What is electric charge?

[Steven Sesselmann]

Some things we take for granted, but when we consider it carefully, it may not be so obvious after all.

Everyone thinks they know the answer…

…oh that’s simple, if something has more electrons than protons, then it holds negative charge, and if something has less electrons than protons it holds a positive charge.

Then when we realize that the above expression makes no sense at all, because charge is relative, and there is no way to know how many electrons something has.

Ground potential means absolutely nothing, because a bird sitting on a 10,000V power line feels no charge, in fact we can put a scientist inside a metal cage, charge it to -10,000 volts, and ask him to find the extra electrons, and of course he won’t find them, because inside his cage everything is just fine and normal.

So it is generally accepted that negative ions have extra electrons.

Could there be another explanation (without upsetting the chemists)?

If charge was nothing more than electrical potential and the electrical potential alone represented the total energy of matter, then what we call ground potential, would be in the order of +930 Mev (the proton mass energy of the most stable element Ni62). Just like the bird on the wire, we would be sitting at a potential of almost 1 Gev. without even knowing it.

Electrons need not necessarily exist within the nucleus at all, they might simply be a means to transfer potential between one particle and another, ergo a quantum particle that transfers 511 Kev of electrical potential from A to B, and once the transfer has taken place, the particle no longer exists.

From this, a simple rule could be formulated, objects of higher electrical potential fall towards objects of lower electrical potential, just as water runs down hill.

The known forces including gravity may be replaced by one single parameter, being the difference in electrical potential.

The arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, so we may say that the future is down and the past is up, and what we perceive as time, is the continuous drop in potential, resulting from the matter we and the Earth are made from, falling to lower and lower potential, by undergoing continuous fission/fusion/chemical reactions……we are (I think) imploding!

This implosion process gives us the illusion of an expanding Universe, which I agree is definitely a more palatable future, but sadly I think it might be wrong.

Steven

[asymmetric_implosion]

Steven Sesselmann wrote: Some things we take for granted, but when we consider it carefully, it may not be so obvious after all.

Ground potential means absolutely nothing, because a bird sitting on a 10,000V power line feels no charge, in fact we can put a scientist inside a metal cage, charge it to -10,000 volts, and ask him to find the extra electrons, and of course he won’t find them, because inside his cage everything is just fine and normal.

My answer to this part anyway. All measurements are relative. This is known and accepted. In fact, those that work on extreme high voltage rely on it. We choose earth as a reference in most cases because it is large object that we all can agree on. It has a large quantity of electrons so adding or subtracting a tiny fraction doesn’t change the potential of the earth. It is a huge capacitor. Take a multimeter and stick the two probes in the earth. You will measure near zero voltage difference. Take your meter to your metal cage. Touch the cage and measure the voltage between the earth and the cage. (Special meter may be required at 10 kV). You measure it as negative relative to ground as an example. Discharge cage and place scientist inside. Charge cage. The scientist measures the potential of many points in the cage relative to each other. You should get a near zero voltage difference. This is were you stop. You need to complete the experiment. Take one probe and touch the earth outside the cage. The other probe touches the cage. If you have been consistent, the earth will measure the 10 kV with the opposite polarity. You can argue which object has lost electrons or gained electrons, but the number of electrons is so small relative to the total number of electrons in a solid that they are difficult to find. For the non-believer, try it for yourself. I would recommend a lower voltage than 10 kV.

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote: Some things we take for granted, but when we consider it carefully, it may not be so obvious after all.

Everyone thinks they know the answer…

…oh that’s simple, if something has more electrons than protons, then it holds negative charge, and if something has less electrons than protons it holds a positive charge.

Then when we realize that the above expression makes no sense at all, because charge is relative, and there is no way to know how many electrons something has.

Ground potential means absolutely nothing, because a bird sitting on a 10,000V power line feels no charge, in fact we can put a scientist inside a metal cage, charge it to -10,000 volts, and ask him to find the extra electrons, and of course he won’t find them, because inside his cage everything is just fine and normal.

So it is generally accepted that negative ions have extra electrons.

Could there be another explanation (without upsetting the chemists)?

If charge was nothing more than electrical potential and the electrical potential alone represented the total energy of matter, then what we call ground potential, would be in the order of +930 Mev (the proton mass energy of the most stable element Ni62). Just like the bird on the wire, we would be sitting at a potential of almost 1 Gev. without even knowing it.

Electrons need not necessarily exist within the nucleus at all, they might simply be a means to transfer potential between one particle and another, ergo a quantum particle that transfers 511 Kev of electrical potential from A to B, and once the transfer has taken place, the particle no longer exists.

From this, a simple rule could be formulated, objects of higher electrical potential fall towards objects of lower electrical potential, just as water runs down hill.

The known forces including gravity may be replaced by one single parameter, being the difference in electrical potential.

The arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, so we may say that the future is down and the past is up, and what we perceive as time, is the continuous drop in potential, resulting from the matter we and the Earth are made from, falling to lower and lower potential, by undergoing continuous fission/fusion/chemical reactions……we are (I think) imploding!

This implosion process gives us the illusion of an expanding Universe, which I agree is definitely a more palatable future, but sadly I think it might be wrong.

Steven

My only reply to this has to be the oil drop experiment. Your explanation does not fit with the quantized nature of electric charge. If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

[Steven Sesselmann]

ikanreed wrote: If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

I think we must accept the quantization of charge, experimental evidence is solid. All I can think of is that we postulate that the transfer of potential between one atom and another is quantized and can only be exchanged in 511 kev packets. Single atoms can however fall to a lower energy potential by emitting a photon or gamma.

Why this quantum happens to be 511 Kev. is an interesting puzzle in itself.

The fact that we can synthetically create electron-positron pairs from nothing, supports my idea. No positron needs to be created when potential is transferred from one particle to another, because the electron is a temporary particle.

I often like to compare physics to economics, in my theory, the atom is the equivalent of a bank account with a large positive balance, and the electron is the equivalent of a one dollar coin. There are actually no physical one dollar coins in your bank account, but if you want to transfer money from the account to another account, you need the one dollar coin to do it, and consequently your bank balances must be an integer of the one dollar quantum (assuming one dollar is the smallest coin).

Steven

[jamesr]

you should watch Feynman http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/47

you cannot understand electrons without appreciating QED.

[Steven Sesselmann]

jamesr wrote: you should watch Feynman http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/47

you cannot understand electrons without appreciating QED.

Always a pleasyre to watch Feynman lecture, might have seen this one before.

This is one way to interprete observations, without doubt successful, but falls short of explaining what mass is, and why the proton has mass.

Steven

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

I think we must accept the quantization of charge, experimental evidence is solid. All I can think of is that we postulate that the transfer of potential between one atom and another is quantized and can only be exchanged in 511 kev packets. Single atoms can however fall to a lower energy potential by emitting a photon or gamma.

Why this quantum happens to be 511 Kev. is an interesting puzzle in itself.

The fact that we can synthetically create electron-positron pairs from nothing, supports my idea. No positron needs to be created when potential is transferred from one particle to another, because the electron is a temporary particle.

I often like to compare physics to economics, in my theory, the atom is the equivalent of a bank account with a large positive balance, and the electron is the equivalent of a one dollar coin. There are actually no physical one dollar coins in your bank account, but if you want to transfer money from the account to another account, you need the one dollar coin to do it, and consequently your bank balances must be an integer of the one dollar quantum (assuming one dollar is the smallest coin).

Steven

This doesn’t even begin to work. Forget positrons, you need to justify your theory for the atom first. There are all sorts of very basic theories of chemistry(let’s not worry too much about physics right now), that depend on electrons themselves existing in particular orbitals, a key element in the electron as particle theory, to justify the bonding mechanisms that create molecules. I hate to be one of those people you allege is holding new theories back, but what you’re saying is not even wrong. It’s just conjecture. Moreover, said orbitals have been mapped by SEMs before, in a pattern matching the exact theories proposed by the standard model.

If you could give a testable prediction regarding how your theory differs from the Bohr model of the atom, this is the kind of thing that sounds like it could be tested in a high school chemistry lab. It’s far easier to argue all of science is wrong than it is to justify that assertion with even one empirical observation. Arguments from analogy are good for communicating and all, but for science, is a terrible form of justification for a hypothesis(an overvaluation of this kind of pointless conjecture).

1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science. What you’ve proposed here appears to be neither.

[Steven Sesselmann]

ikanreed wrote:
1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science.

You are quite right, and what I have proposed so far is nothing more than a hypothesis, and now it is a matter as quoted above, to show mathematically that it is either more accurate or at least simpler than existing theory,

…and if it turns out to be rubbish, then it’s just another piece of paper for the basket, I have had plenty of those.

I believe it is better to try many ideas than to sit around waiting for a perfect one 🙂

Steven

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science.

You are quite right, and what I have proposed so far is nothing more than a hypothesis, and now it is a matter as quoted above, to show mathematically that it is either more accurate or at least simpler than existing theory,

…and if it turns out to be rubbish, then it’s just another piece of paper for the basket, I have had plenty of those.

I believe it is better to try many ideas than to sit around waiting for a perfect one 🙂

Steven

It’s not a matter of perfect. It’s a matter of testable. A real hypothesis makes a testable assertion. I get what you’re saying about not rejecting ideas out of hand, but in my mind, the scientific method has a subset of rules for doing just that. I’m of the opinion that ideas, especially ideas that turn a field upside down, are a dime a dozen, and testable assertions(like DPF) are where progress is made. But I acknowledge that science itself is a philosophy and as such, there are multiple approaches to it. Don’t let me stop you from thinking.

[jamesr]

Sorry to just link to Feynman again, but this snippet springs to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

[Steven Sesselmann]

James, I love it…, Feynman hits the nail on the head.

One good thing is that the more you know about the world and about physics, the better you get at guessing.

I am still working on my guess, and it’s slowly coming together im my head, in a nutshell, I am hoping to redefine F, where;

Up = Fdr = mc^2

Apart from being good at guessing, I have a GUT feeling about this one…

Steven 🙂

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:
…snip…

Up = Fdr = mc^2

…snip…

This is not how relativistic force works at all. Equation for total kintetic energy from wikipedia, which at low velocities approximates F*dr. Now, I don’t know if this is “backyard lab” verifiable, but it’s been experimentally tested since 1908. E = MC^2 was Einstein’s rest mass formula, not total energy formula. This is Physics 101 stuff.

[Steven Sesselmann]

ikanreed wrote:

…snip…

Up = Fdr = mc^2

…snip…

This is not how relativistic force works at all. Equation for total kintetic energy from wikipedia, which at low velocities approximates F*dr. Now, I don’t know if this is “backyard lab” verifiable, but it’s been experimentally tested since 1908. E = MC^2 was Einstein’s rest mass formula, not total energy formula. This is Physics 101 stuff.

You have not grasped my hypothesis, read it one more time. It’s all potential energy, you me and the rest of it.

When I talk about Fdr, I mean the creation of matter from absolutely nothing to matter at ground potential.

Please read it again…

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/1010/
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_other&key=1307190918

Steven

[Brian H]

Here’s some new stuff, plasma at low temperatures permits dense ion structures:
http://pddnet.com/news-when-ions-get-closer-032612/

Could have some relevance to Lerner’s theories, too, I think.

Quantum plasmas extend the area of application to nano-scales, where quantum-mechanical effects gain significance. This is the case when, in comparison to normal plasmas, the plasma density is very high and the temperature is low. Then the newly discovered potential occurs, which is caused by collective interaction processes of degenerate electrons with the quantum plasma. Such plasmas can be found, for example, in cores of stars with a dwindling nuclear energy supply (white dwarfs), or they can be produced artificially in the laboratory by means of laser irradiation. The new negative potential causes an attractive force between the ions, which then form lattices. They are compressed and the distances between them shortened, so that current can flow through them much faster.

[Brian H]

And here’s a report about making electrons behave as though they were subject to 60 Tesla, using graphene and CO on copper:

http://gizmodo.com/5893211/scientists-manipulate-electrons-into-material-never-seen-on-earth

Massless – Where’d the Higgs go? 😉

[Author]

Posts