0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is charge really an inherent property of protons and electrons?
This is of course just a thumbnail sketch. Anyone wishing to read more can download a pdf version at http://www.hydrocosmica.com or http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0023. There are equations, diagrams, and images.Basically I'm putting this up as a target. Part of me would love to see it blown full of holes. I have tried and failed.
Can either of you two gentlemen cite proof that charge is inherent? Or is it just convention? As far as I can tell there was never much debate about it. H. A. Lorentz seems to be the person most responsible for codifying charge as an intrinsic aspect of elementary particles, back in the first decade of the last century as he was formulating his electron theory.
Greetings. I am not a physicist, but I am a buff of science and science history. Contemplating the troubles with physics, such as the irreconcilability of GR and QM, and the fact that we still don't know what gravity is, led me to suspect that a basic assumption, that charge is an inherent property of elementary particles, may be wrong.And so I overturned this assumption and proceeded to deduce what the universe would be like if basic charge required a cause. The result was an entire alternative cosmology based on a bipolar, flowing aether. This medium is incompressible, non-viscuous, and under constant pressure. As it flows neutrally into massive bodies it causes the phenomenon we call gravitation. As it flows into its final destination, protons and electrons, it is forcibly separated, or sheared, into its component parts, resulting in electromagnetic fields. Elementary particles are, in essence, condensations of the medium.Radiant energy, suffused throughout space, suffers frictional effects as it propagates through the medium, in effect heating and pressurizing it so that it can flow, hence supplying demand. This is the cause of intergalactic redshift.This is of course just a thumbnail sketch. Anyone wishing to read more can download a pdf version at http://www.hydrocosmica.com or http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0023. There are equations, diagrams, and images.Basically I'm putting this up as a target. Part of me would love to see it blown full of holes. I have tried and failed.
Doesn't it seem as though pretending that each elementary particle possesses what is the equivalent of a forever battery inside kind of smacks of perpetual motion? Not to mention conservation of energy. The whole universe of matter and motion depends upon that tiny charge. Where does it come from? God?Look, I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I would like to start a conversation that's more enlightening than POIS or "is light a gravitational wave." I'm only raising the possibility that maybe a mistake was made back in the past. It's happened before.
Can either of you two gentlemen cite proof that charge is inherent?
Or is it just convention?
As far as I can tell there was never much debate about it. H. A. Lorentz seems to be the person most responsible for codifying charge as an intrinsic aspect of elementary particles, back in the first decade of the last century as he was formulating his electron theory.
Doesn't it seem as though pretending that each elementary particle possesses what is the equivalent of a forever battery inside kind of smacks of perpetual motion?
Not to mention conservation of energy. The whole universe of matter and motion depends upon that tiny charge. Where does it come from? God?
No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.
Look, I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I would like to start a conversation that's more enlightening than POIS or "is light a gravitational wave." I'm only raising the possibility that maybe a mistake was made back in the past. It's happened before.
Inasuch as proton is the name we give to a hadron with a single positive charge, and a electron to a lepton with a single negative charge, charge is as inherent to these particles as a nose in inherent to a human. Uncharged hadrons and leptons are called something else.
Hence my use of the indefinite article! a hadron, not any hadron or all hadrons
...what's your definition of a proton?
Quote from: Phaedrus on 28/04/2015 20:03:09Greetings. I am not a physicist, but I am a buff of science and science history. Contemplating the troubles with physics, such as the irreconcilability of GR and QM, and the fact that we still don't know what gravity is, led me to suspect that a basic assumption, that charge is an inherent property of elementary particles, may be wrong.And so I overturned this assumption and proceeded to deduce what the universe would be like if basic charge required a cause. The result was an entire alternative cosmology based on a bipolar, flowing aether. This medium is incompressible, non-viscuous, and under constant pressure. As it flows neutrally into massive bodies it causes the phenomenon we call gravitation. As it flows into its final destination, protons and electrons, it is forcibly separated, or sheared, into its component parts, resulting in electromagnetic fields. Elementary particles are, in essence, condensations of the medium.Radiant energy, suffused throughout space, suffers frictional effects as it propagates through the medium, in effect heating and pressurizing it so that it can flow, hence supplying demand. This is the cause of intergalactic redshift.This is of course just a thumbnail sketch. Anyone wishing to read more can download a pdf version at http://www.hydrocosmica.com or http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0023. There are equations, diagrams, and images.Basically I'm putting this up as a target. Part of me would love to see it blown full of holes. I have tried and failed.Welcome to new theory forum! i am not scientist, just a science love. yes. charge really IS an inherent property of protons and electrons. nature made it that way.maybe aether is negative charged? i have my own theory about matter/atom.there are 3 building blocks in nature, proton carries 900 + charges, electron carries -1 charge, enertron carries -10^-16 charge.proton attracts all negative charged stuff, therefore a ball of electron and enertron will form around proton. because enertron is denser than electron ( charge to volume ratio), it condensed around proton by electromagnetic force, density from the proton outward decay at 1/r^3. electron also attracted by proton and stable at atom radius where the proton electron attraction force is equal to the electron enertron repelling force. proton is like core of earth, enertron is the land and atmosphere, electron is like giant beach ball. atom's force field is far beyond radius, earth's gravitational field is also far beyond atmosphere.atom in fact is so dense build, that's why atoms are not compressible, that's why electron cannot discharge into proton.
I'm sure you guys wouldn't be the least surprised if I told you I thought that the only elementary particles necessary for the world to function are protons, electrons, and neutrons.
Quote from: alancalverd...what's your definition of a proton? A proton is a baryon made up of two up quarks, one down quark. We could also define it by its properties. I.e. a proton is a subatomic particle with a positive electric charge of +1e elementary charge and mass 1.672621777×10−27 with a magnetic moment μp = 1.410606743×10−26 J·T−1. is the nuclear magneton.
Quote from: PhaedrusI'm sure you guys wouldn't be the least surprised if I told you I thought that the only elementary particles necessary for the world to function are protons, electrons, and neutrons. If that is your contention then please provide the logical reasoning that forced you to make that conclusion. Science isn't merely making statements about what you contend to be the case but what you can logically demonstrate to be the case. I'm assuming that you know how to construct a logical argument. Is that assumption correct?