The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski »

Richard Hull wrote:
> I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.

That makes sense. The advantage of gravity is that it continues to squeeze the protons and electrons together, until finally they form a neutron. Neutrons in a star would then have the opportunity to join a proton, forming a deuteron.

In hindsight, it would have to be a very unlikely process, you can't have neutrons being formed all over the place from protons and electrons that happen to bump into each other. Of course fusion itself is a very unlikely process, the Sun just happens to have a large amount of raw material available.

> The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.

This much is true.

Of course there is a readily observable method of neutron production available, electron capture. We see an atom with a proton surplus (or neutron deficit if you prefer) grab a nearby electron, and suddenly the proton and electron vanish, and a neutron appears. But the neutron isn't really a proton and electron. I understand that when in certain compounds, nuclides subject to electron capture even have ever so slightly longer half lives, due to a lower availability of electrons due to chemical bonding.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Regarding EC electron capture. It is interesting to note that the density of matter inside the nucleus is probably highly favorable to neutron production IF DEMANDED TO SAVE AND PRESERVE THE NUCLEUS OR STABILIZE IT. Thus EC, per se, is not so hard to understand or fathom for the nucleus is undoubtedly a miniature contained system at stellar densities or beyond. The possible shelling within the nucleus would not allow neutrons to just be randomly produced there, as stability is the goal. When EC occurs, the electrons all filter down allowing the atom to just flat out steal another electron from the environment to complete its now depleted outer shell and, thereby, re-neutralize the positive ion so created by EC.

Remember, once an atom fuses in a star it is proof against any further action other than further fusion, thus, enlarging it further. It seems more than reasonable to assume that all extra-stellar nuclei are at least as dense and under the same internal energy levels as when created in the core of stars. Is there value in this realization?

I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.

Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?

Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.

There is absolutely no scientific basis or underpinning for assuming that the neutron exists within the nucleus. It is only a reasonable ASSUMPTION! Using this assumption, a fully self-consistent and predictive framework has grown up around it. It is a great place to work from until the model collapses. It is not observed fact.

There is certainly no more or less evidence that the nucleus contains neutrons than the neutron contains a proton and an electron, based strictly on observation. It is never a matter of it must be one way or the other, but more it must be observed and have replicable proof. We have never been inside a nucleus nor inside of a neutron.

Deep down, I like the idea of the neutron in the nucleus for the same logical reason that I like the electron and proton residing in the neutron......if it comes out of the room it was probably really in the room. There is rarely much wrong in that kind of logic. However, having never been in the room with them.........well.....

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
ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski »

Richard Hull wrote:
> I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.
>
> Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?
>
> Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.

OK... this got me to thinking about what we have observed (all examples grossly simplified!):

1. A nucleus can undergo beta decay, where a neutron disappears, replaced by a proton, and an electron comes shooting out.

2. A nucleus can undergo EC, where it grabs an electron, turning a proton into a neutron.

3. It can spit out a positron, which apparently gets created along with an electron, the latter along with a proton promptly turn into a neutron. The former quickly meets up with another electron, the pair turn into a pair of photons upon meeting.

4. It can undergo alpha decay, spitting out a helium nucleus.

5. It can spontaneously fission, breaking apart into two lower Z nuclei, not of equal mass, but typically one much heavier than the other, and a few (2 or 3) neutrons.

6. It can be made to fission by being hit with a neutron. Only neutrons of certain energies can do this, and, as in (4) above, only select few nuclei undergo this process.

7. It can be made to spit out a neutron when hit by an alpha particle, as in the case of Be-9

8. I don't have my references in front of me, but beryllium can be made to do a double alpha decay (essentially split in half).

Seems to be some evidence that neutron = proton + electron...

Now some random thoughts...

It's difficult to inject a proton into a nucleus due to electrostatic repulsion. A neutron will happily go in, since it is neutral. If a neutron is really a proton+electron, then at the "far field" it will appear neutral, since the charges cancel out. Near field, the individual charges should start to be observable. Could the proton/electron do some sort of dance with a nearby proton, forming a stable system? This appears to be the case with deuterium, which is stable. Likewise with helium. Tritium isn't stable, but there are two neutrons and just one proton.

So imagine (just for fun) some sort of complicated solar system. You've got three stars (protons) and two planets (electrons) in the nucleus, representing the two neutrons and one proton. Maybe not a fair analogy, since while the mass of the electrons is indeed small compared to protons, the charge is the same. Somehow the electrons help keep the system stable, for a while. But eventually one of them spins out (beta decay). Now you have just one electron. Somehow it is able to keep the three protons together. It's charge is opposite to the protons, so there is attraction. Enough to overcome the repulsion of the three protons with each other? I know modern physics invents gluons and other nifty particles, but I am trying to ignore that for now. Can you make it work without them?

I need to re-read the dusty nuclear shell theory texts sitting on my bookshelf...
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Richard Hull wrote:
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>

Yes, there is the energy from the carrier of the strong force. You mentioned the energy from the carrier of the gravitational force (mass) and the carrier of the Coulomb force (electrostatic charge.) The strong force produces energy through photon exchange. Only this energy is constantly being added to the Universe.

It may seem like a violation of conservation of energy at first glance, but something is keeping the electrons spinning, and whatever that something is, we don't account for it in the Standard Model of physics. Just because we don't account for the cause of spinning subatomic particles doesn't mean they don't spin.

And as a part of that spin, there is precession (Lamb Shift for the electron) that causes magnetic moment.

If charge is seen as distributed, and the carrier of the strong force is seen as strong charge (as opposed to electrostatic charge), then it can be quantified that there is an exchange of photons between the electrons.
http://www.tshankha.com/energy_from_aether.htm

These photons can be tapped by creating a capacitor out of the material supporting the opposite facing electrons, and spacing the plates of this capacitor such that the exchange of photons build up standing charges on the plates. The capacitor plates could then have a load placed across them such that the photons will create electrons allowing the charge to dissipate through the circuit.

Dave
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Richard Hull wrote:
> We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.
>

I have a mathematical explanation for the cause of charge. It is due to the angular momentum of the particle moving through the Aether. Specifically,

h * Cd = e.emax^2

This is the equation for the strong charge of the electron (which is proved to exist by the Casimir effect.)
http://www.tshankha.com/casimir_effect.htm

For a more detailed examination of the origin of charge, check out ...
http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm

Dave
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Of course there is no actual real measurment of photon exchange in the sense that you posit. It is all theoretical. We have never observed these virtual photons. They are a dreamworld construct of mathematics and what what we think or wish would happen to make theories work out and the math balance.

Differing mathematical results or results that confute theory can always be turned into equalities by the adroit mind with only a few untestable assumptions and the demanded requisite math to link them. None of this will make those thoughts reality, but it will create a marvelous framework that links what we can test with ideas we want to make into wholecloth.

We have no idea of the ORIGIN of nascent primary charge. This is electrostatic charge. Strong charge is a mathematical construct and has no testability outside of superb mathematical machinations based on an assumption of an Aether and virtual photon exchange. Zero virtual photons exchange exists in my mind due to no one have ever observed virtual photons. Yet these same items are talked about theoretically as if they are accepted science.

The unobserved and unobservable used to support the dreams of some of the sharpest mathematical minds in history.

It is truly a wonderful structure we build on assumption creating vast amounts of untestable and ultimately unknowable events 6 orders of magnitude below the genuinely observable.

What has happened is that we have hit a wall in empiricism regarding the incredibly small and modern minds see no reason to let this stop the work of physics. The very science whose name is derived, oddly enough, from the "PHYSICAL" aspect of existence. If we can't see it, touch it, measure it and make useful wheelwork from it, it is just mathematically backed metaphysical extensions of "real physics" that hit the brick wall of the heisenberg limit of laboratory observation and measurement.

So the true origns of nascent electrostatic charge are still unknowable. Strong charge is still a theoretical construct.


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
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

I meant to reply to Chris earlier post regarding the microscopic distributed charge for the neutron. I have read papers and seen cross sections of the charge seen across the neutron. I wish I could remember where, but there is a sinusoid of sorts with both positive and minus aspects. the negative is muted and far extended compared to the positive lobe. What i'd like to know is "how dey do dat"?

For all that, the neutron is still just a proton and an electron in my mind, but with super natural characteristics where the normal electrostatic rope limit (hydrogen atom) is lifted enough to bond the two items, if not in some tight orbit, then some stasis condition perhaps in a form of electrical singularity that is only stable in a nucleus.

I feel that naked, unit, electrostatic charge is truly indestructable in the nuclear and subnuclear sense, being forever conserved and preserved throughout the universe. The key might be the fact that in no reaction do opposite charges come together and neutralize or extinguish on a net value, universal scale.

Charge is one of the most cherished of all energies in the universe as it is a key form of potential energy which keeps the universe moving and evolving. Charge can't be transformed into energy either for it is energy, albeit purely potential in nature.

Charge, for me, is the ultimate microscopic singularity. Perhaps at the core of reality itself.

Charge is the primal item that generates all photons, all magnetic forces and creates directly or indirectly 100% of all localized material motions and dynamic energies. It is the basis for all nuclear, atomic and molecular structure.

Photons, which every one is totally in love with, are the crap of the universe..... pretty much waste, secondary product, as is magnetisim. Don't get me wrong, they are links in the evolutionary chain, but not primal or nascent in the universe.

Finally all we can say about matter is it is always associated with charge. There is no uncharged matter in the nucleus or electron shells. It is no small discovery that matter has mass and this is related to gravity. The big question, is mass/matter a separate entity from charge and the primal source of gravity? Charge, while we don't know what it is can be looked at a primal. Gravity is obviously primal or certainly appears to be as it is certainly the demanded complimentary form of potential energy in the universe needed to keep things spun up along with charge.

Could matter, as we see it, be a manifestation of a singularity from which charge and gravity are exposed or radiate? Radiate is a bad term as these are potential energies, but you get my drift.

Bottom line is that you can't produce gravity or charge from any form of energy........Another perhaps salient point

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
Richard Hester
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hester »

Charge does get extinguished if a particle and antiparticle collide, but that's another matter....
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Not really, I have mentioned this before in at least two posts. On a universal scale no charge is lost or signs exchanged. Anti- particles, apparently and observationally, have no normal existence. They are all the results of strings of violent events where photons have been created that are not allowed (too energetic).

Before antiparticles are created there are x number of electrons in the universe and y number of protons. Regardless, at the end of all reactions and energy downshifts, all charge is restored.

balance scenario:

initial conditions......

universe has X electrons, 0 or Z positrons, your choice

problem:

High speed photon >1.2mev not allowed in and amongst matter.
Converts to two matter particles... one positron ~512 kev + one electron ~512kev

net universal: resultant charge added ZERO Net particles added TWO.
Net Universal particle identity balance X+1 electrons and 1 or Z+1 positrons.

Quickly, as the photon had to be in the thick of matter to down convert in the first place, the positron finds an electron and annihilates to a photon of energy ~512kev. The regular electron created during pair production speeds off with added energy, effectively stolen or transfered to it during pair production.

New net charge status of the universe.................
one electron stolen or lost to make the new low energy gamma ray and one electron gained during pair production.... perfect balance, The positron's positive charge had a fleeting existence between creation and annihilation. however during its entire existence, the net universal added charge was still ZERO!
So net charge production added or lost, ZERO again.

Particle balance:

(X+1) - 1 = X
for positrons 1-1 = 0 or (Z+1) -1 = Z

Net result for the universe...........................
net charge created ZERO
net particles created ZERO
new energy formed ZERO

Nothing changed for the entire universe other than a hot gamma down converteda portion of its forbidden energy to an electron. This operation can never happen again and the reduced energy photon is free to do as it wishes from this point on.

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
Richard Hester
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hester »

The only exception to the relatively violent production of positrons via pair production is their production by positron emitting isotopes.
I agree that the overall neutrality of the universe is not affected by electon-positron annihilation, but charge and mass still are converted into uncharged photons. Apparently the photon energy is accounted for by the mass of the particles. What happened to the charge? Is the mass a consequence of the self energy of the charge? What then is the real difference between the electron and positron besides the opposite charge? If we knew the real answers to these questions we would understand the universe a little better.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

I agree totally with your final point. Charge is critical to the understanding of core universal issues.

On the drive home this evening, I mused over what I had just posted above on the balance in pair production, annihilation, and charge conservation.

I got to musing hard................

During "the total event" (pair production to annihilation) and this includes positron beta emission processes. The net universal dynamic, kinematic or EM energy changes throughout the event showing the secondary nature of the kinematic or energetic universe, (photons secondary stuff) The universe doesn't give a hoot in hell about how much energy is on hand, going or coming at any instant in time.

Likewise, the universe has a change of mass through out these events as, in the case of pair production, two new particle masses were created then destroyed. So the amount of mass in the universe is not important to remain constant or fixed.

However, at no INSTANT in time is the net charge of the universe ever imbalanced or disturbed over the entire event!!!

Again, this points out the true nature of the ultimate primal entity....CHARGE...... it is not to be triffled with even for an instant.

Matter and energy are shifted as needed NOT TO CONSERVE CHARGE, but to maintain a CONSTANT EXTANT UNIVERSAL NET CHARGE. Arguments are wide open on whether the universe is net zero charge, net positive charge or net negative charge. This, to my thinking, is truly unknowable. It is immaterial, too......Who cares? What difference would it make? ZIPPO.

It is little discussions and discoveries like this that lock charge into the source of all reality for me and help relegate mass and energy into the also rans and bean counter fodder of the universe. This includes particle balancing and such. It is all bean counting of mass and energy due strictly to the urgings of the universe to maintain a FIXED, STABLE, NET CHARGE, based on UNIT CHARGE exchanges.

Gravity is another whole kettle of very smelly fish that begs to be fried, but it, too, looks primal and is definitly potential in nature just as is charge. The universe as I have said, is a place governed solely by two primal, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE POTENTIAL ENERGY forces in constant exchange. The kinematics of the universe, including magnetism and photons are interim, secondary stuff and do not relate to key universal issues at all. They are but CONNECTORS and WHEELWORK produced solely by the potential, primal, interactions. They are a linkage, if you will, or self assembling bridge between the primals and matter.

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
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Hi Richard,

Richard Hull wrote:
> Of course there is no actual real measurment of photon exchange in the sense that you posit. It is all theoretical.

This is not true. You did not read the page, or perhaps you didn't understand it? Steven Lamoreaux empirically measured the Casimir effect. It is not just a theoretical phenomenon.

> We have no idea of the ORIGIN of nascent primary charge. This is electrostatic charge. Strong charge is a mathematical construct and has no testability outside of superb mathematical machinations based on an assumption of an Aether and virtual photon exchange. Zero virtual photons exchange exists in my mind due to no one have ever observed virtual photons. Yet these same items are talked about theoretically as if they are accepted science.
>

Strong charge does have an empirical basis. Whenever you feel the effect of magnetism between two permanent magnets, you are directly experiencing the effect of the strong charge. Whenever you take notice that the atoms in your body remain consistently held together, you are acknowledging the effects of the strong charge. When Steven Lamoreaux measured the Casimir effect, he was measuring the force exerted on the strong charge.

The term "virtual photons" is not a part of my theory. You are bringing in someone else's view of what transpires between the two strong charges. In my view, the photons are real because the measured effect predicted by the presence of these photons is real.

>Charge is the primal item that generates all photons, all
>magnetic forces and creates directly or indirectly 100% of all
>localized material motions and dynamic energies. It is the
>basis for all nuclear, atomic and molecular structure.

>Charge, while we don't know what it is can be looked at a
>primal. Gravity is obviously primal or certainly appears to be as
>it is certainly the demanded complimentary form of potential
>energy in the universe needed to keep things spun up along
>with charge.

It is interesting that you are saying that gravity and charge are primal. Elementary charge is the thing that the electrostatic force acts upon, mass is the thing that the gravitational force acts upon. Are you saying the force (gravity) is primal or are you saying the thing force acts on (charge) is primal?

It would seem that either charge and mass are primal, or electrostatic force and gravitational force are primal, but not a mixing of the two groups.

Also, how do you quantify that the elementary charge produces magnetism?

Dave
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Charge is extant - PERIOD and fact. Electrostatic force is a result of charge interaction and has no existence whatsoever without extant charge. Charge is primal. All charge that we see is associated with matter. Electrostatic force is just the reaction manifested in charged matter.

Force implies motion through a measured distance. It is the classic definition of force. Charge has no force but that another charge exists. When two charges are extant, electrostatic force is then ALLOWED TO EXIST.....and only then. No chicken or the egg here.

Gravity, as is manifested with the graitational force between matter, is primal as it is absolutely necessary along with the mutually exclusive charge and its electrostatic interaction with charged matter to keep the universe in motion and pertetually kinematic.

No magnetic field can ever exist without charge in motion either in locked up matter due to magnetic moments arising from the of spinning charged matter particles (permenant magnets) or in free space. All magnetism is secondary and a reaction flowing solely and directly from charge in motion. NO magnetic field in motion can create electrical charge, only move extant charge about. Magnetism can't DO anything primal and is not a primally extant force except in so far as there is charge somewhere in motion.

We can make a magnetic field anywhere and at any time where there is none. We can take matter and turn it into a macroscopic permanent magnet (domain) where there was none. A key to the secondary nature of magnetism is that like its progenitor charge it has a polar nature. Magnetism is an end of the line force. Magnetic force, working on its own, can't MAKE anything else as charge can. Charge can make photons and magnetism, new forms of energy, both potential and kinetic. Magnetism is also a potential energy, like its progenitor, charge and totally fixed and static except in that a charge changes its motion.

We cannot create charge anytime or anywhere.

We cannot create gravity.

By the same token we cannot create matter. We and nature CAN create MASS DEFECT. Done all the time in fusion

Gravity is a potential energy. Gravitational force is a resultant of this potential energy acting between to material bodies. There is not such thing as gravitational force without the extant potential energy, gravity itself. The source of gravity is equally unknown as is that of charge. We see both as a property of matter. I have noted that it might be the other way around that matter is a property of the existance of of the these two potential energies at singularly fortuitous points in space.

It is patently ridiculous to speak of gravitational force or electrostatic force without the pre-existing and nascent potential energy entities of charge and gravity. Forces are not primal but the result of potential energy interactions which we observe through material or matter interactions. Matter and its kinematics being the greasy, commonplace expressions of those potential energies we observe. Gravitational force and electrostatic force have no meaning without the pre-exant potential energies to make them known and measurable.

These two mutually exclusive potential energy sources solely control the universe, not dynamic ones. All dynamic forces and EM radiations and photons are solely the result of potential energy interactions through matter.

As regards the hypothesized strong charge and the measured casimir force..... The strong charge might be absolutely demanded in a THEORY set forth to explain what the Casimir force is, but it is not measurable directly in a laboratory as a separate entity. It is an assumed entity needed to make up a theory around a measured PHYSICAL FORCE.

NO ELECTRICAL FORCE MEASUREMENTS WERE DIRECTLY MADE HERE!

The strong charge was precisely and mathematically derived to explain a physical result, NOT an electrical one.

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
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Frank Sanns »

I think you guys are playing it fast and loose here. What is called antimatter is not antigravitational matter, it is anti color charge matter. Color charge is just one more attribute that matter can have besides Coulombic charge. Antimatter, like matter still has positive gravitational attraction.

Which brings up the next point. There CAN be a gravitational field without an electromagnetic field but an electromagnetic field can not exist without a gravitational field. Then we have the equivalence of a bulk property of matter with a fundamental property (gravitational vs. inertial masses). A coincidence that should not be based on empirical science.

Then take the case of a +1, +2, and +3 ion in a row with one moving at constant velocity and the other 2 oscillating at different speeds relative to each other. Which one will emit a photon? Which one(s) are producing a magnetic field. Things are not as simplistic as it appears. The universe is intertwined in ways that we need to use our minds to figure it out.

As for the empirical form of science being the only true science is just not true. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were conceived of in the mind first. Only afterwards were experiments designed to test the theories. Relativity, fundamental charge, photoelectric effect, and on and on and on.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

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
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

I have always held that charge, magnetism and electromagnetic fields are all totally separate, totally unrelated to and not interdependant on anything gravitational. Gravityis a separate and unrelated phenomena to anything electromagnetic. There is no scientific link between the two or a grand unification would have been a snap.

Antimatter has always been shown to have normal gravitational characteristics and be absolutely identical to normal matter with normal positive energy relating totally to our universe particles save for charge sign. I have never said otherwise. The antimatter particles positron and antiproton are listed as STABLE! And they would be around forever if it were not for their being born into such an overwhelmingly wrong charged area that we occupy. So they get killed off real quickly taking one of our own with them.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, indeed. There is certainly no loss of fertile and overactive imaginations in modern physics.

There are equal numbers of stumble-ons in science where engineers and chemists were working in producing wheelwork and improving day to day life for which the physicist had no theory or even clues as to how to proceed to explain things that a kid could currently demonstrate and observe. Examples, chemical theory, early electrical phenomena, X-rays, radiation, etc.

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
User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey »

Greetings,

Mankind had always been good at making theories, trying to figure out how our universe works. The way i see it we will NEVER know. Why? Because we are part of it. We are inside. Our body is not different from any other kind of matter, and is an integral part of this universe. We cannot see the whole picture from the inside, and we can never truly understand it on our current level of existence. Don't worry i will not go into some idealistic hotchpotch. But no theory ever (and probably never will, because it simply cannot) will answer the fundamental question: WHY?. I am sure that many of you have thought about the origin of the universe. The big-bang theory is anything but a theory to explain this origin. Do we have any idea on how can all this exist, what and why started it?? All we can do is to build upon axioms. Some connections can only be seen from the "outside". If we could see it all, then every single unexplained, unbelievable, extra-ordenary event/mechanism, simply everything would fit in the picture. That is something we cannot do. There are several dimensions of the universe we cannot "see". Still the question remains unanswered: WHY? It doesn't matter you say? What difference it would make if we would know the truth? To me it would be a BIG difference. Knowledge is never futile. To us it seems that the universe has absolutely no purpose. Humans are infinitely subjective. If you really think about it there is no solid foundation to stand on, there is NOTHING that we can be sure of. All we can do is to believe in a theory. As long as a theory works fine and is constantly proven "right" we utilize it to explane/calculate things, and that suits most of humanity fine.
The most difficult task is to think about the fundamentals.

Adam
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by 3l »

Hi Folks:

People keep telling me philosophy is a dead field.
When I look at this post, I'm reminded of a heated discussion of what makes an object an entity and vise versa.
This old chestnut if God is omnipresent and all knowing how can free will arise?
Totally unknowable of course.
A most illuminating illustration is the ptholomy theory.
It was the best of the best 4,000 years ago.
The ptholomy theory is totally an empirical theory based on observation. A few thousand years later the upgraded Ptholomy Theory rev 700 (string theory) is the best of the best...today.
Both a belly laugh for future generations. My best friend told me that this stuff is damn near invisible, I told him we like to call it philosophy / science. ( a Quote ripped from the movie Midway which my buddy and myself can quote verbatum.)

BTW :

The ultimate question has already been answered by Whitehead in the early 30's !

Why?
Because!

It doesn't tell you jack but it is the final answer.
But every human thought starts that way....Why?
Because.... It is everyman's quest to fill in the blanks.

BTW Great posts to read thnx.

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Richard Hull wrote:
> Charge is extant - PERIOD and fact. Electrostatic force is a result of charge interaction and has no existence whatsoever without extant charge. Charge is primal. All charge that we see is associated with matter. Electrostatic force is just the reaction manifested in charged matter.
>

With all due respect, Richard, what separates your statement from theology? I have heard that type of argument in church, but I don't understand why it should be, just because you say so. I thought mathematics was the language of science?

Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant. Just look at Coulomb’s law. Coulomb’s constant times charge1 times charge2 divided by the distance between them squared. Coulomb’s constant is not just some arbitrary value and dimensions that just happen to fit the equation. It refers to something real. Perhaps it is non-physical, but it is real nonetheless.

The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present.

Have you ever examined Coulomb’s constant closely?
http://www.tshankha.com/gravitational_constant.htm

Both Coulomb’s constant and the gravitational constant share the same structure. And both constants appear to be driven by an incredibly large Gforce, as I call it. What would you call a force that is 1.211 x 10^44 newton and drives every single particle attraction or repulsion throughout the Universe with equal effect?

There is also a third constant, the edts constant, which drives the strong charge just as the Coulomb constant drives the electrostatic charge, and the gravitational constant drives mass.
http://www.tshankha.com/edts_constant.htm

> Force implies motion through a measured distance. It is the classic definition of force. Charge has no force but that another charge exists. When two charges are extant, electrostatic force is then ALLOWED TO EXIST.....and only then. No chicken or the egg here.
>
This is not correct. Force is equal to pressure times area. When force moves a distance, it becomes energy.

> No magnetic field can ever exist without charge in motion either in locked up matter due to magnetic moments arising from the of spinning charged matter particles (permenant magnets) or in free space. All magnetism is secondary and a reaction flowing solely and directly from charge in motion. NO magnetic field in motion can create electrical charge, only move extant charge about. Magnetism can't DO anything primal and is not a primally extant force except in so far as there is charge somewhere in motion.
>
I’m not saying that a magnetic field creates anything. I’m saying the angular momentum of a subatomic particle moving through the conductance of Aether causes strong charge. Strong charge IS magnetism. Actually, it’s electromagnetism. And you are right electromagnetism is not primal. It is caused by angular momentum moving through the Aether. The angular momentum is primal. In fact, I call it primary angular momentum. All matter and energy can be traced back to primary angular momentum.
http://www.tshankha.com/angular_momentum.htm

Strong charge is caused by primary angular momentum, and electrostatic charge is caused by strong charge:
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8 * pi * a

where e is the elementary (electrostatic) charge, e.emax is the strong charge, and a is the fine structure constant of the electron. The equation above is a unified charge equation and it shows that electrostatic charge is a geometrical alteration of strong charge caused by the curved, half-spin nature of Aether.

> We cannot create charge anytime or anywhere.

I just showed you that we can, when we understand the correct physics.

> We cannot create gravity.

You’re right, gravity comes from the Aether, along with charge attraction/repulsion.

> By the same token we cannot create matter. We and nature CAN create MASS DEFECT. Done all the time in fusion
>
Mass defect is a misnomer. The effect is real, the description of the effect is false. Mass is not defective. The “mass defect” is actually a result of the degree of freedom the subatomic particles have to move within the nucleus.
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm

> Gravity is a potential energy. Gravitational force is a resultant of this potential energy acting between to material bodies. There is not such thing as gravitational force without the extant potential energy, gravity itself. The source of gravity is equally unknown as is that of charge. We see both as a property of matter. I have noted that it might be the other way around that matter is a property of the existance of of the these two potential energies at singularly fortuitous points in space.
>
I agree with the view that matter is a property of the gravitational constant. The non-physical gravitational constant, Coulomb constant, and edts constant are all driven by the same enormous Gforce. Nothing in physical matter could ever generate the magnitude of force within these essential constants.

> It is patently ridiculous to speak of gravitational force or electrostatic force without the pre-existing and nascent potential energy entities of charge and gravity. Forces are not primal but the result of potential energy interactions which we observe through material or matter interactions. Matter and its kinematics being the greasy, commonplace expressions of those potential energies we observe. Gravitational force and electrostatic force have no meaning without the pre-exant potential energies to make them known and measurable.
>
You say forces are not primal? You just said gravity was primal. What do you think gravity is? And aside from your personal opinion, there is nothing that could explain how a tiny electron could generate the enormous Gforce that exists within Coulomb’s constant or the gravitational constant. On the contrary, it is absolutely absurd to posit a tiny electron could generate force constants on the magnitude of 10^44 newton.

> As regards the hypothesized strong charge and the measured casimir force..... The strong charge might be absolutely demanded in a THEORY set forth to explain what the Casimir force is, but it is not measurable directly in a laboratory as a separate entity. It is an assumed entity needed to make up a theory around a measured PHYSICAL FORCE.
>
The strong charge IS magnetism, and magnetism IS directly measured in its various manifestations. Strong charge is just as measurable as electrostatic charge. In fact, both are static. The difference between the two charges is in their geometry. Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?
(I’ve bought your tapes, so you know I said that tongue in cheek.)

Have you ever built an electrostatic generator? What shape are the top capacitors in an electrostatic generator?

Electromagnetism is driven by the strong charge of the electron. Electrostatics are driven by the electrostatic charge of the electron (and proton.)

> NO ELECTRICAL FORCE MEASUREMENTS WERE DIRECTLY MADE HERE!
>
> The strong charge was precisely and mathematically derived to explain a physical result, NOT an electrical one.
>
What is the difference? Are not electrical phenomenon also physical phenomenon? And what physical particle exists that does not have a charge component?

Dave
guest

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Hi Frank,

Frank S. wrote:
> Which brings up the next point. There CAN be a gravitational field without an electromagnetic field but an electromagnetic field can not exist without a gravitational field. Then we have the equivalence of a bulk property of matter with a fundamental property (gravitational vs. inertial masses). A coincidence that should not be based on empirical science.
>

All subatomic particles have both mass and charge. It is impossible to separate the gravitational and electrical fields or to say you can have one without the other.

Just because charges can be neutralized, does not mean the fields don't exist. The overall field becomes very weak to be sure, but the electrical fields acting upon each subatomic particle remains just as strong as ever.

> As for the empirical form of science being the only true science is just not true. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were conceived of in the mind first. Only afterwards were experiments designed to test the theories. Relativity, fundamental charge, photoelectric effect, and on and on and on.
>

I agree with you here. Science is not exclusively one process. It is the blending of several processes in the pursuit of the truth. The goal is truth, and all means that help us to arrive at the truth are science. ...Even lucky guesses count (assumptions), just as long as the guess is eventually borne out by data and equations.

Dave
guest

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Richard Hull wrote:
> I have always held that charge, magnetism and electromagnetic fields are all totally separate, totally unrelated to and not interdependant on anything gravitational. Gravityis a separate and unrelated phenomena to anything electromagnetic. There is no scientific link between the two or a grand unification would have been a snap.
>

It is a snap, when you see charge properly...
http://www.tshankha.com/unified_charge_theory.htm

Dave
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

It is obvious each of us has their own beliefs based on opinion, best guess, what we have read, mathematical musings, empirical observation or just blind faith. To each his own.

I am never out to discover the why of all things, but only to see connections that are obvious and in my mind disgard superfluous material (of which there is plenty). This need extend no deeper for me that observations derived from simple experiment. Thought experiments even backed by mathematics are never more than just that for me. A solid, well tested theory for me does not a reality make.

Ricahrd 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
Richard Hester
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
Real name:

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hester »

You can rename the particles anyway you like, call them colored or charmed or any other scientific doublespeak, when an electron and positron annihilate, charges go away, though the overall charge balance of the universe is unaffected. This must say something fundamental about the nature of charge. Nobody is playing fast and loose with anything.
User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey »

Hello Larry!

I guess the wise answer IS "Because". And i know that the little piece of philosophy i've posted is a very old one. My purpose was simply to write my thoughts down. I guess the "older" folks (above 30) here all have gone through a phase in their life when they just could not stop thinking about these issues. I am amazed by this universe, by how it works and the fact that it works. Just by looking at a cloud, seeing the stars at night, or seeing the fusor work. I just cannot stopmyself to pause and think: Why...even if the answer is simply "because" i am still puzzled. This is curiosity, "filling the blanks".
And thinking is a wonderous trip to understading...or to mental breakdown :).

Adam
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

Im taking a history course at my university. One of the interesting things we've learned is the deviation from "why" to "how" in modern times. You can look at it like this:

Greeks: rock falls because rock has earth in it. Earth wants to "be" together, so rock falls.

Renaissance thinkers: Rock falls with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Note the progression from why things are, which is a philosophical question, to how, which seeks only to describe the way it is. This was one of the breakthroughs for Galileo and Newton who did not know why the rock fell. Only that it did, and we can desrcribe the motion. Newton provides no mechanism to explain what gravity is, just that it is. Hence the law of universal gravitation, not the theory.

This how system has brought about all the great theories of modern age. Note that no philosophy is involved, only observation. Any theory based on observation is bound to work out well.
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

"Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant"

No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.

"Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"

I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work. This is a beautiful example of an analogy that does not work the slightest bit. What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge? Nothing. Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy. Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.

"The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."

The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”