lack of time and many other interesting things to think about.
I must say however, if he turned his mind to mainstream he is a much more connected thinker than jccc or Box. It's just that he is starting with a disadvantage, many school textbooks and most web sites have to summarise information and try to make it 'accessible' (hate that word, same with 'dumbing down') and quite often their explanations are somewhat lacking. This is even more so in the history of science, they rarely give a good explanation of why thinking has moved on.
What I find very irritating is how little some people think about mainstream physics. They make it appear as though the workers in the field aren't thinking and are unable to think differently and are stuck in their ways merely because they were taught it that way and aren't willing to think or something equally as silly. In fact that's the furthest thing from the truth that one can get. There's a huge mistake in that assumption. The mistake being that we're just as curious as anybody else, are always/constantly on the lookout for possible problems with well-known and widely accepted theories. For some crazy reason they surely must believe that we don't want to hear of errors in these theories. However if you were to think about it very closely one would realize that there is a great deal to be gained for any physicist who finds a theory to be wrong. If there is enough experimental evidence to demonstrate that in all likely-hood their correct then they'd win the Nobel Prize in Physics which comes with a money award of over 1 million dollars. There is also a great deal of prestige that comes with it.

So frankly there is no basis for the idea that good profession mainstream physicists don't think "out of the box" or in any other way challenge mainstream physics.

I myself challenged the following claim: Gravitation is a curvature in spacetime

If you were to say this to any expert in general relativity (GR) they'd all say that you're off you're rocker and don't know what you're talking about. However in the end I was right. In fact Einstein agreed with me. The notion that gravitation is a curvature in spacetime came a while after GR was created. Einstein himself never thought of GR or gravity that way. In fact he wrote a letter to Max von Laue stating that the opposite is true. And just to make sure I was right I contacted the worlds leading expert on the history of Einstein and general relativity, John Stachel from Boston University. He told me I was correct and pointed me the quote that I mentioned. He was the former editor of the Einstein Papers Project.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
What I find very irritating is how little some people think about mainstream physics. They make it appear as though the workers in the field aren't thinking and are unable to think differently and are stuck in their ways merely because they were taught it that way and aren't willing to think or something equally as silly. In fact that's the furthest thing from the truth that one can get.
I've seen this idea so often, mainly in New Theories, that I thought of starting a thread. I've worked with quite a few scientists and have found them amazingly open minded. They have an idea, test it, if it doesn't work modify idea, often going back to reexamine the theory it is based on - sometimes adding to the theory or it's interpretation.
The other theme, which I and ChiralSPO mention above, is the mistaken belief that radical new scientific advances come from an amazing genius working in total isolation. Truth is, the genius is in the thick of discussion and experiment and builds on what others are doing and have done before. The genius is in putting ideas together and identifying the path forward.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums