Charge and Force of Attraction

[bperet]

In conventional theory, the force of attraction between two charges is defined by:



Charge is defined in units of Coulombs, which in the Reciprocal System have units of "s" (1 ampere x 1 second = s/t x t = s). Omitting the fudge-factor constant, the equation is unitless, since the distance is also has units of space. They introduce "k" as a magic constant containing units to make the equation work.

In researching Basic Properties of Matter, Larson indicated that the cgs-based statCoulomb would probably be a better choice of units for measuring the electric charge, rather than the SI-based Coulomb. In conventional science, the two are considered to have the SAME units, with just a constant supplying the difference in magnitude:

1 C ↔ 2997924580 statC ≈ 3.00×10⁹ statC (Wikipedia on StatCoulomb)

BUT, then it goes to define the units for a statCoulomb like this:

1 statC = 1 g^1/2 cm^3/2 s⁻¹ = 1 erg^1/2 cm^1/2.

Rather bizarre combination, so let's break it down into natural units of space and time:



It has units of the square root of time--not even CLOSE to the Coulomb units of space! But, if you use statCoulombs in the equation for the force of attraction/repulsion between charges, it works:



When correcting the units for statCoulombs and using them as the magnitude of charge, the equation balances nicely with units of force. This would indicate that the Coulomb is a quantity of electrons, not the electric charge. Larson had come to a similar conclusion regarding electric charge q (versus Q), making one have units of space and the other units of energy (t/s) to resolve problems with the Farad. Appears he had the right idea, but just implemented in the wrong place.

[davelook]

Hi Bruce,

I have some amazing things to show you that I've been working on, but I need you to be open to considering that charge may be "potential momentum", leaving Mag Flux as "space", instead.

This is just a switch from the Voltage-Force analogy to the Force-Current analogy.

Keep in mind that h=charge X flux (as per the quantum of flux)

Here's a good paper that shows how the "Current-Force" analogy preserves the topological similarity of mechanical and electrical circuits... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/22fi ... gy_all.pdf

You'll see the paper makes the case that "charge=space" is equally valid, mathematically. However, let's decide that the topology has to be consistent, which requires a switch to the Force=current idea.

Also, see force-current analogy

After all, in standard theory, "charge" is nothing more than the swapping of momentum in the form of "virtual photons", which is the way potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, keeping the system energy constant.

So, to summarize:

charge=momentum

flux=displacement

voltage=velocity

current=force

...etc.

I can link this concept to that experiment with the droplets in an amazing way.

Dave

[bperet]

I have some amazing things to show you that I've been working on, but I need you to be open to considering that charge may be "potential momentum", leaving Mag Flux as "space", instead.

Heck, I made sense out of Mathis' stuff--this should be easy! Larson knew there was a problem with the idea of charge, which is why he ended up with two, distinct set of units for it, s and t/s, for the quantity and energy of charge, even though they are used interchangeably in physics.

This is just a switch from the Voltage-Force analogy to the Force-Current analogy.

I wrote a paper a few years ago on electrostatics, which addresses a similar problem with space-time units. Might want to take a look at it; it is a quick read.

This post I made on the forces of attraction also reveal that there are two, different systems of units that are in use: dynamic and static systems. Larson recognizes the different reference frames as 'natural reference' and 'coordinate reference.' Miles Mathis does the same with his natural and diagrammatic reference systems. My paper shows the two reference systems for electric current and electrostatics are just reciprocals of each other, with an added assumption.

Let me read through the links you provided in detail, and see what it says. (I just noticed on my Electrostatics paper, that my spatial correction at the bottom yields resistance as s³/t² -- that's Maxwell's mass, L³T^-2, which is what Mathis uses for mass. Interesting thing there is that resistance is actually impedance, with real+imaginary parts--that would infer mass also has real+imaginary parts).

[davelook]

-that would infer mass also has real+imaginary parts).

Indeed, I think it does. Look at these formulas for the elementary particle masses...

For the lepton masses, you have A*(2^.5cos(g*2pi/3+2/9) + 1)², where g=1 (electron), g=2 (muon), g=3 (tau), and "A" is a scaling factor of 5.594998 x 10^-28 kg.

For the up-type quark masses, you have A*(1.7603*cos(g*2pi/3+2/27) + 1)², where g=1 (Up), g=2 (Charm), g=3 (Top), and "A" is a scaling factor of 4.09816 x 10^-26 kg.

Or take a look at the fancy java applet I created which generates the elementary particle masses.

It even generates the differences in neutrino masses!

The 2 sliders at the top-left control the phase. To see how the quarks are tied to the leptons, "Turn Off" the lower slider, and put the upper slider to the center (pi/2 rad).

This whole mass thing is part of what I want to show you later. (Hint: Is the unit of charge/momentum related to the lepton mass formula scaling constant, A=5.594998 x 10^-28 kg?)

[bperet]

Or take a look at the fancy java applet I created which generates the elementary particle masses.

I'm not able to follow the diagram... what do these dotted circles mean?

Can you describe what the "free object" variables mean, in relation to your formula?

[davelook]

I'm not able to follow the diagram... what do these dotted circles mean?

The small dotted circle in the center is just a reference, radius=1, center at (1,0)

The larger dotted circle, concentric with the reference, is where all the quarks lie.

The one offset to the upper right, with the same (fixed) radius as the lepton circle, is just another way to show how the quark geometry is tied to the Leptons' geometry.

Watch the bottom quark as you move the upper slider, it rides the (fixed) offset circle defined by 3 key points of the lepton circle.

Can you describe what the "free object" variables mean, in relation to your formula?

DS=Down-type quark Scale

LS=Lepton Scale (3 charged Leptons)

NS=Neutrino Scale (3 uncharged Leptons)

US=Up-type quark Scale

....These are the conventional mass scales that make all 3 generations work out correctly.

For example, take the Up-type quarks (US=22.989 (GeV))

22.989*(1+1.7603*cos(1*2*pi/3+2/27))^2=0.0020501 GeV (Up quark mass)

22.989*(1+1.7603*cos(2*2*pi/3+2/27))^2=1.2704713 GeV (Charm quark mass)

22.989*(1+1.7603*cos(3*2*pi/3+2/27))^2=174.54698 GeV (Top quark mass)

My java applet is just a graphical representation of the above equations.

To find the mass of ANY fundamental particle, put the diagram into the default position: upper slider fully left, lower slider fully right. Then just click on the point, look in left-hand column to see the X value, square it, then multiply by the appropriate mass scale, 1 for each group! (the Strange quark is the only particle that won't fall into line within current experimental bounds, which are large)

[bperet]

My java applet is just a graphical representation of the above equations.

OK, I am able to navigate your diagram and see the relationships.

How does this tie in to the natural consequences of the Reciprocal System?

Is this just a math relation you found, or was it derived from postulates?

[davelook]

How does this tie in to the natural consequences of the Reciprocal System?

The natural unit of space in RS is based on the ground state orbital circumference of an electron around a proton. I'm proposing a unit of space based on a much more fundamental quantity, h/4e=1.03392 x 10^-15 Wb. The quantum of flux (h/2e) is based on a Cooper Pair of electrons, so each charge really generates half that amount, h/4e.

If charge is some sort of momentum, then flux is "space", as discussed above.

The java applet shows the 3 charged leptons share a "unit mass" of 313.856 MeV (5.5949975 x 10^-28 kg). Some theories assume all mass is electromagnetic in origin. Interestingly, 5.5949975 x 10^-28 kg x c = 1.6773380497E-019, close to the standard measured charge. I think this is slightly higher than the measured charge due to vacuum polarization, the effect of higher charge as you get closer to the charged particle. In other words, since charged leptons all share the same unit mass and the same charge, I think the 1.6773380497E-019 reveals the bare charge of charged leptons, before charge screening makes it seem a little weaker. As described in the link, we see a stronger charge of 1/128.5 (for that experiment's energy), as opposed to the weaker, standard vaue of 1/137.036.

1.6773380497E-19²/ 1.602176462E-19² = e²_bare / e²_meas = 1/125.03 / 1/137.036 = 1.096025, so 125.03 must be the limiting value of the charge, right at the particle.

This "strengthening" of charge is exponential: exp(4pi*a)=1.096037

( 4pi*a is just e²_meas in natural units; c=hbar=e₀=u₀=1 , and a=0.00729735257=1/137.036)

Is this just a math relation you found, or was it derived from postulates?

The Lepton mass relationship wasn't discovered by me, but I figured out how to extend it to the quark masses, for which I got a nice little nod from a physicist working at Tevatron and LHC (see 3rd item about quark masses).

Ok, better go now. Next I'll show how the "unit of space" might govern nuclear radii!

Dave

[davelook]

For Part 1 of the posts on Nuclear radii and the "unit of space", check out this website. In particular, look at the quark lattice structure shown below...


...and compare it to this droplet lattice...



...and the larger view below, which is called a Rhombitrihexagonal tiling....


...which is one of 8 Archimidean Tilingsobserved in the wave-particle experminents featured in the You-Tube clip.

The important thing to note is that ALL black lines are the same length.

[davelook]

Using the above referenced unit of space as the lattice spacing between quarks, we get a Volume Per Nucleon of 3.572 fm³ ...





BTW Bruce, love the new post creation system. Nice Job.