In the thread preface indeed a lot of problems that indeed appear for some human if (s)he attempts to go out from a dumb using a of some equations [in this case in classical and QED, and Standard model] to answer the question – “what is an electric charge” including – why is it as it is?” in framework of the mainstream physics, are listed.

At that, since these questions are really fundamental ones, and since in the mainstream really the fundamental phenomena/notions first of all in this case , “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something.

Including the fundamental questions above are, of course, “answered” in the mainstream by postulating in the theories for really transcendent in this case “particles” really transcendent parameters, including “charge”, “electric and magnetic fields”, “mass”, “spin”, etc., which [parameters] are introduced in the theories as completely ad hoc assumptions that for some mystic reason fit the theories with experiments,

- while the theories themselves are some again purely phenomenological description of what is observed at experiments, and, at that, the results of experiments are interpreted in framework of the theories. Correspondingly the thread question is quite scientifically natural.

It is evident that any really fundamental problem can be really, i.e. without really scientifically rationally grounded assumptions, answered only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in

framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, where the phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined generally, and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

In the model, first of all, it is rigorously scientifically rationally shown that practically for sure an huge informational system “Matter” is based on rather simple binary reversible logics.

So the Matter’s ultimate base is (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- while everything in Matter exists and happens as some [4+4+1]4D disturbances in the lattice.

Including that are specific disturbances “particles” [more see the first link] and moderators of the specific additional to the basic logics logical conditions “fundamental Nature forces fields”. More about these points, including what are the Forces, including Electric Force, charges, see 2-nd and 3-rd links.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

Few things. Three-dimension of nature is presenting its own force based on duality by temperature, pressure and atom interaction. These phenomenon cannot produce by our experiment, or write one dimension static math.

Thus our quantum perception of electric and electron totally is wrong.

The fundamental of unit of our living world is indivisible intelligent unit of atom. Electron never been observed to this date. the question is what is electron? What internal structure it has? Please read this scientific paper.

Article Intelligent Atom

Electron never been observed !

Proton in atom never been observed !

Charge in atom never been detected!

science does not have any explanation for particles or anti-matter!

remember, assumption, prediction, modeling nature, is not science.

Science must be fact. Atoms are indivisible unit of our living world.

Article Intelligent Atom

Dear Chian Fan ,

a lot of your questions will be solved, if you imagine a medium which is just a 3D-voltage field, with the property that the voltage waves interact non-linearly, and that run-time is regarded:

-> a smallest wave period exists. (mapped to PLANCK time)

-> a constant propagation velocity exists. (mapped to speed-of-light in vac.)

-> each wave's period reflects a very tiny part K=8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴ of its forwarded energy exactly backwards. (K=2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc))

Based on this, resonances will appear; the very first one is at VEV, thus, an oscillator appears with the related energy, and K is set into existence.

More resonances exist, each n represents a "particle": Eₙ=E₁/√n.

n=2 -> t (top quark)

n=4 -> HIGGS (the γγ)

n=7 -> Z°

n=9 -> W⁺⁻

n=2²·29² -> b

n=2²·11·29² -> c

n=2²·11·13²·29² -> s

n=2²·11·13²·19²·29² -> d

n=2²·5·11·13²·19²·29² -> u

n=2·3·7·439 -> τ

n=7²·106411 -> µ

n=2³·3·5·19·29 -> p⁺

n=2²·5·29·384346057 -> e⁻

Adjusted E₁=241.265497523(75) GeV

You can see the factorization-hierarchy?

Charge:

The basic resonance of all particles is that of VEV.

The related oscillator's surface contains 2/K synchronized PLANCK-oscillators, as mirrored from the oscillator's center (focus). Each of these generate its own rotating field, all in the same direction. Thus, the VEV-surface is full of rotating voltage vortices.

Integrated, all of them generate a rotating votage-radiation, propagating away in spirals with the same rotation direction.

Spirals of two oscillators (particles) interact, partly in-between the particles, partly outside. Depending on the rotation direction, if they match, they generate a net-energy propagation, which enforces the oscillators to move, either apart or together. If they rotate counter-wise, they interrupt any energy-flow. Thus, either they match in-between and block outside, thus attract each other, or they block in-between and match outside, thus repel.

This also explains, why there is exactly one amount of charge only: it's always the basic VEV-oscillator and its PLANCK-vortices, which multiply each vortice's gravitation by the very huge factor 2/K, and together with the coupling factor α, they produce the huge ratio between graviation- and charge-related forces: F_Q/F_Gᵥₑᵥ=α·2/K.

All [including 1-12] preface points are rigorously scientifically answered in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model 1-st and 2-nd papers linked in SS post above. Though for the readers who are lazy to read papers and to think, let to comment briefly these points.

First of all note that the points in the preface are principally vague, since they doesn’t contain quite obligatory in this case point “what is “particle”?”, without answering which all other points are really non-answerable; while “particles” are practically [except some completely transcendent ad hoc interpretations of experimental data in mainstream physics] completely transcendent in the mainstream.

In the SS&VT model particles are specific disturbances in the (at least, but here this is enough) utmost universal [5]4D FLE-lattice [that is partially placed in [5]4D partial spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),], which are created at/by impacting on some FLE with transmission to it some 4D momentum P. After the impact in the 4D space [and in ct-time dimension in parallel] the FLE-by-FLE flipping point appears, which moves along some helix, so the flipping is some cyclically running algorithm. The speed of the flipping point v along its helix is determined by FLE parameters, v=c√2, c=lP/tP, i.e. the standard speed of light, the front of the helix so moves with c. This moving flip point is “QM particle-point”, that so has momentum P=mc, and energy E=Pc=mc2; m is inertial mass.

Radius, λ, of the helix is λ=ћ/P, if a particle-algorithm is created by momentum that was directed only along cτ-axis, and so is at rest in 3DXYZ space, λ=ћ/m0c, m0 is the particle’s rest mass.

So here we have the answer to the preface point “origin of mass”. Really this problem again is completely transcendent in the mainstream, and is principally solved in the SS&VT conception: because of the self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental [“Logos” element in the conception] “Change”, any changes of anything, including, of course, creation of anything, are logically prohibited. To overcome this prohibition it is necessary to pay by two points: (i) – to spend some portion of again transcendent in the mainstream absolutely fundamental [“Logos” element] Quantity “Energy/momentum”; but that isn’t enough, and so (ii) – on some level of changing the state of the changing something is uncertain – “illogical”, and observable changed states are discrete; in Matter that is QM-level.

The logical resistance to changes is again absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Inertia”; Matter is a simple logical system that is based on a set of completely universal laws/links/constants, and so Inertia at changes, including creations, can be measured, in physics that is “inertial mass”, which at small speeds is the Newton’s “measure of inertia”.

Thus really there is no any specific “origin of mass” question. For appearance of some “mass” it is only enough to spend some energy, and for this there is no any necessity to have some specific “fields”, etc.; and so now a rather large zoo of particles-algorithms – and masses – are created at high energy experiments,

- though most of the particles algorithms have some defects, and so the algorithms can brake on some tick with a fixed probability, and such particles exponentially decay; while only a few particles are stable and form Matter as it is.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

So let’s continue answering [see also yesterday SS post above in the thread] the questions that are in the thread preface.

In the SS post above it is pointed that really utmost universally all particles partially permanently exist as “particles-FLE flipping points” in utmost universal 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) and simultaneously in parallel “automatically” in real time ct-dimension, where FLE also precess, and so the flipping points move along 4D helixes so they are cyclic algorithms that run on FLE hardware, having 4D momentums P=mc and energies E=Pc,

- here add that if a having rest mass particle is at rest in the 3DXYZ space, its algorithm’s tick rate/frequency is ω0 , such that E=ћω0; if such particle is impacted by a 3D space directed momentum p, the algorithm is diluted by “blank” 3D space steps, so ticks slower in Lorentz factor, however here additional close-loop FLE sequence appears, what is observable as the de Brogile wave with λ=ћ/p.

At that in the Matter’s design, which is completely written/implemented in every FLE logical structure, only some concrete close-loop algorithms are possible, that are observed as “particles”, and only a few from numerous zoo particles have perfect algorithms, and so are stable. I.e. in this case there is no an really now actual “spectrum of mass” problem, masses are designed for this Matter to be as it is, possible other Matters would have other designs and other possible particles masses, etc.

After the preface above return more concretely to the thread question. So, to make Matter as it is besides the utmost universal “kinematical” 4D FLE flips in FLE logical structure additional to the “kinematical” ones digresses of freedom at changing of FLE state/precessing are written/implemented, which relate to the observed fundamental Nature forces, now 4, i.e. Gravity, Electric, Nuclear/Strong, and Weak ones are known, just which make Matter as it is.

The Forces provide interactions between particles as exchange by the Forces’ mediators, which [the mediators] are radiated by a particle and act on other particle forcing the “irradiated” particle to change its state, say, to move somewhere.

Concretely that happens as that a Force mediators are radiated by a particle’s some marked by this Force FLEs that flips in corresponding additional degree of freedom,

- when in its FLE-flipping point such marked FLE flips; and an radiated mediator acts on other particle if it hits in other particle’s algorithm when in the particle’s FLE flipping point a also marked by this Force FLE flips.

The sections of marked by a Force FLEs in whole algorithm FLE logical length are the Forces “charges”, so the more a Force FLE section - the more the Force strong. However that isn’t unique parameter that determines a Force strength, in principle evidently a Force can be more strong, if a particle algorithm ticks faster.

After this preface above some comments to a couple of the thread preface points:

“… 1) Does electric charge have an origin? The fact that it is capable of annihilation and creation, there must be a process of generation. What determines this process? Doesn't a process need to be described, even if it is vacuum-excited generation?

2) Is electric charge an independent entity? We have never seen a ‘charge’, only electrons. …..”

- origin of electric – and all other Forces’ - charges is one – that is fundamentally determined by Matter’s design. I.e. any Force charge is fundamentally “independent entity”; so, say, many particles have electric charges, some other haven’t for a couple of reasons – either since in some non-fundamental, i.e. that is composed from some fundamental particles, particles, the fundamental particles charges are compensated, or some particles algorithms don’t contain Electric Force marked FLEs, now seems that is only neutrinos. And, in certain sense, that are photons, FLEs of which essentially, if all, are marked by Electric Force, but photons don’t radiate Electric Force mediators.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

So let’s continue answering [see also yesterday SS posts above in the thread] the questions that are in the thread preface. In the last post it is shown that fundamental Forces mediators are radiated by the Forces’ “charges”, which, first of all, are written as sections of marked by Forces FLEs in whole particles algorithms; and the Forces mediators differ from each other by that they are actualized/radiate in concrete different FLE degreases of freedom at “FLE flips”, and so act in different space dimensions;

- so Matter’s spacetime has metrics [at least, in principle there can be other FLE degreases of freedom and so dimensions, which aren’t known now] (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct).

So to

“….3) A charge cannot be a ‘point’, how does it manage not to repel itself?...”

- this problem really doesn’t exist. The charges, including electric one, are sequences of specific FLEs, which radiate any Force’s, including electric Force, mediators when some such FLE flips at a particle algorithm sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping in the spacetime. At that nothing repulses.

“…..4) Does the electric field of a charge act on itself? Why do we see this as a problem?...”

- practically for sure electric field of a charge doesn’t act on itself, so, say, till now only linear superpositions of fields are observed.

“….5) Why is the charge a discrete (quantised) value?1 or 1/3 ‡. Is the discrete nature of energy related to the discrete nature of charge? Or furthermore, do all discretisations originate from the discrete nature of energy?...”

- any charges of particles, including electric one, are as they are only in accordance with Matter’s design; including at that a particle’s charge has assigned concrete value, and other, besides that in the quote, elementary charges seems don’t exist. That has no direct relation to discreteness of, say, discrete energies of electrons on an atom orbitals, besides that the charges value determines by some way concrete energies values in concrete systems of charged particles. And – there is no some “intrinsic” fundamental “discrete nature of energy”, energy fundamentally is “continuous” quantity

“…..6) How can charges be positive and negative and perfectly equal? What is the physical pathway by which charge is created? How can different positive and negative charges be created at the same time in the same physical picture?. And positive and negative charges can cause annihilation of positive and negative electrons, not just positive and negative charges..”

- again, all that is completely rigorously determined by Matter’s design and is written in every FLE. FLE – and everything in Matter also, though – absolutely completely knows physics, i.e. all fundamental laws/links constants; and every concrete interactions, in accordance also with laws that determine not only Electric force action, correspondingly result in concrete outputs/interactions products; including, say, when a gamma-quantum with energy more 1.022 MeV interacts with some Electric Force mediator, say, in some atom’s nucleus electric field, that with some probability that is determined by FLE construction results in creation of e± pair, where the corresponding the charges FLEs are activated,

- at that particles and antiparticles, including electron and positron, are the same algorithms that run in “direct” command order [electron] and reverse order [positron]; which annihilate at interaction.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

There are many problems when charge is considered to be a property of particles. Two more are What holds the nucleus of protons together so strongly and the measured speed of the coulomb force is much greater than the speed of light.

The STOE suggests all these issues are solved if the electrons, protons are magnets and the coulomb field is moving particles (magnets). That is the "charge is a property of the aether (spacetime, vacuum field, etc.).

Further, this consideration allows a concept of a Theory of Everything with 1 force (not the 4 of the GUT - note the weak and strong forces are seen as ad hoc constructs and are not necessary).

So, the "charge" issues involve the postulation of a Theory of Everything including what the one (1) force such a model must include.

STOE on CNPS Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU

Cosmology - 1 equation, 1 force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFcXZlAUlIE

I note your paper "Spacetime and quantum fields". Part of the development of the STOE (25+ years ago) was to consider Spacetime and quantum fields as the same field. i.e., what I now call the plenum density. One advantage of this concept is that there need be only one (1) such field whose gradient causes only one (1) force.

Your referenced video by Sabina Hossenfelder about the subject (“Einstein’s other theory of everything”) noted the quest to develop particles from a field. I also tried this (a 1 component universe - the field). Others have tried this, also. But in the end, to match data of observations the "particle" has to be a discontinuity in the otherwise continuous 1 density field. This resulted in the consideration of the hod (the basic particle) to be a magnet, not an electric field. The movement of the magnet produces density changes. This led a different view of Maxwell's equations and the experiments I conducted (see the first video STOE on CNPS Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU ) One of the experiments show the divergence of the magnetic (B) field around a hod is NOT zero (0). i.e., so the gauge description of the vector potential (A) is invalid as the Hossenfelder video remarks.

The 2 referenced videos show the STOE explaining of the "facts" (as you say). There is another video coming wich shows more agreement of the observations.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

"...you cannot state that it is a one field universe."

Yes, he can. In our classical imagination, electrical and magnetical fields are totally separate entities: as you said, with their own properties, which do not seem to have a common base. But this is not like that. If you may look at these formulae:

▽A = -1/c² ∙ ∂Φ/∂t

B = ▽×A

E = -▽Φ - ∂A/∂t

The one universal field is here Φ, the scalar voltage field, the potential. The vector field A is the magnetic vector potential. You can see that both classically teached fields B and E are derivable.

Field Φ, and thus also A, even can be re-written into the related wave equation.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

the HIGGS-field, i.e., our vacuum with its VEV (Vavuum Expectation Value), is generated by the medium itself, because it is non-linear:

EM-radiation has a frequency limit, which occurs at PLANCK-level. There is no smaller wave's period time than PLANCK-time possible, because the medium, we are searching for, cannot toggle faster. This "feature" of the medium is "dispersion" and makes the medium non-linear.

With this as an agreed basis, we can argue further.

One consequence is intrinsically built-in redshift, which means that per wave period a tiny part of forwarded energy is reflected exactly backwards.

This tiny part is just K=2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc)=8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴ per wave period.

A second consequence is, that in the non-linear medium superposition of EM-radiation no longer happens without interaction. Consequently, resonances will occur. The very first such resonance occurs at VEV-level (Vacuum Expectation Value), because, due to the built-in redshift, at this oscillator's size, the reflected part of the forwarded energy of a PLANCK-oscillator in the center is shifted by exactly one PLANCK-length, the "beat"-frequency, and thus resonates (K=2Eᵥₑᵥ²/E²ₚₗ).

The measured HIGGS energy is half of the VEV-energy (of VEV plus some small additive energy of around one bottom quark mass), because that is the VEV-oscillator's radiation to the outside, if excited:

in the lowest energy case, the "sphere" of an oscillator contains one complete standing wave period with its peaks at the center and at its "surface".

Thus, the basic voltage field can be the one universal field.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

"be careful if you want to claim evidence with the help of the Planck units."

Thanks a lot for this warning.

As you can see in my post above:

2Eᵥₑᵥ²/E²ₚₗ = K = 2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc)=8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴

The PLANCK-length can be derived from the VEV-scale phenomena.

PLANCK-scale is presented then by our gravitational constant G.

The only thing left is, how to derive that the medium itself is non-linear, i.e., that the above right-hand equation is actually applyable...

The imagination of mine, leading to the equation was the following:

An EM-wave passes the medium, which usually is symmetric. Since the wave interacts with the medium (vacuum), it gets asymmetric: VEV-"masses" get effective in each node of the wave (actually distributed over the wave's half period, but integrated into a bary-center).

Calculating the ratio of the gravitational energy between two such VEV-"masses", and the energy of the exciting EM-wave, yields exactly that wavelength independent K above, more exactly, K/(1+K), due to the redshift within the wave's period.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

" an enormous gap of 10²⁰ "

Actually, VEV is the lower limit, thus about 8∙10⁻¹⁸m is the smallest effective length. Thus, the gap is ~5∙10¹⁶. Nevertheless, a huge gap, indeed!

What does nature do here?

My idea is, that it radiates and reflects, until at some certain distance a resonance appears, a sphere's thin shell, which is then filled with a part of the related radiated energy. Since this shell's energy has to consist of waves, their phases need to run within the shell, closing to standing waves, making everything stable.

Since it can be assumed that at this VEV-level all such oscillators have evenly distributed phases, there is no net oscillation apparent - until there is something disturbing this symmetry, e.g., an EM-wave passing through.

Why this certain size (VEV-energy)?

Nature tries to minimize energy wherever possible. If there are lots of possible (continuous?) different oscillator periods, only those with integer multiples of a smallest period will actually establish, all others cancel each other mutually, better, they just appear symmetrically as a noisy background. From these integer multiples, only those have the lowest energy, which are mostly prime to each other. Thus, producing a chain of prime numbers is the behaviour of nature here.

Now, there is a number theoretically based prime number generator polynome p=41+n(n+1), which mostly (>30%) generates prime numbers.

Thus, the prime numbers up to 41 need to be created by a different method, but then, further prime numbers are generated nearly automatically.

With this behaviour, the longest period, i.e. the lowest wave's energy, is based on the product of all primes from 2 up to 41: ∏⁴¹ₚᵣᵢₘₑ ≈ 3.0425∙10¹⁴. That is yet not far away from the above-mentioned gap!

The necessity that the waves within the shell must be closed to establish a stable resonance zone, i.e., standing waves, needs the factor 1/α, the fine-structure constant, thus, increasing the factor to 4.1694∙10¹⁶ (inclusive regarding relativity of these circling waves related to the oscillator's center).

Splitting of the radiated energy into the oscillator's sphere standing waves and those of its shell, will additionally enlarge the factor by 1/(1-1/2π), giving a final factor of ~4,95862∙10¹⁶.

If we now compare VEV with PLANCK, we get exactly this factor as the gap.

May-be, it's a bit far-fetched. Nature has only very simple basics at hand. But, due to non-linearity, nevertheless, with these basics it can generate ever larger structures...

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

"...there is no energy radiation in between the Planck metric and the metric of the smallest detectable phenomena."

Aha, we cannot measure it, thus, it does not exist - interesting "Ansatz".

I think, you are open to agree that the EM-spectrum as we know it, because we can directly measure it, does not mean, that there is no EM-wave possible outside the measurable zone.

Because we can so far identify top quarks, we have a "microscope" to "see" indirectly lengths of about 1,1334∙10⁻¹⁸m, the "radius" of the based oscillator of the related energy.

"Note that electromagnetic waves are created by the energy absorption/radiation of the phenomena."

If we actually would limit EM-waves that way, we block us away from nature's actual basic functionality, and will never see its mechanism...

To my opinion, we finally have to break with this strongly particle-based thinking, which let us clearly stop at the level, you listed above...

So let’s continue answering [see also yesterday SS post above in the thread] the questions that are in the thread preface. In the last [though for new readers it is necessary to read all SS posts] SS post above it is pointed that charges of fundamental Nature forces are written in sections of marked by the Forces logical marks FLEs in whole particles algorithms, and so any charges don’t exist somewhere else than in partciles;

- and the Forces act as every particle, which exists really as the FLE lattice’s “FLE flipping point” at its algorithm’s FLE-by-FLE running, when some flipping FLE is marked by a Force, it radiates in the lattice this Force msediator, intensive flows of mediators constitute “Forces fields”. So, relating to the next thread preface points:

- firstly some note about how the Forces’ mediatos act [more in detail see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces] :

- the [at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces] mediators fundamentally aren’t particles, and propagate in the lattice after been radiated as 2πr “rims” of the lattice FLEs,

- and when a Force mediator hits into flipping marked by this Force FLE of “irradated” particle, that causes in this particle releasing of elementary momentum p=ћr/r2, r is distance between the particles. If both particles are at rest in 3D space, r is derected along line between particles, toward each other if Force is attractive, opposite if it is repulsive. If particles relatively move, r direction isn’t along the line.

Since meditors aren’t particles, they don’t carry energies and “own” momentums; and so the Forces’ fields really don’t contain energy, they are logical commands that force irradiated particle to spend its own energy to move, say, to radiating particle. That is observed as that bodies that are at rest in coupled by some attractive Force system have “mass defects”, Δm=ΔE/c2, ΔEis kinetic energy at motion in such Force field, mass defect is observable after bodies “stuck together”, and ΔEis radiated, say, at cooling. Say, Earth gravitational mass defect is ~ 2.5x1032 J/c2.

So to:

“….7) Is there a relationship between electric and magnetic charge? According to Dirac [8], the electric charge e and the magnetic charge g must co-exist, hc/eg=2 *. Why can the spin-magnetic moment (the inner discreative magnetic moment of the electron) [11] not be considered as a result of ‘magnetic charge’? The magnetic charge must be a magnetic monopole [12], can't it be a magnetic dipole **? We are looking for magnetic monopoles, why not electric charges? [13]…”

- that at experiments only electric charges are observed, and all attempts of experimental seeking for magnetic monopoles are failed is because of that really there are no independent Electric and Magnetic Forces, only Electric Force exist. At that, if an electric charge moves, the Electric Force mediators obtain additional momentum from the moving particle, and so mediators are additionally precessing so, that if a such mediator hits into a flipping electrically marked FLE of “irradiated” moving particles, the released in this particle momentum isn’t directed to “radiating” particle, what is observed as “magnetic force” action.

Correspondingly magnetic charges/ monopoles really really don’t exist.

Particles magnetic mometums exist because of that [in at least first approximation] the flipping a particle’s FLEs flip/“move” along the helix [see the SS posts on page 1] and so add to Electric Force mediators a minor additional “magnetic” momentum along the helix trajectory, what is observable as the magnetic mometums above.

More see the SS posts on page 1, the post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

Chian Fan There is a recently published paper that addresses most of your questions about electrical charge. However, I will start by mentioning one of the questions you did not ask: Is the electrostatic force between electrons related to the gravitational force between two electrons? The paper below analyzes both forces and proves that they are closely related when they are analyzed at the level of a particle’s wave properties. When fermions are modeled as rotating soliton waves in the medium of oscillating spacetime, then the answers to your questions become obvious. In this short post, I can only give a few examples of the insights into charge contained in the paper below.

First, the ratio of the electron’s two forces (gravitational/electrostatic forces) is: Fg/Fe ≈ 2.4x10-43. Normally, this calculation incorporates the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law electrostatic force equation for the forces between two electrons. However, the wave-based model arrives at this ratio using only the electron’s quantum mechanical wave properties. The wave-based calculation uses only the electron’s displacement amplitude (Planck length Lp), the electron’s Compton radius (rc) and the fine structure constant (α). Using these terms, the Fg/Fe ratio is : Fg/Fe= Lp2/rc2α = 2.4x10-43. This ratio is exact. These two forces are related because they are related first and second order effects.

Another previously unknown proof of the close relationship between these forces is the prediction that that at the level of two hypothetical particles with Planck mass and Planck charge, the gravitational force and the electrostatic force are equal magnitude. At any arbitrary separation distance r, both force magnitudes equal ħc/r 2.

The reason that electrons and muons can have very different mass/energy but the same electric charge is because the rotating soliton waves that form these two particles have the same displacement amplitude but different frequencies. All this is explained in the following recently published paper

Preprint Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation of the Universe

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

The world we live in is undoubtedly physical reality, but I agree with you that a strict definition of physical reality is difficult and will be divisive. In fact I'm not sure that there is a precise concept of "physical reality" at the moment, although I use it quite often. My personal view is that a clear distinction between mathematical and physical relations is equivalent to defining physical reality. The basic and necessary condition for determining whether a valid mathematical formulation in physics is physical and final is whether it can be mapped to the physical, i.e., whether it can be expressed in terms of concrete, realistic physical quantities and physical information. For example, the intrinsic spin of the electron and the intrinsic curvature of spacetime may need to be corrected if they are limited to mathematical expressions and cannot find their physical counterparts. So we have the same requirement for "the 'tangible' reality of the electromagnetic field"; I think that charge is the result of the synthesis of the electric field. This is also essentially the same as your notion that "the charge represents local conditions of the universal electric field".

Best Regards, Chian Fan

So let’s continue answering [see also yesterday SS post above in the thread] the questions that are in the thread preface. In the last [though for new readers it is necessary to read all SS posts] SS post above it is pointed that charges of fundamental Nature forces are written in sections of marked by the Forces logical marks FLEs in whole particles algorithms, and so any Forces charges don’t exist somewhere else than in particles;

- etc., including [here it is worthwhile to mention] that really there are no independent Electric and Magnetic Forces, only Electric Force exist.

So to:

“….8) Charge appears to be independent of mass. How can particles with different masses (e, μ, τ; u, c, t; d, s, b) have the same charge? But when e+e- → γ γ occurs, the charge disappears and so does the mass….”

- as that is pointed in SS post page 1, 5 days ago now, the strength of a Force – i.e. just what is the “charge” in physics, depends essentially, but partially, as “the larger a Force FLE section - the stronger the Force”. However that isn’t unique parameter that determines a Force strength, in principle evidently a Force can be more strong, if a particle algorithm ticks faster, i.e. if it mass is larger.

That reveals itself in that [more see the SS&VT 2007 Planck scale initial Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces models in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , where, basing on the approach above, Newton and Coulomb laws are derived, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force]

- Gravity charge occupies fixed section – 1 FLE - in particles algorithms, and so, since algorithms tick with frequency ω=E0/ћ=m0c2/ћ, where E0 and m0 are a particle’s rest [in 3D space] energy and inertial mass, Gravity charge, which in physics is called “gravitational mass”, and so the Gravity strength, are proportional to inertial mass. Just therefore the mystic in mainstream physics “gravitational and inertial masses equivalence” is experimentally observed;

- Electric charge is written relatively to the frequency, and occupies relative section √α ~8.5% of whole algorithm, α is the fine structure constant, and so the more an electrically charged particle m and ω, the shorter its both - whole algorithm and its the electric charge section. So electric charge doesn’t depend on mass. Some examples [whole logical length, i.e. the numbers of FLEs, N0, of an algorithm is the spatial length, λ=ћ/mc, divided by Planck length, lP, i.e., N0= λ/lP=ћ/mclP]

- electron whole logical length N0~2.4x1022FLEs, Gravity charge section is 1 FLE, electric charge section, Ne, is Ne~2x1021 FLEs,

- proton whole logical length N0~1.3x1019 FLEs, Gravity charge section is 1 FLE, electric charge section, Nep, is Nep~1.11x1018 FLEs.

At that it looks as quite rational to assume, and this assumption is postulated in the SS&VT Nuclear Force model, that the rest part [~ (1-√α)] of whole proton’s logical length N0 isoccupied by Nuclear Force marked FLEs, and so proton [and neutron, see the linked paper above] Nuclear – and seems Strong as well – Force strength is in ~100 time larger than proton Electric Force strength. So the particles charges [in utmost convenient in physics CGS system] are

- Gravity charge, gG, is gG= (m/MP)(ћc)1/2, MP is Planck mass, MP=ћtP/lP2, tP and lP are Planck time and length, mis the particle mass,

- Electric charge, e, e=(αћc)1/2,

- Nuclear charge gN=(1-5/3√α)(ћc)1/2; Forces strengths are square charges.

What is written in the electron algorithm in (1-√α) section it is completely unknown now, though rather probably that in this section some “blank” FLEs are.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

See http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0062v1.pdf

Nainan

So let’s continue answering the questions that are in the thread preface. In the SS posts above it is pointed that

- particles are specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- which [particles] always constantly are moving in the utmost universal “kinematical” 4D FLE lattice/4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) [and simultaneously in parallel absolutely obligatorily “automatically” in time ct-dimension] along some 4D helixes, as the “FLE-by-FLE flipping points”, with 4D speeds of light c [bold means a 4D vector], c= lP/tP. If a having rest mass particle moves in 3DXYZ space with a small speed, the radius, λ, of a particle helix is λ=ћ/mc, m is the particle’s rest mass.

So the FLE-flipping point, i.e. a particle, has 4D momentum P and 4D “angular momentum” be equal to ћ; however 3D space angular momentum as the cross-product Pxr in 4D space mathematically doesn’t exist, and so a [fundamental] particle’s “angular momentum” is observed in 3D space as be equal the particle “spin” that is equal to ћ/2.

Remind also that the charges of fundamental Nature forces are written in sections of marked [in g,w,e,s FLE/space dimensions] by the Forces logical marks FLEs in whole particles algorithms, and so any Forces charges don’t exist somewhere else than in particles.

After this preface comments to next thread questions

“…9) How can electric charge share a particle with magnetic charge and mass? † Wouldn't this be a good answer if they were all the result of spin [14]?...”

- the answer see SS post above, 2 days ago now; if briefly – really in Matter there is no fundamental Nature Magnetic force, only Electric Force exist, so there is no “magnetic charge”. If a charge moves, the radiated by it Electric Force mediators obtain additional momentum, and when hit into flipping marked by Electric Force FLE of other particle, the mediators cause releasing in irradiated particle momentum that isn’t directed toward radiating particle, what is observed as “Magnetic Force” in mainstream Physics. So both – electric charge, magnetic – by no means “charge” – momentum, mass, and spin, indeed “share” the one fundamental property of particles – that particles are cyclic algorithms and so moving along 4D helixes FLE flipping points, but share quite specifically and in certain sense independently.

“…..10) U(1) symmetry produces conserved charge [15]; charge is conserved when interacting. Is conservation of charge independent of conservation of energy? What will it mean if they are not conserved? 〠…”

- U(1) symmetry is some mathematical formalism, and in this case produces practically nothing, it only can correctly describe what is observed at experiments and is in certain extent correctly introduced in corresponding [in this case electrodynamices] theories. At that “conservation of charge” and “ conservation of energy” are fundamentally different and independent things. That is another point, that really in all – classic and quantum - mainstream theories of fundamental Forces, including electrdynamicses, it is postulated that the Forces fields contain energy,

- and postulated at that that the fields are constantly and always radiated, what evidently violates the energy conservation law. Really – see S&VT the Forces models above - Forces fields don’t contain energy, and at Forces interactions of particles only own particles energy is spent.

The post is rather long already, so now,

Cheers

See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0062v1.pdf

Nainan

So let’s continue answering the questions that are in the thread preface. In the SS posts above questions 1-10 are answered, so here some comments to

“… 11) What should the charge of a black hole be if it is one of its characteristics? Will the charge of the ultimate black hole eventually be the same as that of an electron?...”

To answer this question it is evidently necessary firstly to answer to what is a “black hole?”

The term “black hole” in cosmology means a cosmological object that has radius and mass equal to Schwarzschild radius Rg=2GM/c2, G is gravitational constant, M and R are mass and radius of the object, and, according to the GR, on this the object’ surface that has this radius the created by the object’s mass “spacetime curvature” is singular/infinite,

- and so that is inside the surface is “hole in spacetime”; other masses cross the surface with practically speed of light, so have practically infinite energy, etc.

Including black holes are created at gravitational collapses of stars, if mass of the remnant is more ~ 3 Sun masses. If the remnant has mass in ~1.5-3 Sun masses, then neutron stars are created, which are quite “usual” material objects that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star] have density from about 1×109 kg/m3 at the crust to an estimated 6×1017 or 8×1017 kg/m3deeper inside; overall densities of 3.7×1017 to 5.9×1017 kg/m3; so the “density” of created at stars collapses BHs is larger than ~1018 kg/m3.

The definition of black holes by the Schwarzschild radius criterion above looks as rather questionable, since the density is proportional to M/R3, and so at if M increases, the density decreases; for SMBH – drastically, say overall density of Milky Way SMBH is ~ 106 kg/m3, what is too much lesser 1018 kg/m3. More see the SS&VT Planck scale initial cosmological model in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 5. “Cosmology”.

In the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception and whole SS&VT Planck scale initial physical model it is rigorously proven, that Matter’s spacetime is absolute and fundamentally cannot be impacted, i.e. “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.; and so in the spacetime fundamentally cannot be any “holes”, including “black” ones.

But in Matter can exist objects, which, because of corresponding gravitational pressure inside, have density that is larger than seems maximal possible if the object is constituted from nucleons , i.e. ~1018-1019 kg/m3, and this value, instead of the Rg , really should be used at classification of cosmological objects “black holes” [while the term “black hole” looks ass rather suitable].

In the black holes matter exists in specific – fifth - “black hole matter” phase state, as that is proposed in SS&VT link above; about which recent physics knows nothing; while, say, relating to some extent understandable “neutron stars” it looks as that the NSs are practically electrically neutral,

- and really now there are no any some reliable physical effects/processes from which would follow that some BHs have some tangible electric charge.

And to

“……12) The more important question is this: all of these questions, mentioned above, must be answered at the same time for the problem to be truly solved.…..”

- the answers to 1)-11) questions see in SS posts on page 1, 3 in the thread above, and in this one..

Cheers

electron makes charge always, and it collaborates with its spin.

The thread question [including all questions in the thread preface] is rather completely answered in SS posts on pages 1 and 3, so here only a note to

“…electron makes charge always, and it collaborates with its spin. ….”

- this claim can have a physical sense only if before it is defined/explained what are “electron”, “charge”, “spin”; further - for/by what reason and way, and how, “electron makes charge always”, and for/by what reason and way and how the charge collaborates with the spin.

Really all these questions can be, and are, really scientifically rationally answered only in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are linked in SS post page 1, August 1,

- and more concretely in SS posts on page 3. So for the readers who really want to know what are “particles”, including “electrons”, “charge” – including that any particle doesn’t make any charge of any fundamental Nature force, including Electric Force, concrete particles have concrete charges only by Matter’s design; particle’s “spin” is the observable 3D projection of the particle’s 4D “angular momentum”, which [of fundamental and some composite particles, some other composite particles can have other “angular momentum”, say, zero] is equal to ћ, at that the 3D projection of having rest mass particles’ “angular momentum” is equal to ћ/2 , but since “rest massless” photons move only in the observable 3DXYZ space, photon’s spin is equal to whole ћ;

- etc., including that the Forces charges fundamentally don’t collaborate directly particles’ spins;

- again – more see the SS posts on pages 1,3 and links in the posts.

Cheers