Electric theory??

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Real name:

Electric theory??

Post by ebeuerle »

I came across this on Wired. I read through quite a few articles and thought maybe you all would be interested in it. This is definitely for those who have open minds.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697, ... _tophead_4
http://www.thunderbolts.info/

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

I have always held that charge and gravity are on equal footing and are the stuff of the universe which is all working off potential energy exchanges between the two.

I am looking at the URL's you supplied closely in the Baconian tradition.

For my money, anything that claims to do away with the need for dark energy and dark matter is a step in a right direction. That direction is towards the blade on ockhams razor.

I am stunned that scientists refuse to allow for electric charge on a comet. All such bodies are basically isotropic capacities in the insulating medium of space. They can certainly acquire and hold charge relative to other bodies regardless of their temperature or even shape. Solar wind charging and even dust particle charge transfer are all viable charging systems for maruading balls of anything! The only thing chargeless in the universe is a lone, stationary piece of inert matter that is recently discharged relative to its environs which will not be in motion or have any medium in motion past it. Those are just not found in space. Such objects could remain charged for millenia if un molested in space once charged.

Charging is a bipolar deal and isotropic capacities are charged relative to something at some time.

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
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by ebeuerle »

Richard,
I agree with you-as a amateur scientist this theory definitely has some problems but overall it seems to solve some of the issues in physics that I have had a hard time swallowing.
I would be interested to hear other opinions on it as well as yours once you finish digesting the links:)
-Eddie B.
JosephBlow
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:45 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by JosephBlow »

Hi Edward,

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/welcome.html

The Hungarian Prof. Dr. Lazlo is certainly farther ahead than anyone I know. He's already indicating that the great star quake is an Electric Universe Event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4278005.stm

Peace.
Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark »

I find it curious that the idea of the electric sun mimics the atom, in that the proposal is for a positively charged core wirh negative outer layers.
My theoretical particle physics knowledge is very limited, but I was reading up about fundamental particles recently.
It does seem astonishing that the charge on electron and proton should so precisely balance. This must be to do with the way they were originally formed, and perhaps also why neutrons apparently dissociate to proton and electron.
Why the neutron should be stable in the nucleus but not outside must be an important clue.
Another thing that struck me about the book on particles I was reading, was that much of the early work has come from cloud-chamber observations in "atom smashing" type experiments.
It got me wondering whether some of the exotic particles might actually be formed from the energy involved rather than being shown passively as constituents. It's another form of Heisenberg I suppose.
Could it be that a simpler form of some of the atomic processes is also there for the explaning?
All these complex families of coloured quarks etc. don't seem to tie in with the simplicity of other natural systems.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

Andy speaks as I have spoken for years, and much of the electric universe site is devoted to simpliying nature around natural bulk electric goings on.

I have long championed the feeling that even mesons are non-atomic in nature much less quarks, gluons and the rest of the zoo. Amoung the most rediculous concepts is the virtual photon. Which is a dream particle and is right in there with mother goose and the spirit world.

We create conditions in massive accelerators outside those found over the bulk of the current universe and temperatures created in these microscopic events herald the matter involved in them back to a distant time in the universe, where mesons were the only matter to be found and more cataclysmic events in accelerators see back farther still. However, none of these observed particles are part of the matter that we know, but, instead, represent a microscopic instant of time in a microscopic part of space which shows matter as it once was.

Once free of the reaction zone, temps grow far too cold and the matter morphs back within microseconds and picoseconds into any number of stable entities. Most often these are just wisps of energy, protons, or electrons. But only the stuff that is stable now remains within microseconds of these events. We are not seeing the guts of matter, That will never be seen. We are, instead, looking at ancient stable forms of matter in a far less kinder and gentler universe.

Only in the rareset of stellar events can such near creation event energy densitiies be reached OR right here on earth by sucking megawatts of power from the grid and focusing it to a point of atomic dimensions.

We were never looking inside matter, We were looking back in time at what matter was for but an instant of geologic time. There are no real clues to be found here, only long dead corpses resurrected along perfectly natural lines, but fleetingly so. Their moment is past, as nature has no such stock and trade, energy dense sources remaining outside of man's medling hands and inquisitive mind. Only the nearest relative of matter as we know it, mesons, appear now in infrequent events where even nature still has some energy concentrating skills left.

It is pretty much a totally stable, electron, proton, neutron, charge based, gravimetric universe now.

Each successive generation of matter will have longer lifespans as things cool off more. What we see as forces today will disappear one by one as the potential energy is expended with no return. Already submerged are the forces of the strong and weak forces, fading from view. What is next?

Matter may devolve into a pure neutronic soup and charge will slowly subordinate to be as visible as are the strong and weak forces now, leaving only gravity to collect all of the bound and forceless materials of the universe in a cold bleak future.

Evolution is in fact a devolution; a dissapational process. The universe started with nothing but potetnial energy which could interchange and exchange regularly creating what we see as a dynamic universe (always an illusion), but active nonetheless. As the potential energy sources slowly submerge into an exchangless lock down, gravity, the last surviving force in nature will have no job or meaning.

The gravitational and electric exchanges will go on for countless billions of years more, to be sure, but the end is the same. Nuclear reactions in gravity driven systems giving way to nothing more than chemical reactions with the ever weakly bound electrons. A final gravity crush of matter to neutrons as their formation absorbs the last little bit of charge energy in the universe to interact with gravity. The neutron itself may devolve into a totally stable, inseperable, truly forever, neutral particle with no components possible or observable. Gravity proof 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
Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark »

What is exciting for the fusion side of this is that there seem to be clues emerging that suggest the standard model is plain wrong. All the experiments that prove nuclear transmutations are occuring in high atomic number nucleii just don't match the mainstream model, yet they happen (according to numerous verified claims).
We have pointers like renewed cold fusion results, plasma discharges etc. Fusors just do the fusion in the more traditional way, but we must be missing something.
It seems a bit like the caveman freezing in his cave because he hasn't yet learned how to ignite a fire.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

There is plenty of new science out there. Most of it, I fear was just side stepped in a modern era rush to develop the easy to see stuff. Unusual reports of paladium anomolies and reactions after taking up hydrogen go back to the 1910-1920 era. Pons and Fleishman quote several papers from the period.

We took some wrong turns, It think, in the 20's and 30's and the stuff is now so codified and woven into the fabric of daily science, it will be hard as hell to backstep, though it will certainly have to be done in time. Science is very flexible if beat over the head long enough with empirical evidence. They do like for it to be easy to replicate and observe like the discovery of x-rays or radioactivity. Most of the easy stuff has already been swept out of the carpet though and all we know and believe derived from it.

Interestingly, and in keeping with my thoughts in my post immediately prior to this, we could be seeing a disappearing fusion process or a new one coming onto the scene! With CF's wishy-washy nature, we may be seeing a distant dawn of a new process or the last whimpers of an old one fading out. We may exist in too small a time slice in the grand scheme of things to make use of it one way or another. CF could be an intriguing spoiler. (Just musing on fusion's doorstep)

There might be indicators which direction the process is moving. If my brain were to hazard a guess I would say it is birthing as a new method of locking down charged matter and ending the existence and reign of the strong and weak forces as a ponderable entity. (devolution by evolution) Still, we gotta' be talking billions of years here. In our time slice it will certainly be little more than a bizarre amusement.....a condradictory spoiler.

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
JosephBlow
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:45 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by JosephBlow »

I've been fascinated by the extraordinary and how physics might explain it. Here's another old observation that requires a different model - sonoluminescence
------------------------------------------
http://www.acoustics.org/press/140th/camara.htm

Cavitation--the formation of bubbles in a liquid and
their motion--is one of the most striking examples of
energy focusing in nature. When the pressure in a
liquid is quickly lowered, small gas bubbles will
spontaneously form and oscillate wildly. Such an
abrupt pressure reduction can be generated by the
Bernoulli effect--in which an increase of velocity in
a fluid particle reduces the pressure on it. This can
happen, for example, when water races around a ship.
The resulting cavitation--that is, the resulting
motion of the gas bubbles inside the liquid--can often
damage the mechanical parts, such as the ship's
propellers. If the low pressure is achieved with
sufficient strength the bubbles are known to emit
short bursts of ultraviolet light. When triggered by
sound waves the phenomena is known as sonoluminescence
(or "SL").

Sonoluminescence is the conversion of sound into
light. Aiming sound waves at a water tank can create
bubbles which implode to create bursts of light. These
flashes of light represent as much as a trillion-fold
concentration of the initial sound energy. As we will
see, sonoluminescence can also be generated with
medical ultrasound devices. Such as the ones used for
ultrasound-based liposuction in which an ultrasound
probe liquefies fat cells. Therefore, sonoluminescence
can provide insights into how this form of liposuction
works, and potentially be exploited to improve this
surgical technique and/or lead to new medical
applications.


We have observed the motion of clouds of cavitating
bubbles generated in water by imposing sound fields at
27 kHz, 1 megahertz (MHz) and 11 MHz. Bubbles are
generated in much the same way as in the discovery of
SL in the 1930's, that is with mechanical devices
pumping their energy right into the water. To probe
the bubbles a very short but intense flash of laser
light is used to strobe the cloud. The transmitted
light is viewed through a microscope. By repeatedly
strobing the bubbles we can see how their size
distributions change in time.

We have found that the size of the hot spot from which
the light is emitted ranges from less than a micron
(millionth of a meter) at 27 kHz, to under about 10
nanometers (billionths of a meter) at 11MHz. While the
27-kHz sound waves produce flashes lasting under about
100 picoseconds (trillionths of a second), we have
been unable to measure the flash duration at 11 MHz,
but we suspect that it will be significantly shorter;
perhaps sonoluminescence with very high-frequency
sound waves will be an alternate route to producing
ultrafast physical phenomena. We find it exciting that
SL can be seen in regions with the nanometer size
scale which approaches atomic dimensions.

Perhaps SL will provide a new angle on atomic physics,
a domain where quantum theory is thought to be
dominant. Bubbles respond to the sound by performing
strongly "nonlinear" oscillations, in which the
frequency of oscillations is not necessarily
proportional to the sound frequencies used to generate
those oscillations. During each cycle of sound they
first undergo a slow steady growth, increasing in
volume by at least 1000 times. This expansion sets the
bubble up to undergo a runaway implosion where its
volume can shrink around a factor of a million.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns »

A neutron can not be a proton and an electron. The Uncertainty Principle says that if you were to confine an electron to a distance equal to the diameter of a neutron, the energy would be higher than the rest mass of the neutron so it can not be so. There are also a couple other reasons that a neutron can not be an electron and a proton but you get the idea! Anyways,

Neutrons have no charge.

Neutron stars are made up of neutrons.

Neutron stars have strong magnetic fields.

Neutron stars rotate rapidly and emit radio waves.

Radio waves are produced by acellerating charges.

Magnetic fields are produced from moving charges.

Neutron stars are made up of neutrons. Where do the charges come from if only neutrons are present and there are no electrons or protons inside of a neutron?

I make this post only to show how little is really known about things smaller than a bread box.

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
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet »

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

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
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
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet »

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

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
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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

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
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."
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet »

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.
Todd Massure
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Todd Massure »

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?
Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark »

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.
Todd Massure
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Todd Massure »

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
Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark »

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.
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire »

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??

Post by longstreet »

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns »

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.
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
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire »

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

The problem with wave theory is in the analysis of a stationary particle - Proton, Neutron or Electron - not in relative motion. What about a stasis Neutron? My maths just ain't good enough in Quantum to fully interpret. Is this wave constituent of the particle, electrical, magnetic or gravitational? I have passed Microwave Photons through Quantum tunnels ( wax wedges ) which does make for difficult explaination in conventiental physics, but these are in transit propagation - radiating away from a source at the speed of light. I buy transitional particle/waves ok, but a stationary particle as a wave function??? - Is our Universe a standing wave?
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire »

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

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”