Richard, that kind of gets back to the question of entropy. Exothermic fusion happens because the products of the fusion reaction require less energy to contain themselves than the origional matter. Of course you need to get nuclei close enough for them to realize they can rearange themselve. But, if the universe was once a single point then why didn't it just rearange itself in the lowest energy scheme to begin with and get it over with? If it had, the universe would have been still born, and we wouldn't even need to discuss the second law of thermodynamics.
Carter
Electric theory??
-
longstreet
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
- Real name:
- Contact:
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Electric theory??
Frank did a great job of showing how little is known about the neutron and about matter in general.
In all fusions only the neutron has more mass that its constituent parts. This is most interesting.
In all other atomic systems, the fusional resultant mass is always less and is forced to contain neutrons. Also interesting.
next issue
I do not believe the universe formed from or within a point.
There was only potetial energy at the outset. No light, no heat and no magnetism.(all secondary effects and not primordial).
The point that all original energy was potential is easily understood. What often elludes the causual observer is that it was in a few different forms, all mutually exclusive, and not co-interactive or derived of the same source or linkable to a primal source. These characteristics caused the great, apparent, but illusive, dynamicism we observe in the universe.
Each whacko, cross purpose potential energy system attempts to neutralize itself to the lowest potential energy (axiomatic).
Fotunately for the universe, in each form of potential energy's attempt to neutralize and hide out forever, another non-interactive potential energy is constantly being dragged out of retirement on its path to neutrality and lowest potential energy. The bulk of that which we commonly observe now is the battle between coulombic potential energy and gravitational potential energy. This gives us all the light, magnetism, electromagnetism, heat and motion seen in the universe today. All of this activity can be traced to some stupid ole potential energy system trying to neutralize itself. I have posted ad nauseum on this over these many years and posts.
Nature is a lot better designed than we would think and it is all just potential energy doing dynamic things. There is no form of true dynamic energy inherent anywhere in the entire universe. All dynamicism is cross purposed, potential energy exchange related.
I have posted on the horrors and delights of this situation.
Richard Hull
In all fusions only the neutron has more mass that its constituent parts. This is most interesting.
In all other atomic systems, the fusional resultant mass is always less and is forced to contain neutrons. Also interesting.
next issue
I do not believe the universe formed from or within a point.
There was only potetial energy at the outset. No light, no heat and no magnetism.(all secondary effects and not primordial).
The point that all original energy was potential is easily understood. What often elludes the causual observer is that it was in a few different forms, all mutually exclusive, and not co-interactive or derived of the same source or linkable to a primal source. These characteristics caused the great, apparent, but illusive, dynamicism we observe in the universe.
Each whacko, cross purpose potential energy system attempts to neutralize itself to the lowest potential energy (axiomatic).
Fotunately for the universe, in each form of potential energy's attempt to neutralize and hide out forever, another non-interactive potential energy is constantly being dragged out of retirement on its path to neutrality and lowest potential energy. The bulk of that which we commonly observe now is the battle between coulombic potential energy and gravitational potential energy. This gives us all the light, magnetism, electromagnetism, heat and motion seen in the universe today. All of this activity can be traced to some stupid ole potential energy system trying to neutralize itself. I have posted ad nauseum on this over these many years and posts.
Nature is a lot better designed than we would think and it is all just potential energy doing dynamic things. There is no form of true dynamic energy inherent anywhere in the entire universe. All dynamicism is cross purposed, potential energy exchange related.
I have posted on the horrors and delights of this situation.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
longstreet
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: Electric theory??
I'd like to know how you know all that. I can think of initial conditions where there is only potential energy in various forms and nothing happens at all. Maybe the quantum wierdness saves all equilibrium scenarios; I don't know. But, how the universe got to be dynamic, and how that dynamisism evolves over time, is still a huge question.
Carter
Carter
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Electric theory??
I have posted on all this over the last year or two. It is all pretty straight forward.
No one can show me a source of natural dynamicism that can't be traced to a potential energy source trying to neutralize or snuff itself out. Likewise, no one can point to a potential energy source that has a dynamic origin which can be shown in real life and time.
The material (matter based) potential energies are the givens and the dynamicisms are the resultants of potential energy exchanges. Again, no chicken or the egg here. Light, photons magnetism, and pondermotive action are all secondary effects evloved from potential energy exchanges. None of them create or seed potential energies beyond the natural transfer of their own energies to matter (pondermotive). All of them add to the dynamic mix however and this all makes what we see move about and illuminate.
We do not see light, magnetism, or motion, creating NET charge increase or gravity. We only see charged matter in motion via coulombic reactions creating light and magnetism and matter exhuding its natural potential energy, gravity.
The whole system is a vast harmonic oscillator that itself throws out new dynamic energy forms to keep the mechasnism form damping out quickly. All these secondary forms are doomed to be re-absorbed, but have the advantage, especially in the case of pondermotive actions and light of transvering and transmitting these potential energies released at one location where the potential exchanges occur, over vast regions stirring stagnant, dead matter to roam about to become entangled in gravitational fields or be riped appart electrostatically in stellar furnaces starting the potential energy cycle anew for that one piece of matter and those sets of forces. All of this dynamicism was due to some long forgotten potential energy neutralization process all the way across the galaxy or universe.
Now, nearly buried are the nuclear potential energies, barely poking their heads up in only the most fearsome DYNAMIC reactions of the universe.
**note** I consider the nuclear potential energies, (strong force and weak forces), as seconadry form of potential energy much like magnetism, having been fabricated solely in fusion reactions. If one accepts a hydrogen or proton-electron creation universe as a given then there were no strong or weak forces.....They were yet to be created.
Only gravity and the coulombic forces remain active on our scale today and are readily usable. In the case of nuclear forces we have to spend a little extra to get a lot in the form of fission energy release which is the ideal release of nuclear potential energies, having had a star do all the hard work, orginially.
Fusion is a "makers art". It takes a lot of seed energy to get a modrate to decent amount of extra energy back.
Fission fuel is rare in the universe. Thus, fission is easy as the bloated matter is ripe for dismantling with the release of hundreds of times the energy produced per unit reaction in fusion. We don't observe fission reactions anywhere in the astrophysical universe, though they surely are happening. Fission, throughout the universe, in spite of its hundred fold gain over fission, is as easy to detect as a mouse farting in downtown Manhattan during rush hour.
Fusion fuel makes up the bulk of the observable universe and is nearly impossible to do by the hand of man to his advantage. Only gravity seems to make it really kick off provided it can sequester several hundred quadrillion quintillion tons of fuel. Even then, the reaction is crappy and more akin to a putt-putt boat in a bath tube on a volumetric basis. Good thing too, or it would all be over in a flash. We see only fusion energy in the active universe.
The beauty of stars is not in fusion itself, or the assembly of bulk, complex matter, but in the re-animation of the coulombic processes by separating and expelling naked charged matter back out into the cosmos. It is more akin to a refinery breaking up complexes and spiting out pure product.
Then there is all that light and magnetism produced at such a prodigious rate. Even so, the universe is intrinsically pitch dark over the entire photonic spectrum. Still, with billions of galaxies and quintillions of stars, charged, reanimated, columbically active matter moves throughout the universe. When viewed in the LOCAL volumetric sense, their net gravity is zero. They are merely naked free charges ready to do coulombic things again.
Our perception is that of a dynamic universe, but it is all potential energy driven. This is a stunning revelation and makes the whole thing more imaginative, stunning and amazing.
Richard Hull
No one can show me a source of natural dynamicism that can't be traced to a potential energy source trying to neutralize or snuff itself out. Likewise, no one can point to a potential energy source that has a dynamic origin which can be shown in real life and time.
The material (matter based) potential energies are the givens and the dynamicisms are the resultants of potential energy exchanges. Again, no chicken or the egg here. Light, photons magnetism, and pondermotive action are all secondary effects evloved from potential energy exchanges. None of them create or seed potential energies beyond the natural transfer of their own energies to matter (pondermotive). All of them add to the dynamic mix however and this all makes what we see move about and illuminate.
We do not see light, magnetism, or motion, creating NET charge increase or gravity. We only see charged matter in motion via coulombic reactions creating light and magnetism and matter exhuding its natural potential energy, gravity.
The whole system is a vast harmonic oscillator that itself throws out new dynamic energy forms to keep the mechasnism form damping out quickly. All these secondary forms are doomed to be re-absorbed, but have the advantage, especially in the case of pondermotive actions and light of transvering and transmitting these potential energies released at one location where the potential exchanges occur, over vast regions stirring stagnant, dead matter to roam about to become entangled in gravitational fields or be riped appart electrostatically in stellar furnaces starting the potential energy cycle anew for that one piece of matter and those sets of forces. All of this dynamicism was due to some long forgotten potential energy neutralization process all the way across the galaxy or universe.
Now, nearly buried are the nuclear potential energies, barely poking their heads up in only the most fearsome DYNAMIC reactions of the universe.
**note** I consider the nuclear potential energies, (strong force and weak forces), as seconadry form of potential energy much like magnetism, having been fabricated solely in fusion reactions. If one accepts a hydrogen or proton-electron creation universe as a given then there were no strong or weak forces.....They were yet to be created.
Only gravity and the coulombic forces remain active on our scale today and are readily usable. In the case of nuclear forces we have to spend a little extra to get a lot in the form of fission energy release which is the ideal release of nuclear potential energies, having had a star do all the hard work, orginially.
Fusion is a "makers art". It takes a lot of seed energy to get a modrate to decent amount of extra energy back.
Fission fuel is rare in the universe. Thus, fission is easy as the bloated matter is ripe for dismantling with the release of hundreds of times the energy produced per unit reaction in fusion. We don't observe fission reactions anywhere in the astrophysical universe, though they surely are happening. Fission, throughout the universe, in spite of its hundred fold gain over fission, is as easy to detect as a mouse farting in downtown Manhattan during rush hour.
Fusion fuel makes up the bulk of the observable universe and is nearly impossible to do by the hand of man to his advantage. Only gravity seems to make it really kick off provided it can sequester several hundred quadrillion quintillion tons of fuel. Even then, the reaction is crappy and more akin to a putt-putt boat in a bath tube on a volumetric basis. Good thing too, or it would all be over in a flash. We see only fusion energy in the active universe.
The beauty of stars is not in fusion itself, or the assembly of bulk, complex matter, but in the re-animation of the coulombic processes by separating and expelling naked charged matter back out into the cosmos. It is more akin to a refinery breaking up complexes and spiting out pure product.
Then there is all that light and magnetism produced at such a prodigious rate. Even so, the universe is intrinsically pitch dark over the entire photonic spectrum. Still, with billions of galaxies and quintillions of stars, charged, reanimated, columbically active matter moves throughout the universe. When viewed in the LOCAL volumetric sense, their net gravity is zero. They are merely naked free charges ready to do coulombic things again.
Our perception is that of a dynamic universe, but it is all potential energy driven. This is a stunning revelation and makes the whole thing more imaginative, stunning and amazing.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Paul_Schatzkin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
- Real name: aka The Perfesser
- Contact:
Re: Electric theory??
Andy Goldney writes: "It does seem astonishing that the charge on electron and proton should so precisely balance. "
Do they really? What source of evidence can you site to support that assertion?
I ask because, as many of you know, I've been researching the work of Townsend Brown, and the essence of the (so-called) Biefeld-Brown Effect is that there is in fact a disaparity in postive and negative charges. In Brown's experiments -- even if it's NOT an "electro-gravitic" effect -- the negative moves toward the positive more than the positive moves toward the negative.
Seems to me that the relative mass of protons -v- electrons also needs to be taken into account. Protons have a lot more mass than electrons, no? So, does it not seem curious at least that their charge would be equal, or nearly so?
I hope I'm not revealing my ignorance asking such a questions, but this is the all part and parcel of what I've been trying to understand lately.
Thanks,
--PS
Do they really? What source of evidence can you site to support that assertion?
I ask because, as many of you know, I've been researching the work of Townsend Brown, and the essence of the (so-called) Biefeld-Brown Effect is that there is in fact a disaparity in postive and negative charges. In Brown's experiments -- even if it's NOT an "electro-gravitic" effect -- the negative moves toward the positive more than the positive moves toward the negative.
Seems to me that the relative mass of protons -v- electrons also needs to be taken into account. Protons have a lot more mass than electrons, no? So, does it not seem curious at least that their charge would be equal, or nearly so?
I hope I'm not revealing my ignorance asking such a questions, but this is the all part and parcel of what I've been trying to understand lately.
Thanks,
--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
-
longstreet
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: Electric theory??
Basically it breaks all of newton's laws?
I have researched and conducted this experiment and my conclusion is that it is all ionic motion. Nothing wierd as far as I found. And really inneficient form of motion at that.
I have researched and conducted this experiment and my conclusion is that it is all ionic motion. Nothing wierd as far as I found. And really inneficient form of motion at that.
-
Todd Massure
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
- Real name: Todd Massure
Re: Electric theory??
I don't know about that Paul.... considering the number of atoms all around us which are paired up one proton for every electron, it seems like there would be quite a cumulative charge.
Unless there is actually a surplus of one or the other to make up for this, but I think that would have been observed.
I wonder if some of these strange observations me be because the electron dwells more in the quantum world than does the proton?
Unless there is actually a surplus of one or the other to make up for this, but I think that would have been observed.
I wonder if some of these strange observations me be because the electron dwells more in the quantum world than does the proton?
-
Goldenspark
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
- Real name:
Re: Electric theory??
I have 1.60217653 x 10^-19 C for both proton and electron, that seems to be pretty much identical.
As I understand it the charge on the proton is down to the quark composition, but the electron is a fundamental particle that cannot be decomposed to anything smaller. It therefore seems very strange that the charge on the electron should be exactly some multiple of quark charge without apparently being composed of them.
As I understand it the charge on the proton is down to the quark composition, but the electron is a fundamental particle that cannot be decomposed to anything smaller. It therefore seems very strange that the charge on the electron should be exactly some multiple of quark charge without apparently being composed of them.
-
Todd Massure
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
- Real name: Todd Massure
Re: Electric theory??
Quoting from:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/sci ... atomic.htm
Quarks
Another group of sub-atomic particles are the Quarks. Just like their name, they exhibit unusual characteristics. The fundamental particles among the Quarks are:
* Up and Down Quarks
* Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom Quarks
Other particles are made up of combination of Quarks.
Up and Down Quarks
The Up Quark has an electrical charge of (+2/3). The Down Quark has an electrical charge of (-1/3).
Proton
The Proton is made up of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark. The electrical charge of the proton is then: (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+1).
Neutron
The Neutron is made up of one Up Quark and two Down Quarks. The resulting electrical charge of the Neutron is: (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = (0).
According to this site an electron is a lepton not a quark and as Andy said is still considered to be a fundamental particle. I'm not saying this really answers anything - just a little background info.
-Todd
http://www.school-for-champions.com/sci ... atomic.htm
Quarks
Another group of sub-atomic particles are the Quarks. Just like their name, they exhibit unusual characteristics. The fundamental particles among the Quarks are:
* Up and Down Quarks
* Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom Quarks
Other particles are made up of combination of Quarks.
Up and Down Quarks
The Up Quark has an electrical charge of (+2/3). The Down Quark has an electrical charge of (-1/3).
Proton
The Proton is made up of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark. The electrical charge of the proton is then: (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+1).
Neutron
The Neutron is made up of one Up Quark and two Down Quarks. The resulting electrical charge of the Neutron is: (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = (0).
According to this site an electron is a lepton not a quark and as Andy said is still considered to be a fundamental particle. I'm not saying this really answers anything - just a little background info.
-Todd
-
Goldenspark
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
- Real name:
Re: Electric theory??
The thing that makes me uncomfortable about the standard model is that it seems to be so complicated.
All these flavours and colours of quarks etc. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't all this interesting stuff emerging about supposedly impossible nuclear interactions (e.g. carbon water arcs forming iron).
That's why I was just wondering if all these weird and wonderful particles are perhaps functions of the way in which they are being searched for.
I do accept that I am pretty ignorant in all this, but the idea of simple, beautiful nature seems to have gone out of the window when it comes to particle physics.
There are several things that make me uncomfortable;
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the fact that quarks do not exist outside the nucleus are but two.
All these flavours and colours of quarks etc. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't all this interesting stuff emerging about supposedly impossible nuclear interactions (e.g. carbon water arcs forming iron).
That's why I was just wondering if all these weird and wonderful particles are perhaps functions of the way in which they are being searched for.
I do accept that I am pretty ignorant in all this, but the idea of simple, beautiful nature seems to have gone out of the window when it comes to particle physics.
There are several things that make me uncomfortable;
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the fact that quarks do not exist outside the nucleus are but two.
Re: Electric theory??
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 1:35 am
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: Electric theory??
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).
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).
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Electric theory??
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.
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.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Electric theory??
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?
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?
Re: Electric theory??
Yes Frank - but what is the nature of mass? or for that matter -charge? --- perhaps ' A disturbance of the force '
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Electric theory??
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.
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.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
MontyRoberts
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:52 pm
- Real name:
Re: Electric theory??
The real elephant in the living room-explain inertia
what is your spring connected to now? that is the real question.
what is your spring connected to now? that is the real question.
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Electric theory??
The shocking answer is, there is no spring!
Frank S.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Electric theory??
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.
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: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:52 pm
- Real name:
Re: Electric theory??
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.
The perinial question-Why?
Where does the force arise from?
It is easy to say it is and measure it-harder to explain why.
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Electric theory??
My view of the universe is quite different than most. My view does not require super strings or 11 extra dimensions or UFOs or anything exotic. It only requires a more comprehensive way of looking at things. Obviously I do not have it all figured out or I would have published already and been invited to Stockholm. There are many pieces to the puzzle and part of me does not believe that there is no one person that is going to find the last piece of the puzzle. It is going to be a team effort. I can tell you this, if I had 3 of the correct scientists and 2 mathematicians in a room together and I could control the direction of the team, I really believe that it could be figured out in 6 months or even less. And the answer would be amazing in its simplicity. I truely believe this. The problem for one man is to juggle all of the information and then recombine it into the final form. It is a daunting task and I do not know if I am that man or it will be another but I do believe I am on to the path of the correct solution.
Frank S.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Electric theory??
John,
Check out this link. It may give you some insight.
http://www.wondermagnet.com/halbach.html
Frank S.
Check out this link. It may give you some insight.
http://www.wondermagnet.com/halbach.html
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
longstreet
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: Electric theory??
What is special about that? It looks like a flat horseshoe magnet.
Carter
Carter
Re: Electric theory??
Being European, I'm always a bit cautious of 'final solutions' Frank - perhaps not the best choice of words? -- but I know what you mean.
Thank you for the link - just up my street - It is very thought provoking - there must be an electrostatic equivalent!!! and can that be used in a fusor? - Is a unipole spherical magnet possible with the pole internal? - or electrostatic similar sphere? -- how about a bucky ball magnet
Thank you for the link - just up my street - It is very thought provoking - there must be an electrostatic equivalent!!! and can that be used in a fusor? - Is a unipole spherical magnet possible with the pole internal? - or electrostatic similar sphere? -- how about a bucky ball magnet
-
Todd Massure
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
- Real name: Todd Massure
Re: Electric theory??
Humankind is reaching a point at which science is moving faster than our ability to observe the things we think are happening / out there. I'm really not sold on dark matter and I think it's an answer that has been created to fit the question. String theory sometimes seems like it's the same way. I personally feel like there is a fabric to space that doesn't seem to be addressed in most of the models out there not like the ether of the past, but something that allows the gravity wells and waves and ocillations that makes up all the particles / energy around us. I also like to play around with the thought of gravity waves or gravitons as negative energy. I also sometimes think that the small force of gravity may be explained in that unlike electric and magnetic fields, gravity fields don't just find a polar opposite nearby to interact with, instead it must interact with every other particle in the universe.
I'm really off topic now, but back to quarks and leptons. It seems to me that a quark or lepton by itself is an unpredictable resident of the quantum universe, but once it pairs up with another or others, then it behaves more predictably, I would like to think that a direct connection between quarks and leptons could be found that would explain the mass and charge differences, but it is the quantum world and to be quantized means that there are distinct units to things such as time, mass, energy and charge which usually seem to have some relation to the Plank constant. It may be that the smallest charge allowed in the quantum world is 1/3 of an electron charge (see my earlier post) at least until we find something smaller than a quark : )
-Todd
I'm really off topic now, but back to quarks and leptons. It seems to me that a quark or lepton by itself is an unpredictable resident of the quantum universe, but once it pairs up with another or others, then it behaves more predictably, I would like to think that a direct connection between quarks and leptons could be found that would explain the mass and charge differences, but it is the quantum world and to be quantized means that there are distinct units to things such as time, mass, energy and charge which usually seem to have some relation to the Plank constant. It may be that the smallest charge allowed in the quantum world is 1/3 of an electron charge (see my earlier post) at least until we find something smaller than a quark : )
-Todd