[guest39538]

Sorry for so many posts, I feel like I am onto something serious, like end of the world serious and the cause of global warming.

Is charge divided by entropy ?

=q


added- If electromagnetic radiation was q1 and q2   and directly proportional q1+q2=N i.e no net charge?

[jeffreyH]

Thermodynamic entropy has the SI units of joules per kelvin. That is a J/K. So energy divided by temperature. Since both energy and temperature can be related to velocity, aka kinetic energy, then there could be a relationship linked to time dilation. I am not saying that there is though.

You would end up with Q = qT/E where q is the charge, T is the temperature and E is the energy. Temperature and energy are both scalars. Charge is a constant for any particular particle. I have no idea if that combination of units is meaningful.

If you take the energy as being relativistic then you may have something of interest. Don't quote me on that.

[jeffreyH]

It may only be possibly related to condensed states of matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_entropy

[puppypower]

If you look at our universe, positive charge typically defines less entropy than does negative charge, since positive change tends to associate with the heavier nucleus mass and thereby remain restricted in space. The negative charge associates with the lighter electron, which allows for the wider variety of entropic states, associated with chemical matter. This creates an entropic asymmetry between charges, so negative and positive charges are not equal but just opposites. 

[guest39538]

Thermodynamic entropy has the SI units of joules per kelvin. That is a J/K. So energy divided by temperature. Since both energy and temperature can be related to velocity, aka kinetic energy, then there could be a relationship linked to time dilation. I am not saying that there is though.

You would end up with Q = qT/E where q is the charge, T is the temperature and E is the energy. Temperature and energy are both scalars. Charge is a constant for any particular particle. I have no idea if that combination of units is meaningful.

If you take the energy as being relativistic then you may have something of interest. Don't quote me on that.

I consider charge is passive, meaning if I touch something that has charge , the charge or some of the charge is passed into  my body attracted to my body.   If it were not attracted to me it would not be passed to me.  I consider the charge of atoms to be dynamic in that it can change to be more polarised to one of the charge signs which governs motion . 

For example if we had two atoms in a perfect vacuum distance x apart, the charge of the atoms would contract or expand the distance to a point of  ''event horizon'' of 0 net force, the atoms pulling and pushing at the same time to gain a close orbit but never connecting.  Also the harder you ''pull'' the atoms apart the harder they ''pull'' back, a bit like one of them Chinese finger puzzles.

If we was to increase the charge of the proton it would have a tighter ''grip'' on the electron and vice versus .  My thoughts are a bit scattered this morning , my apologises.