Electric theory??

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:31 pm

We have been taught to think of ' fundimental' particles as solids and compare them in concept to the macro world and so consider fractional components as possibilities in their makeup. But our only measurements of them are resultant effects of forces - not solid particles per-se. Electron, Proton or Neutron properties are determined by observed effects of charge or kinetic energy [ the degree of its desire to be somewhere else in space and time relative to some other thing ] , but what we measure is in reality, a resultant effect or force action - there is nothing to prove they are solid in the macro sense. Perhaps just an energy {?} vortex which exhibit forces as an effect of its dimensional presence. The perceived fractional components themselves being separate energy entities. As Richard says " What dance is being played here ? "

longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:35 pm

Particles aren't solid. They only seem solid because we see them bounce off each other. One of the really cool adventures in particle physics is learning that this is just an illusion! This is just speculation, but if you think of particles as waves and waves as energy and energy as a medium, things start to make sense.

When waves transfer form one medium to another, part of it bounces off and part of it transfers through. So changes in energy act like barriers where particles can bounce off, but can also seemingly "tunnel" through. If particles are waves, and waves are energy, then particles can behave like this too (bouncing off each other).

Of course you have to reconcile this with the fact that we only see a particle once. In other words, it either bounces off OR transfers through. It can't do both. But for some reason if you take the wave interpretation, you can derive the probability of seeing one of the particles paths. I don't personally like the interpretation that this probability function actually exists in nature; you can be your own judge.

Also, energy doesn't seem to be exclusive to any type: like potential energy, kinetic energy, etc... In the particle world the same energy seems to transmute into many different forms (kinetic -> EM -> matter etc).

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:31 am

Charge and Mass are independent properties of matter. They are completly different independent attributes. Niether affects the other according to current theory.

Charges can produce forces between charges and masses can produce forces between masses. Charges can not produce forces with masses and masses can not produce forces with charges.

The reason an electron moves more towards a proton more than a proton moves towards and electron is due to intertia which is another consequence of matter. A proton is 1,000 times more massive than an electron so it requires 1,000 times more force to move (acellerate) it. But the charge on the electron and proton are the same so the electron moves more easily than a proton since the electron has less intertia (mass) to have to move.

Imagine tying a spring between a tractor trailer and a bicycle. Stretch the spring way out so there is 1,000 lbs of force acting to pull the truck and bike together. The spring puts the same force on the bike as on the truck. Now let go of the truck and the bike and see what the spring does. The truck will see the same force as the bike and will start moving toward the bike. The truck will not move very fast since it is so massive and 1,000 lbs of force will just barely get it moving. The bike on the other hand will not have much inertia to overcome so it will accelerate quickly and go flying toward the truck at significant velocity. The bike is the electron and the truck is the proton and the spring is the electrostatic force. Nothing magical here, just fundamental processes.

Frank S.

Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:39 am

Waves imply relative motion, except a standing wave, which is not really a wave but an energy gradient produced by two waves acting together to produce an effect and which requires transition of the measurement device along a field axis to make comparitive measurement.

The problem with wave theory is in the analysis of a stationary particle - Proton, Neutron or Electron - not in relative motion. What about a stasis Neutron? My maths just ain't good enough in Quantum to fully interpret. Is this wave constituent of the particle, electrical, magnetic or gravitational? I have passed Microwave Photons through Quantum tunnels ( wax wedges ) which does make for difficult explaination in conventiental physics, but these are in transit propagation - radiating away from a source at the speed of light. I buy transitional particle/waves ok, but a stationary particle as a wave function??? - Is our Universe a standing wave?

Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:11 pm

Yes Frank - but what is the nature of mass? or for that matter -charge? --- perhaps ' A disturbance of the force '

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns » Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:28 pm

Hi John,

My previous post was for the Perfesser to try to address his earlier question. I do have my own thoughts on mass and charge. For quite some time now I have been working on my own view of the macro and micro universe. For the most part I do not believe in coincidences. Are the charges on an electron and a proton truely exactly equal or are they just close. A proton and a neutron have the same mass unless you use really precise measurements to see the minute mass difference. Is this the case for charges too? Will we discover a minute difference?

The next delema is if the charges are found to be exactly identical. There are even a few choices here. They could be exactly identical. They could be a mathamatical or scientific artifact. Or the could be an artifact of the way we measure.

I have my own thoughts on charge and mass but it would be premature for me to post those results. I can say this though, things are not as they appear!

Frank S.

MontyRoberts
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:52 am
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by MontyRoberts » Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:01 pm

The real elephant in the living room-explain inertia

what is your spring connected to now? that is the real question.

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1722
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns » Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:20 pm

The shocking answer is, there is no spring!

Frank S.

Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:13 pm

I am intrigued - but respect your privacy.
It would be very interesting to construct a meterology to measure sub-electron proportional charge though. I think a differential approach may be the only way, but how to detect the balance difference of only two particles? - perhaps a chiral molecule rotation mechanism.

MontyRoberts
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:52 am
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by MontyRoberts » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:17 am

So inertia is an intrinsic property of matter?

The perinial question-Why?

Where does the force arise from?

It is easy to say it is and measure it-harder to explain why.

Post Reply