[alancalverd]

An electron has mass, about 10^-30 kg. If it had zero diameter it  would have infinite density and thus behave as a charged black hole. This would be a handy tool: you could steer it around in space (thanks to its charge) and it would mop up all the residual dust, dangerous asteroids and expired satellites with its gravitational field. Indeed you wouldn't need to do any "steering" as the Van Allen belts conveniently consist of electrons whizzing around in the earth's magnetic field.

So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!

[Kryptid]

An electron has mass, about 10^-30 kg. If it had zero diameter it  would have infinite density and thus behave as a charged black hole. This would be a handy tool: you could steer it around in space (thanks to its charge) and it would mop up all the residual dust, dangerous asteroids and expired satellites with its gravitational field. Indeed you wouldn't need to do any "steering" as the Van Allen belts conveniently consist of electrons whizzing around in the earth's magnetic field.

So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!

Well there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from it (in other words, extremely tiny for most practical distances). So no, they're not going to be sucking up asteroids or satellites or whatever.

[alancalverd]

It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from it

True, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2m_e, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.

[Bored chemist]

Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points? 

No
Because the experiments designed to look for that would have shown it (at least on the scale they were designed to look)

[Bored chemist]

I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

That experiment is done all the time.
What outcomes would you predict that differ from what established physics predicts?

[Bored chemist]

If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.

The electrons don't collide.
However their electrostatic fields interact.

[Bored chemist]

After a cursory read of this thread I do see where some promising concepts can be developed. 

Like what?

[Kryptid]

True, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2m_e, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.

Such a neutral black hole would be free to undergo Hawking decay without violating charge conservation, and it would be extremely short-lived due to its minute size. It would produce photons with a total energy equal to its mass. Heck, you could probably parallel this with the way that we already know electrons and positrons interact: by producing photons. The extremely short life span of subatomic black holes would be one barrier to prevent them from consuming the Universe. No doubt our understanding of such small black holes is limited anyway, because quantum gravity effects would become very important for them.

[alancalverd]

Coincidentally, the Simpsons episode shown tonight on Channel 4 in the UK involved the Lisa Simpson Collider making a tiny black hole that did indeed swallow the universe.

You read it here first, folks!

[guest39538]

I have stayed away for 24 hrs to refresh my brain, my new abstract, what do you think?


The mechanics of gravitational force.

Author - S.P. Leese

Spring 2018

Abstract:

 On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,   this paper  proposes a theory that is intended  to evidentially show a normalising that  is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''.   A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that  the formation of   zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction.   The ZPE  failing to retain form without the simultaneous  co-existence of an opposite sign.
 A  co-existence that  shall be established of opposite signs ,  simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a  R³ real coordinate space,  to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations  of the point particles emitted field.  Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.


Introduction.

The importance of this paper is to answer the question,  what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force?   Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's  1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force.   Then later in time,  Einstein's theory of  relativity explaining the force to be  a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.   
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are,  of the gravitational force.   Thus leading me to research the information available, to try to discover an answer.

Definitions.


Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several definitions must be preliminary accepted.

1. A R³ real coordinate space shall be labelled  [a]

2. [a] is understood to be a volume of geometric positional points

3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.

5. Let i = positive ZPE

6. let j = negative ZPE

7. A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field

8. A neutral polarity point particle shall be labelled a N-field particle

[Bored chemist]

a volume of geometric positional points

Points have no volume by definition.

positive ZPE

You need to define that too.

A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field

You need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".

[alancalverd]

On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,

Wrong.

[guest39538]

On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,

Wrong.

Really?  You are saying a positive and negative electrostatic charge is not attracted to neutral things? 

Please explain, I must have entered a new dimension in some sort of parallel universe where the laws of physics have changed.

Any charged object - whether positively charged or negatively charged - will have an attractive interaction with a neutral object. Positively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other; and negatively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other.

Do my eyes deceive me?

[guest39538]

Points have no volume by definition.

3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

Number 3 already says that.

[guest39538]

Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02
positive ZPE
You need to define that too.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02
A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field
You need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".

A ZPE is described in the abstract, a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .

[Bored chemist]

a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .

Can you explain what you mean by a field being positive  (or negative)?
A field exists round a charge bu that field does not have a charge.

[Bored chemist]

Points have no volume by definition.

3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

Number 3 already says that.

I noticed that.
It implies that not only is 2 wrong, but it is contradicted by 3

[Bored chemist]

A ZPE is described in the abstract

The abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted  uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.

[guest39538]

A ZPE is described in the abstract

The abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted  uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.

Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.

I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.

5. Let i = positive ZPE

6. let j = negative ZPE

Do I need to change 4 to : 4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE

[Bored chemist]

I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.

No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.