- Many things are enigmatic with the charge, the electron etc. I believe that there is an essential dependence between the charge and the electron, but isn't the electron really made up of a charge?
The motion of a classical charged particle is described by its trajectory. A massive particle doesn't move at the speed of light, a massless particle moves only at the speed of light and a particle-since it's a point-doesn't vibrate, nor can it rotate-there's nothing to turn around of!
There's nothing enigmatic about it, the equations are unambiguous and in any textbook. This isn't a research topic anymore.
Stam Nicolis with all due respect and I really have no time to discuss this (now) while the rest of your answer is fully ok I cannot leave your part „… and a particle-since it's a point-doesn't vibrate, nor can it rotate-there's nothing to turn around of!„ unconnected as it is - and not only imho - completely wrong (when stated in this form on its own without at least some further explanation):
So - sich may not be „wrong“ from QED standard model point of view - but then one imho has to state that maximally clear.
Nothing is if zero size.
Everything has a diameter.
Whatever the model.
Do not trust your „own“ math, as it’s built on the foundation of the imho completely wrong and technically superfluous concept of using both the zero and Real and Complex numbers with all consequential follow up errors like the whole infinity concept stemming up from this (ok, this concept has at least agreed been „exercised“ fully consistent with its maximal mathematical complexity induced from in QED/QCD/QFT/Relativity and even Newtonian mechanics - so outright wrong from my point of (iSpace theoretical) view from the very beginning of science as we/most understand and know this today).
But maybe my answer is already way off the otiginal question, and if so I will hereby politely excuse myself to other readers of this thread.
Christian G Wolf
Thank you for your reply. Indeed all my work in physics is mainly based on Planck's units, Einstein's general and special relativity, and also on Balmer and others. I am convinced that their works contain many puzzles to solve! I find that they have planned everything in their equations! Obviously, I had no problem working on the principles you stated "Nothing is zero size.
Everything has a diameter.
Whatever the model" on the other hand, all my work is blocked if I start working with, for example, particles whose radii are zero etc. I find that such a model is not foreseen by the physicists that I just quoted.
I've already asked 40 questions about RG. I tell my readers on RG that I am not playing the answers to my own questions, I will do them through articles that will be made on the basis of a continuation of the work of the physicists that I have just mentioned. Besides, what intrigues me now is the value of the radius of Planck's charge, had Planck foreseen it or not?
Dear friends of gravity, relativity, fundamental physics, quantum physics and elementary particle physics,
Indeed, I proposed a physical model of the elementary charge, see Carmesin (2021c). Hereby, the elementary charge is derived from the dynamics of quantum gravity, whereby it turns out that the elementary charge emerges from three minimal forced oscillations, for these dynamics see Carmesin (2021a, 2021b, 2022a, 2022c).
Moreover, these dynamics provide the mass of the Higgs boson, see Carmesin (2021b).
Furthermore, the electroweak field, coupling constants and charges are caused by the same vacuum dynamics, see Carmesin (2022b).
IN THIS MANNER, the elementary charge is caused by three minimal forced oscillations that naturally occur as a consequence of the structure of the Higgs boson (Carmesin 2021b, c).
THEREBY, all results are in precise according with observation, whereby only fundamental principles of physics and the fundamental or universal constants G, c and h have been used, so that no fit has been executed.
I am looking forward to your reply.
Literature:
Carmesin 2021a: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality
Carmesin 2021b:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity
Carmesin 2021c:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355889856_The_Elementary_Charge_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity
Carmesin 2022a:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity
Carmesin 2022b:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359426539_The_Electroweak_Interaction_Explained_by_and_Derived_from_Gravity_and_Relativity
Carmesin 2022c:
Carmesin, H.-O. (December 2022): Unification of Spacetime, Gravity and Quanta. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Köster.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366544455_Unification_of_Spacetime_Gravity_and_Quanta
Kind regards,
Hans-Otto Carmesin
Hans Otto Carmesin
Sorry, I'm not working with all these hard and complicated formulas, I'm not at that level in math, it's beyond my skills in this area. You need Einstein for that! But do you believe that to make a breakthrough in physics you have to discover something new that no one has discovered. for my part, I only use easy algebra which I apply to Planck units and others, for example, I look at what corresponds in physics for example about the ratio h on c, etc. Bravo if you get results after all these complexities. You talk about the Schwarzschild radius of the photon, people don't believe you! because it is said that the Schwarzschild radius is only a constant of a cosmological black hole! But it's comforting for me because you work by the units of Planck because there you will certainly discover new things I am convinced because I find that new work on Planck will lead to new discoveries in physics. I will take certain time to respond you again after studying your documentation i will look if there are similarities between my and your research results.
“…a particle-since it's a point-doesn't vibrate, nor can it rotate-there's nothing to turn around of! There's nothing enigmatic about it, the equations are unambiguous and in any textbook. This isn't a research topic anymore.…”
- as that a few posters noted already about what is indeed “is in any textbook” – and in innumerous mainstream physics publications – that “a particle-since it's a point-doesn't vibrate, nor can it rotate-there's nothing to turn around of”, looks as rather strange tenet in the mainstream, since exists despite the quite evident for any normal human question – if that is so, then what is, say, a particle’s spin?, magnetic moment? , etc.,
- while all that doesn’t exist if something is a point, i.e. has zero radius/size.
Really what is “a particle” is explained in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
- particles are specific disturbances that are created in Matter’s ultimate base - Matter’s aether –the [utmost universal “kinematical” dimensions] [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] that is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), after some FLE in the lattice is impacted by some 4D momentum P[“bold” means 4D vector].
After the impact a in the lattice some “FLE flipping point”, where a current FLE causes flip of the next FLE in the lattice, becomes to propagate along some 4D [cτ,X,Y,Z] trajectory. Since this process is rigorously determined by the universal FLE properties - FLE “size” and FLE “flip time”, which are equal to the Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP, so the speed of the flip point propagation in the lattice – and so in the spacetime - is fixed, and doesn’t depend on the momentum value.
Correspondingly the “FLE-flipping point” propagates along some 4D “helix” – while the cyclic flipping forms corresponding close-loop algorithm, which is just “a particle” with the speed c√2, c=lP/tP, so, that front of the helix, where the flipping FLE can flip a next FLE in the lattice [or, roughly speaking, flipping FLE of other particle] moves in the lattice with 4D speed of light, having the momentum P(cτ,X,Y,Z)=mc ; and E=mc2.
The “radius” of the helix, λ, is equal to λ=ћ/P, ћ is the Planck elementary physical action/momentum; if the particle is at rest in 3D space, that is the particle’s Compton length; and so every particle has the angular momentum M=Pλ=ћ – which the flipping point has, and which is directed along the momentum’s direction .
However that above is rather rough description, since angular momentum as a vector doesn’t exist in 4D space – in mathematics the vector cross product, in this case of P and λ, doesn’t exist as a vector,
- while everything in Matter interacts practically always in 3D space, so M is observed in 3D space as a particle’s spin be equal 1/2ћ for all having rest mass elementary particles, which are created by momentums non-zero components Pcτ; the observed angular momentum of particles that are created by PXYZ components , till now only photons, is equal to the “parental” value, and the observed photon’s 3D spin is equal to ћ.
As that is shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces the charges of fundamental Nature forces, including Electric Force, exist having, and depend on, two particles properties – the number of a “Force’s –marked” FLEs in the particle’s algorithm’s logical length, N0, that is equal N0=λ/lP, and rate of the algorithm’s cycles, ω, ω=E/ћ [all that is completely correct in statics, more see the 2-nd link above].
So the answer to
“…Many things are enigmatic with the charge, the electron etc. I believe that there is an essential dependence between the charge and the electron, but isn't the electron really made up of a charge?…..”
- is as – electron, as every other particle, is made by momentums that impacted on some the lattice’s FLE, at that every concrete impact happens in rigorous accordance with the Matter’s logical scheme, where, again, 4 fundamental Forces exist and act in concrete cases, including at interactions some exchanges/actualizations of Forces-marked FLEs in interacted and created particles happens.
Concretely a particle’s, including electron’s electric charge is formed by Electric Force-charged part of N0 be equal √αN0, i.e.~8% of N0. Every particle’s algorithm has only 1 Gravity Force-charged FLE, so Gravity is extremely weak Force, which is lesser than Electric Force in ~1/(~8%N0), in electron in ~2x1021 times, the Gravity strength is proportional to squared charges, i.e. Gravity strength is lesser in ~4x1042 times.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Many thanks for these interresting knowledges. Best regards.
Jamil Kooli With respect to your last statement on importance of Planck relations, here are "just" some VERY interesting iSpace-SI Planck relations (please see attached PNG image for ease of Mathematica based formatting)
Sorry, but missing typographically small "power of 2" over alphaG for iFgN relation 2 of 3 while correctly stated in the comment and evaluted to "True" is unfortunately not visible any more in PNG posted (maybe due cut&paste).
Dear Jamil,
Thank you for your interest.
Of course, the present day photon is not a black hole. Indeed, I derived that near the Planck scale, very small black holes become dynamically stable, see Carmesin (2020).
Moreover, my derivations are derivations, and I they are presented in a clear manner. Additionally, I provide overview diagrams for my derivations, see e. g. Carmesin (2022).
Furthermore, all results are in precise according with observation, whereby only fundamental principles of physics and the fundamental or universal constants G, c and h have been used, so that no fit has been executed.
Literature:
Carmesin 2020:
Hans-Otto Carmesin (2020): The Universe Developing from Zero-Point Energy Discovered by Making Photos, Experiments and Calculations, Berlin: Köster Verlag.
Carmesin, H.-O. (December 2022): Unification of Spacetime, Gravity and Quanta. Berlin: Verlag Dr. Köster.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366544455_Unification_of_Spacetime_Gravity_and_Quanta
Kind regards,
Hans-Otto Carmesin
Jamil Kooli This is a very good question and I will try to build up a descriptive picture of an electron in the lowest energy state in a hydrogen atom. This should bring together all the ideas of charge and vibration and rotation.
Firstly, think of the electron as a pure wave in the medium of space. The wavelength of the wave can be derived from the mass of the electron using E=hf and wavelength = c/f.
The wave is travelling in the loop at the speed of light. The effect of the wave is to compress and expand the medium and electric charge is caused by a net compression or expansion.
You will see that for the hydrogen atom there are more than 36000 wavelengths in the closed loop but around 96.5 wavelengths in each pass around the nucleus. The mass, momentum and charge is allocated equally to each wavelength.
Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)
Because of the wave nature of the electron it can be considered to be vibrating at frequency f.
The passage of the wave can be thought of as an orbit around the nucleus and this has the effect of creating a magnetic dipole and a spin orientation.
Richard
When you are dealing with quantum size particles, you have to take tunneling into effect. If there is a non-zero wave function at several points at the same time the particle can be at any those points at any instant of time. Therefore motions appearing faster than light are possible. But there some that even there the speed motion is that of light. Why should vibration prevent rotation.
PERGUNTO DE VOLTA,
ESTA AFIRMAÇÃO PODE TER LÓGICA:
"DEUS SÃO DUAS RETAS PARALELAS QUE VIBRAM ENTRE SI ?
- Badges
- Science topic