- #1

benzun_1999

- 259

- 0

What is the excat charge on a electron and proton? What is the net energy in a electron? I strongly feel that the charge on a electron is not a constant.

-Benzun

all for God.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter benzun_1999
- Start date

- #1

benzun_1999

- 259

- 0

What is the excat charge on a electron and proton? What is the net energy in a electron? I strongly feel that the charge on a electron is not a constant.

-Benzun

all for God.

- #2

jcsd

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,101

- 12

Originally posted by benzun_1999

What is the excat charge on a electron and proton? What is the net energy in a electron? I strongly feel that the charge on a electron is not a constant.

-Benzun

all for God.

The charge of the electron is about -1.60217733 x 10

- #3

Originally posted by benzun_1999

What is the excat charge on a electron and proton? What is the net energy in a electron? I strongly feel that the charge on a electron is not a constant.

The elementary charge of the electron and proton are identical. But that is not necessarily the only charge type the electron and proton possess. The strong nuclear force applies to both the electron and proton, but each has a different magnitude of strong nuclear force associated with it. If the strong nuclear force is a type of charge, then the electron and proton would have a different "strong charge".

This is getting into theoretical quantum physics, mind you. If you want, I can explain this in fairly simple dimensional math.

Dave

- #4

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

- #5

benzun_1999

- 259

- 0

could anyone explain a bit better. One thing that is odd i have noted in an atom does not attract another charge when its +ive and -ive are equal. but it attracts when it is not equal why?

- #6

Ambitwistor

- 841

- 1

When the positive charge of a nucleus is equal to the negative charge of the electrons surrounding it, the total charge of the atom is zero. You need charge to produce an electric field to attract (or repel) other particles.

(The electric field of a neutral atom isn't exactly zero: for instance, you could pick a point in space outside the atom where the electrons are on average closer to that point than the nucleus. Thus, the net electric field of the electrons will be slightly stronger than the net field of the nucleus. But because the electrons and the nucleus still mostly cancel out each other's fields, the total field of a neutral atom drops off quickly, faster than 1/r

- #7

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

- #8

bdkeenan00

- 50

- 0

Originally posted by volantis

The strong nuclear force applies to both the electron and proton

Are you sure about that? Leptons don't have a color charge.

- #9

Originally posted by bdkeenan00

Are you sure about that? Leptons don't have a color charge.

Let's look at this objectively. First of all, what if modern physics has the wrong dimensions for charge? All charge distributes easily over a surface, but nobody has identified a single, physical piece of charge. So maybe the elementary charge is really e^2 and not just e?

I worked out the physics for this and found another interesting constant. If you take Coulomb's constant and divide out permeability, the speed of light, and multiply by permittivity, you get a conductance constant equal to 2.112 x 10^-4 siemens. If you multiply the angular momentum of the electron, which should be just Planck's constant and not hbar, you get...

h * Cd = e.emax^2

where e.emax^2 is a distributed charge equal to 5.452e^2 (or e.emax = 2.335e). That charge is equal to the strong nuclear force of the electron. How do I know this is the strong nuclear force?

There is an equation, I call the unified field equation, that goes like this...

e^2

-------- = 8 pi a

e.emax^2

where a is alpha, the fine structure constant of the electron. 8*pi*a, btw, is the weak nuclear force, or proportion, of the electron.

Through a proof I found that the strong nuclear force is directly proportional to the mass of its associated particle. In otherwords, there is an exact mass to strong nuclear force ratio that exists for every bit of matter all throughout the Universe. The strong nuclear force of the proton is...

h.p * Cd = e.pmax^2

where h.p is the angular momentum of the proton and is equal to the mass of the proton times the Compton wavelength, times the speed of light. h.p = 1836h

I was also able to mathematically determine the fine structure of the proton by applying the same proportions of the electron unified field equation to the proton. The fine structure of the proton is equal to p = 3.974 x 10^-6. The neutron fine structure turns out to be n = 3.969 x 10^-6.

The unified field equation for the proton is:

e^2

-------- = 8 pi p

e.pmax^2

Now when you take a single dimension of e.pmax and compare it to the elementary charge you get...

e.pmax = 100.058e

This is exactly the proportion of the strong nuclear force of the proton and neutron compared to the elementary charge. The strong nuclear force of the neutron is equal to:

e.nmax = 100.127e

So while this equation is theoretical and not established as doctrine with modern physics (yet) it does deserve to be looked at and scrutinized. Notice that I was able to unify all the four forces in this equation?

Also, notice that I didn't have to rely on some exotic concept such as color force, or particle flavor in this simple analysis? When you look at the whole of the theory I'm working on you'll see that it is all mathematically correct, agrees fully with empirical measurements, explains all the known quantum physical processes (but in terms of strong nuclear force and not momentum or energy), is completely consistent with Classical Mechanics, describes the quantum dimensions and value of spacetime, and comes with a kitchen sink.

Does this mean everybody else's physics is suddenly wrong? Not at all. You can easily convert from explaining energy in terms of mass (E=mc^2) to explaining energy in terms of strong nuclear force...

Where edts is electromagnetic double toroidal spin (rotating magnetic field) and has the dimensions and value equal to 4pi^2 times Coulomb's constant, the energy of the electron can be written as...

e.emax^2

E = edts * -------- = m.e * c^2

w.C

where w.C is the Compton wavelength. Notice that the equation for strong nuclear force takes on the form of Coulomb's law? The equation for strong nuclear force (which is expressed in dimensions of charge) is consistent with our understanding of charge and also abides by a very similar law.

I'm just showing an extension of physics which was previously ignored due to Einstein's proclamation that he could define the Universe without resorting to an Aether (which he never fully completed.) I'm showing that I can define the Universe by using the Aether and I have presented quantum dimensions to describe it along with equations to link the Aether with the physical particles. And to show for my efforts, I have the only mathematically viable candidate equations for the Unified Field Theory.

Dave

- #10

bdkeenan00

- 50

- 0

Sounds great I'm glad you've figured it out. you should put that in theory developement.

- #11

turin

Homework Helper

- 2,323

- 3

I can't make intelligible sense of this. Can you define the force of an object?Originally posted by volantis

Through a proof I found that the strong nuclear force is directly proportional to the mass of its associated particle. In otherwords, there is an exact mass to strong nuclear force ratio that exists for every bit of matter all throughout the Universe. The strong nuclear force of the proton is...

- #12

Originally posted by turin

I can't make intelligible sense of this. Can you define the force of an object?

Actually, what I have defined are the dimensions of the srong nuclear charge of the particle. The law that acts upon this charge is similar to, but not the same, as the Coulomb law that acts upon electrostatic charge.

The force itself comes from spacetime (I prefer to call it Aether.) I have mathematically shown that the same force (GForce) acts on mass, electrostatic charge, and electromagnetic charge (strong nuclear charge.) The theory has a lot to it. Here is a link to my page on charge...

http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm [Broken]

You might also want to see how I identify the Aether...

http://www.tshankha.com/identifying_the_aether.htm [Broken]

Dave

Last edited by a moderator:

- #13

turin

Homework Helper

- 2,323

- 3

- #14

Originally posted by turin

The electron has several characteristics. It has mass, spin, elementary charge, and strong charge. The first three you know about. You probably also know that elementary charge is electrostatic charge.

I have found the equations that use empirically measured constants and derived the strong charge (electromagnetic charge) of the subatomic particles.

You are familiar with the Coulomb law that applies to electrostatic force. It is:

electrostatic force = k.c * electrostatic charge 1 * electrostatic charge 2 / distance squared

I have deduced that the law for the strong charge force (the charge that binds the nucleus and is known as the "strong nuclear force") obeys the law:

electromagnetic force = 16pi^2 * k.c * electromagnetic charge 1 * electromagnetic charge 2 / distance squared

When I speak of "a force of an object" I'm using loose terminology. I'm talking about the force that acts upon the charge or mass of the object.

What has been missing from the Standard Model is a way to quantify the strong nuclear force in terms of dimensions. I have found that way.

Dave

- #15

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,275

- 40

You're a complete, total, moron.Originally posted by volantis

I have deduced that the law for the strong charge force (the charge that binds the nucleus and is known as the "strong nuclear force") obeys the law:

electromagnetic force = 16pi^2 * k.c * electromagnetic charge 1 * electromagnetic charge 2 / distance squared

- Warren

- #16

turin

Homework Helper

- 2,323

- 3

volantis,

I think we have a communication barrier. English is my first language. What is yours?

I think we have a communication barrier. English is my first language. What is yours?

- #17

Originally posted by turin

volantis,

I think we have a communication barrier. English is my first language. What is yours?

Mathematics. Mathematics is the best language for discussing physics.

Dave

- #18

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,275

- 40

Too bad you apparently can't properly use mathematics, either.Originally posted by volantis

Mathematics. Mathematics is the best language for discussing physics.

Do you really not understand where theory development posts are intended to go on this website? Hint: not here.

- Warren

- #19

Originally posted by chroot

Too bad you apparently can't properly use mathematics, either.

Do you really not understand where theory development posts are intended to go on this website? Hint: not here.

- Warren

Hi Warren,

I can feel your hot air, but I don't see any substance in your post. Show where my math is wrong, or wrongly applied.

Dave

- #20

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,275

- 40

Funny, I didn't see any in yours, either.Originally posted by volantis

I can feel your hot air, but I don't see any substance in your post.

How about that part where the leptons interact strongly? Or that part where you assert that the strong interaction is electromagnetic? You're completely insane, and obviously share the same compulsion as many of the crackpots we get here -- you have no idea what you're talking about, or how real physics works, yet you believe you have something better, in vacuo. You're wasting everyone's time here, and you're posting in the wrong forum. Get it, or you will be gone.Show where my math is wrong, or wrongly applied.

- Warren

- #21

turin

Homework Helper

- 2,323

- 3

I hate it when people call mathematics a language. Yes, it has syntax; yes, it respresents objects and actions. But, math happens in a different area of the brain than language. You can do math without the syntax. And, from what you have shown, you can express the syntax without doing math.Originally posted by volantis

Mathematics is the best language for discussing physics.

I find it amusing that you consider math as your first language. Instead of "daddy," I'm sure your first word was "e^2," because you were raised by square electrons.

BTW, I was originally being serious when I asked you what your first language is. I don't think I can be very serious about the issue any more.

- #22

Originally posted by chroot

Funny, I didn't see any in yours, either.

Did you check the math to see if it was accurate? Did you analyze my logic of quantifying the strong charge? Did you check to see if other scientists also believe that the strong force is due to an electromagnetic phenomenon? Did you notice that my explanation of the charges is 100% consistent with the observation of the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces? All you gave is a reaction based on ignorance and resistance to change.

How about that part where the leptons interact strongly? Or that part where you assert that the strong interaction is electromagnetic?

- Warren

The leptons interact strongly. It occurs in an electron plasma. Electrons also have electromagnetism. Electromagnetism does not come from the electrostatic Coulomb charge of the electron. There is no magnetism in electrostatic charge. There has to be a second type of charge to account for electromagnetism. If you analyze my theory you will find that it accurately predicts the strong charge for the proton and neutron and that this strong charge is exactly 100 times greater than the elementary charge.

It is logical that if proton and neutron structure have electromagnetic charge that exactly coincides with the empirical strong nuclear force, then the electron would have similar characteristics. Notice that the electron strong charge is far weaker than the proton or neutron strong charge. This is fully consistent with the fact that electrons only bind at extremely high energies but remain like a fluid at "normal" energies.

Others have noticed that the strong nuclear force is electromagnetic in nature...

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/PartIII/III5StrongForce.html [Broken]

But if you are so certain I am wrong, explain exactly the law that governs the strong nuclear force, and the dimensions the strong nuclear force acts upon. Let's see if you're going to serve up the nonsense of imaginary -W and +W particles that magically stick together and have no mathematical relationship to the other forces.

Dave

Last edited by a moderator:

- #23

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,275

- 40

Yes, and it's steaming bear ****.Originally posted by volantis

Did you analyze my logic of quantifying the strong charge?

Yes. High-energy physicists believe the strong force is one of the four fundamental forces, and is a peer with electromagnetism. No one except you believes that strong force is electromagnetic. If it were, why would we have two names for it?Did you check to see if other scientists also believe that the strong force is due to an electromagnetic phenomenon?

Reference?The leptons interact strongly. It occurs in an electron plasma.

Electromagnetism is a force.Electrons also have electromagnetism. Electromagnetism does not come from the electrostatic Coulomb charge of the electron.

For an observer moving in relative motion, there sure is.There is no magnetism in electrostatic charge.

We call that charge "electromagnetic charge." The strong charge, which is entirely different, is called "colour."There has to be a second type of charge to account for electromagnetism.

Well, that's wrong!If you analyze my theory you will find that it accurately predicts the strong charge for the proton and neutron and that this strong charge is exactly 100 times greater than the elementary charge.

If an apple is red, it is logical that bananas would be, also.It is logical that if proton and neutron structure have electromagnetic charge that exactly coincides with the empirical strong nuclear force, then the electron would have similar characteristics.

Like... a fluid?Notice that the electron strong charge is far weaker than the proton or neutron strong charge. This is fully consistent with the fact that electrons only bind at extremely high energies but remain like a fluid at "normal" energies.

Do you really think linking me to ANOTHER delusional rambling crackpot's website is really going to make you MORE credible?Others have noticed that the strong nuclear force is electromagnetic in nature...

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/PartIII/III5StrongForce.html [Broken]

The strong nuclear force is due to a gauge field governed by the SU(3) gauge group. The quanta of the field are called gluons.But if you are so certain I am wrong, explain exactly the law that governs the strong nuclear force, and the dimensions the strong nuclear force acts upon.

You're really demonstrating your complete, thorough ignorance for me. The W and Z bosons couple the WEAK FORCE, not the STRONG.Let's see if you're going to serve up the nonsense of imaginary -W and +W particles that magically stick together and have no mathematical relationship to the other forces.

- Warren

Last edited by a moderator:

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 338

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 429

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 671

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 94

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 339

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 379

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 463

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K