[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Naked 2.16.20  9 AM
What is the relationship between mass and charge?
   From 1981-3 I started my study of the physics of the universe. Initially I used a simple calculator to study the relationship between the constants of the universe. From this study it became evident that to a reasonable approximation
Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3
  This was for the MKS system. I then studied many conversion formulas to see what would be the best fit to relate mas in Kilograms and charge in coulombs.
  The most likely solution which I called the sister one solution was that for units
Mass M = Charge Q x Light Speed x constant
  From my early analysis mass and charge were sister properties who were related by the speed of light C. From that I wrote my hydrogen atom Bohr orbit equation for the expansion of the early hydrogen atom over time. It started at near zero size and became 5.29178E-11 meters today.
  The result was a velocity of the Bohr Orbit of 1.21667E-28 meters per second.
This gives us a time of 13.78 billion years after the big bang.
   The simple electrical force equations I used was
Equation 2: G Mh Mh / RR  = [2 Uo (QC/ 137.036)  [4 pi Vb*] Cosine 30 degrees]/ RR
  On the left side of the equation is the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms at a distance R apart. On the right side of the equation is an electrical attraction caused by the interaction of the electron in the first Bohr orbit at a speed of C/137.036 and the expansion of the orbit producing a current flow of 4 pi Vb* where Vb* is the velocity of the Bohr orbit expansion.
   The attraction is not a pure DC type attraction. The electron is spinning around the proton causing an AC spherical type wave. At the same time the Bohr orbit is expanding with a very slow moving AC type wave. This causes a phase angle to be requited. The 30 degree phase angle is a most likely answer which is common to many electrical problems. At the same time it matches the astronomer’s answer of around 13.8 billion years.
   Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants. This leads some to question the validity of the mass to charge unit conversions where the units of mass equals charge times meters per second. That is a good question for sure. Equation two is a four unit equation so it should always be valid in all systems of measurement.
   The question is under what conditions would equation one be valid?
  The true equation is equation 2. Let us solve for Mh in terms of Q. All the numbers form a constant. The velocity Vb* is C/ Constant A therefore we can use C/ Constant A to represent Vb*
   We then get
Equation 3: G Mh Mh = Uo  Q Q CC (Constant X)
Therefore Mh = Q C (Uo Constant X /G)^0.5
 Equation 4: Mh = QC (Constant D)
   As long as Uo and G have identical units in any system, the answers will be true. So any Sister solution in which Uo and G do not have the same units is invalid.
   I did not realize this in 1981 when I studied many different conversions. In fact I just realized this today. Therefore as long as Uo and G track each other over time, my Sister One conversion is valid.
  Does mass equal charge times the velocity of light?  Mass and charge velocity are sister properties. We have mass and we have charge, two properties that are related by the speed of light C.  They are related to each other by the force equation.
   Although I put equation 2 in my books, I never realized that the variations of the constants of the universe over time and or distance was only valid if the gravitational constant and the electrical permeability constant tracked each other. They do not have to be pure constants but the ratio of the two must track as meters change and the time clock changes as well.

 

[Bored chemist]

What is the relationship between mass and charge?

There isn't one.
A neutron has roughly the same mass as a proton, but no charge
A positron has the same charge as a proton but only about 1/1800 times the mass.

The rest of your post is mainly an illustration of numerology, with a side order of not doing dimensional analysis.

[evan_au]

dimensional analysis

I can strongly recommend dimensional analysis - it picks up many errors that you don't find by just multiplying and dividing numbers.

For example, 3 apples x 2 oranges does not equal 6 aardvarks

Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3

I don't have time to do it properly, but here is a start:
- G: I assume this is Newton's gravitational constant? 6.67430×10⁻¹¹ m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻²
       - The units are the bit on the end; it looks complicated, but its just as important as the number itself (perhaps more so!)
       - See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
- 16 and Pi are dimensionless numbers
- e is the charge on the electron, −1.602176634×10⁻¹⁹ Coulombs
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
- I assume Uo is intended to be μ₀ = 1.25663706212×10⁻⁶ H/m?
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
- I assume that 1/137.036 is intended to be the fine structure constant? This is a dimensionless ratio.
       See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

A  dimensional analysis checks that the units on the right-hand side are the same as the units on the left-hand side.
- The left-hand side has m³, but the right-hand side has m^-1. A rather severe mismatch
- The left-hand side has kg⁻¹, but the right-hand side has no kg
- The left-hand side has s⁻², but the right-hand side has no seconds
- The right-hand side has Henrys, but the left-hand side has no Henrys
- The right-hand side has Coulombs, but the left-hand side has no Coulombs

So the dimensions are a total mismatch, which means that the numbers have no meaning whatsoever.
- You are comparing apples and oranges.
- And you have derived an Aardvark

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

[Bored chemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[puppypower]

One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron.  There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.

This makes positive charge slightly different from negative charge at the level of mass and possibly gravity.. This observation is based on the preponderance of natural data, and not on opinion and theory. Look at the data yourself and weigh the each alternative.

[Bored chemist]

One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron.  There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.

This makes positive charge slightly different from negative charge at the level of mass and possibly gravity.. This observation is based on the preponderance of natural data, and not on opinion and theory. Look at the data yourself and weigh the each alternative.

That's just an odd aspect of our universe. There's not much antimatter. (thankfully)

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Naked 2.16.20 4 pm
Bored Chemist says:
There isn't one. (no relationship between charge and mass)
A neutron has roughly the same mass as a proton, but no charge
A positron has the same charge as a proton but only about 1/1800 times the mass.
GG: A neutron contains 8.50793E43 bipolar dot-waves. Half are positive dot-waves and half are negative dot-waves. This gives us a net charge of zero.
The little positron is similar to an electron. Which has 4.62718E40 positive dot-waves which have a charge of 3.47119E-60 coulombs and a mass of 1.96867E-71 kilo0grams.
  If we know the charge and mass of any particle we can calculate readily the number of positive, negative, and bipolar dot-waves within it.
   The dot-waves are the basic structure of everything. You look at the total structure of total mass and total charge. You do not look at what makes up that structure. Everything consists of dot-waves. The difference between particles and photons is geometry. Particles tend to have spherical shapes while photons had planar shapes and appear massless but the all have equivalent mass.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Evan_au responds
Quote
Equation 1: G = 16 pi e Uo/ (137.036)^3
I don't have time to do it properly, but here is a start:
- G: I assume this is Newton's gravitational constant? 6.67430×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2
       - The units are the bit on the end; it looks complicated, but its just as important as the number itself (perhaps more so!)
       - See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
GG: You are concerned with the exact measured number while I am looking for ideal numbers that involve 2, 4, pi, e=2.71828, 137.036, etc.
Evan: - 16 and Pi are dimensionless numbers
GG: That is correct
- e is the charge on the electron, −1.602176634×10−19 Coulombs
GG: I am sorry to have confused you. In my book I specify e= 2.71828 and eo is the electrical permittivity constant and pi= 3.14159. For the charge of an electron I use Q.
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Evan: - I assume Uo is intended to be μ0 = 1.25663706212×10−6 H/m?
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
GG: Yes.
- I assume that 1/137.036 is intended to be the fine structure constant? This is a dimensionless ratio.
       See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
GG: Yes.
Evan: A  dimensional analysis checks that the units on the right-hand side are the same as the units on the left-hand side.
- The left-hand side has m3, but the right-hand side has m-1. A rather severe mismatch- The left-hand side has kg−1, but the right-hand side has no kg
- The left-hand side has s−2, but the right-hand side has no seconds
- The right-hand side has Henrys, but the left-hand side has no Henrys
- The right-hand side has Coulombs, but the left-hand side has no Coulombs

So the dimensions are a total mismatch, which means that the numbers have no meaning whatsoever.
- You are comparing apples and oranges.
- And you have derived an Aardvark

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
GG: Please recheck your work. I should have specified in the above equation that e was a number. As far as the units are concerned the above equation is a standard physics equation used in electrical engineering courses. In addition it was checked by my fellow Sperry Engineers, Physicists, and mathematicians who reviewed my work in their spare time which was plenty since often all they had to do was read newspapers or do crossword puzzles during down times as they awaited new work.
  In general they were very high paid very sharp people.

[Kryptid]

One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron.  There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.

Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.

Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.

Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv². This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:

For metric:

E_k = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)²
E_k = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
E_k = 0.5 x 10,000
E_k = 5,000 joules

For imperial:

E_k = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)²
E_k = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
E_k = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
E_k = 3687.81 foot-pounds

Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).

[puppypower]

One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron.  There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.

Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.

This comes back to the phase diagram problem, and how particle accelerator experiments are conducted at low pressure. This experimental observation, which you kindly shared, is also an artifact of the use of extreme magnetism, to provide the energy for the high energy particles. These experimental conditions set the stage so change and magnetism come first. Magnetism is the big dog in these experiments and will lead the creation of phases. It is like adding carbon to the a phase diagram for iron; carbon steel.

At the extreme pressures of a neutron star, which is small compared to the singularity of the BB, charge is not a viable phase or protons and electrons would remain. The particles are too close so charges cancel. The result is more of a neutral mass phase, with whispers of reemerging charge at the surface, where a phase boundary appears, due to less pressure.

In nature, extreme pressure is generated by gravity. Gravity provides pressure, General Relativity considerations, and has an association to mass. Mass is the big dog. Accelerator experiments lead with the EM force; charge and magnetism. This provides charge, magnetism and Special Relativity, for low pressure phases where space and space-time are more expanded.

Mass according to Special Relativity cannot go the speed of light. Mass is a precondition, in terms of inertial reference. Mass provides a type of material capacitance, needed to perpetuate inertial reference. In the case of mass, GR, instead of velocity and SR, regulate references close to C.

Charge also does not travel at the speed of light. In copper wires current flows at about 95% of the speed of light. Charge can go even faster in particle accelerators. It reference is more regulated by SR, which comes into the universe after space-time opens up around †he mass anchor.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid says:Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv2. This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:

For metric:

Ek = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
Ek = 0.5 x 10,000
Ek = 5,000 joules

For imperial:

Ek = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
Ek = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
Ek = 3687.81 foot-pounds

Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).
GG: Equation 1 is a best fit three unit equation for the MKS system. You have to use the more complex general equation 2 which contains four units kilograms,coulombs, meters, and seconds. It is this equation I use for my calculations.

[alancalverd]

For example, 3 apples x 2 oranges does not equal 6 aardvarks

You have obviously never bartered in an African market. It's a reasonable starting position, though you usually get beaten down to one aardvark steak if the seller is awake.

[Bored chemist]

A neutron contains 8.50793E43 bipolar dot-waves.

Do you even science?

[Bored chemist]

Please recheck your work

I checked it.
He's correct.
Your units don't tally, so your equation is nonsense.

I should have specified in the above equation that e was a number.

It doesn't matter, partly because a number has no units, but mainly because the problems are so big.

the above equation is a standard physics equation

No it is not.

[Kryptid]

GG: Equation 1 is a best fit three unit equation for the MKS system. You have to use the more complex general equation 2 which contains four units kilograms,coulombs, meters, and seconds. It is this equation I use for my calculations.

Okay, let's see what the equation says then.

Left side:

((G)(M_H)(M_H))/r²
((6.6743 x 10^-11)(1.6735575 x 10^-27)(1.6735575 x 10^-27))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
(1.1169825 x 10^-37)(1.6735575 x 10^-27))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
(1.8693344 x 10^-64)/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
(1.8693344 x 10^-64)/(5.476 x 10^-21)
= 3.4136859 x 10^-44

Right side:

((2)(μ₀)((Qc)/137.036))(4)(pi)(Vb*)(cos 30^o))/r²
((2)(1.25663706212 x 10^-6)((1.602176634 x 10^-19)(299,792,458)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((2.51327412424 x 10^-6)((1.602176634 x 10^-19)(299,792,458)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((2.51327412424 x 10^-6)((4.8032047 x 10^-11)/137.036))(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((2.51327412424 x 10^-6)(3.5050678 x 10^-13)(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((8.8091962 x 10^-19)(4)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((3.5236785 x 10^-18)(3.14159)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((1.1069962 x 10^-17)(1.21667 x 10^-28)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((1.3468491 x 10^-45)(cos 30^o))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
((1.3468491 x 10^-45)(0.86602540378))/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
(1.1664055 x 10^-45)/(7.4 x 10^-11)²
(1.1664055 x 10^-45)/(5.476 x 10^-21)
= 2.130032 x 10^-25

Those two numbers are very different from each other. It's entirely possible that I made a math error. If so, see if you can find it and tell me what is.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

To Kryptid
  I checked your calculation. The Vb* term should have charge Q in front of it. When you multiply suing Q, you get 3.41268E-44 on the right side. Since I used 6.67223E-11 for G (Your number probably better) my upper equation would be 3.412627E-44.  Your G would change my Vb* slightly.
  Anyway thanks for your effort. In public school I won the math medal but now I am not as good as I used to be. And on the 28 I have to have cataract surgery so one eye is blurry. 

[Kryptid]

To Kryptid
  I checked your calculation. The Vb* term should have charge Q in front of it. When you multiply suing Q, you get 3.41268E-44 on the right side. Since I used 6.67223E-11 for G (Your number probably better) my upper equation would be 3.412627E-44.  Your G would change my Vb* slightly.
  Anyway thanks for your effort. In public school I won the math medal but now I am not as good as I used to be. And on the 28 I have to have cataract surgery so one eye is blurry. 

I see that you are correct. When I come back later, I plan to redo the calculations in imperial units and see if they still match up.

[puppypower]

The positive charge of the universe is predominately associated with the heavier mass; proton. The negative charge is associated with the lighter mass; electron. In nature, when a particular product or products are in a superabundance, this is not due to coincidence. Rather it can be traced to energy and entropy considerations.

A different observation that tells us something about the relationship between mass and charge is, although a positron and election will easily annihilate, a proton and electron rarely do. Both systems have a negative charge and a positive charge, yet both do not annihilate.

The main difference is the large mass of the proton, appears to lower the free energy of the electron-proton system, so the potential for annihilation is much less. If we attach a smaller mass to the positive charge of the proton; form a positron, and use the same election, we get POOF! This suggest the potential was made higher by lowering the mass.

When the positive charge is in the form of a proton, the uncertainty principle appears to be in affect for the election-proton system. When the positive charge is in the form of the positron, the uncertainty principle is not fully in affect. Things become more certain and they find each other; annihilation.

One explanation is the proton and electron are in two difference references, due to the speed of the election and the slowness of the proton. The electron has potential, as Special Relativity, thereby altering its reference relative the slower proton. When we have the positron and election, both with lower mass, both have similar speed and SR potential, and thereby occupy very similar references, so they can find each other with more certainty.

One impact of the heavier mass of the proton is to change the reference of the positive charge, relative to the negative charge of the electron. This allows entropy to be maximized. In other words this keeps the material expanded as nuclei and election clouds, so gravitational pressure, caused by mass, can increase entropy via phase changes.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Kryptid
I see that you are correct. When I come back later, I plan to redo the calculations in imperial units and see if they still match up.
GG: I believe so even though I never heard of imperial units until this latest discussion this year. Over 50 years ago we studied slugs and feet but mostly meters and kilograms.

[Bored chemist]

I never heard of imperial units until this latest discussion this year. Over 50 years ago we studied slugs and feet

Slugs and feet are imperial units.