Dear Mr. Teixeira

Our journey to discovery has led us to formulate theory, and then if we find our theory is incorrect, formulate new theory.  Much of the time, in our history the new theory was simpler and yet more complete.

With this in mind, perhaps you would be interested in reading the article "On Electric Charge".   The link to that article on Research Gate is attached.

This article provides a new perspective related to the nature and cause of electric charge, quantization, mass, gravity, etc.

Your thoughts and critical comments are welcomed.

Working Paper On Electric Charge

Yes I agree with Chip Akins and share the same viewpoint that the electron charge is caused by the electromagnetic field of a confined photon. This has been discussed before in the paper "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" available at the link. There is a simple proof for this: The angular momentum of a linear polarized photon confined in a circular standing wave has L=rp=rh/lambda. For n wavelengths, n.lambda = 2pi.r so substituting for lambda we get L=nh/(2pi). Which means n=1/2, to get the fermionic spin. An electron is a photon of half wavelength.

https://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

Gravitation and electromagnetism or both gauge interactions. The gravitational field is simply given by the curvature of space-time, but the origin electromagnetic field is more mysterious.  There have been various attempts to unify them, that have been more or less successful. It seems that the electromagnetic field is given by the torsion, and that the charge is some topological excitation. In any way if the reason of gravitation is mass, the reason of the electromagnetic force is charge. There is no better explanation of charge than there is for mass.

J.P.,

It may be that the best path to an answer to your question is by looking at the elementary charge e from the perspective of the fundamental physical constant that it is. This class of physical constant responds in a sense to gauge symmetry  and represents an invariant sustaining the transformations occurring in a larger frameset. The surrounding quantum-space conditions of the frameset may be taken as the phenomenological characteristics of matter that harbor the invariant and which your question is calling for. The value of e is the numeric invariant that expresses the quantum-space (or quanto-geometric) correlation within said Shell of transformations as an irreducible. These are the first principles from which e can be unequivocally computed. I have achieved and published these results since 2015 in the publication “Quanto-Geometry”.  You may review those principles in the paper “Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators”, a chapter of the latest edition of that publication. So there is no better certainty and assertiveness about  the nature and origin of the elementary charge e than that produced by the theoretical axiomatic which produces its very computation.

Hope you and others interested in the topic find this reading as enriching as clarifying:

Article Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators on Unified Quantum-Re...

There is some confusion here: J.P. Teixeira uses the words "model parameter" to describe mass and asks for "the matter characteristic" described by electric charge. What if we inverse them?

The electric charge is the model parameter of EM interaction as such as the mass is the model parameter of Gravitation interaction and both of them are characteristics of matter since for every particle we assign a quantity of mass and a quantity of electrical charge.

So when you ask for a matter characteristic described by electrical charge could you before tell us what's the one described by mass! You can't say quantity of matter because in the case of an amount of particles of the same charge, even the electrical charge can lead us to the quantity of matter as much as mass.

This means that mass is just the same as electrical charge (matter characteristics) and every one of them has its own characteristics (the first is always positive while the second could be negative also). And it's those characteristics of each one that make them two and not one since if we got only one electrical charge, that would lead us to the mass and makes the definition of electrical charge unnecessary.

This was a basic explanation of the difference between mass and electrical charge. For deeper one, let's say the EM and Gravitational fields don't have the same characteristics just like the number of Gauge Bosons (particules) differs from an interaction to another.

Since Einstein, the mass is no longer the quantity of matter, but the total energy.

Dear J.P.

You wrote:

"James Clerk Maxwell was a genius who observed these effects, and identified two types of electric charges, which can either exhibit an attractive or repulsive force, depending on the fact that they are of opposite or equal polarity, respectively. Maxwell equations brilliantly describe the EM field and the resulting forces. Again, we are very fortunate to live in such Universe, because information flow and life ultimately depends on it."

Note that the discovery of opposite electric charges dates back to about 100 years before Maxwell and is due to Coulomb (Ref: the Coulomb equation).

Also Maxwell's equations are in reality equations derived from experimental data by Gauss, Faraday and Ampere, that he succeeded in correlating sufficiently to discover that electric and magnetic fields induce each other, so what he contributed is not really a description of a single EM field, but that the two separate fields need to induce each other to explain the very existence of electromagnetic energy.

The connection between electric and magnetic fields with the charge of the electron was made later by Lorentz, with his equation that allows calculating ambient electric and magnetic fields so charged particles can be guided on a variety of trajectories.

You also mention the proton as being an elementary particle.

We know since the second half of the 1960's that this is not so.

The proton is a system of 3 elementary particles in mutual electromagnetic interaction, 2 up quarks plus 1 down quark. This was discovered at the SLAC accelerator in 1966-1968 by scattering high-energy electrons against these inner components of protons.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

@ J.P. Teixeira  

You wrote:

>>What is the characteristic of matter that we refer as “electric charge”?

>>What are the physical phenomena that originate such EM fields?

>>While mass is the model parameter that describes the quantity of matter of a body, what is the physical reality in matter behind what we refer as an electric charge?

>>Why elementary particles (protons) exhibit an opposite polarity of other elementary particle (electrons)?

The questions you asked as all valid questions, that expose loop holes in the certainties we have about the irreducibles in physics such as the nature and origin of the electric charge and EM fields, the reason for two and only two polar opposites in electric charge characterization.

We really need not argue about a definition for the attribute of elementary in the particle world. Because many things we thought to be of a monolithic nature and so deserving the attribute of elementary turned out to be of composite nature as later discovered. Even though the quarks are today taken to be the ultimate irreducibles in the composition of particles, no one can ascertain that they absolutely and definitely are, given that some physicists are even today looking for structure below the quark level.

The only particle that seems to live up to the standard of elementary interestingly seems to be the electron, because it is thus far manifestly unbreakeable under all energy regimes. But then the question is: why did it not turn out to be the building blocks of all fermions? You have right there a naturalness problem of high significance.

We do not have a definition of the nature of the electric charge in physics. What we have is a hardy proposal by the Standard Model of fractional electric charges (1/3e, 2/3e, etc.) attributed to quarks, so that we can artificially explain why the neutron is a neutral particle. There is indeed in modern physics a HUGE problem with the notion of electric charge, despite its pervasiveness. What I was trying to say in my previous post, maybe inartfully, is that we can only gain insight in that problem by resolving the more fundamental problem of the origin of the primordial physical symmetries. I believe to have made inroads in that direction.

Cheers.

@Claude Pierre Masse

Your say: Since Einstein, the mass is no longer the quantity of matter, but the total energy.

I beg to pinpoint a small correction. Since Einstein,  The mass IS NOT the total energy, but EQUIVALENT to the total energy, which is not the same, as fine a distinction as it is. The mass is a scalar quantity, I say a physical scalar, energy is not. Energy is a derivate of the scalar-space correlation between the duplet tenets that make a “parcel” of matter.  A good analogy is this: a one-dollar bill is worth 1 dollar, 4 quarters are also worth 1 dollar; yet a dollar bill is not 4 quarters, they are “ontologically” two different things, but they are equivalent in monetary value. You can produce one from the other, by way of reversibility or replacement. Such is the relation between mass and energy.  My take.

Dear Joseph,

You wrote:

"What we have is a hardy proposal by the Standard Model of fractional electric charges (1/3e, 2/3e, etc.) attributed to quarks, so that we can artificially explain why the neutron is a neutral particle."

Note that this was a prediction not of the Standard Model, but of Gell-Mann and Zweig much earlier.

Also, they are not hypothetical anymore since the 1960's, because, -1/3 charge for the down quark and +2/3 charge for the up quark were experimentally measured during the scattering experiments at SLAC that the paper I referred previously is one of the series published at the time.

The other papers are in the SLAC archive. You can contact them for confirmation and obtain the related papers if interested.

These two particles behaved point-like exactly like the electron in all scattering encounters.

Joseph Jean-Claude, suppose the classical example, a nucleus or its nucleons apart.  Is there the same quantity of matter?  Yet, the (rest) masses are different, while the total energy is the same if that is the result of a decay or of a fusion (then taking into account the kinetic energy.)  That's not a mere ontological distinction.

Technically, the rest (or invariant) mass is a scalar, but not the relativistic mass, which is the fourth component of a four vector just like the energy.

@Claude Pierre Massé,

You write: Technically, the rest (or invariant) mass is a scalar, but not the relativistic mass, which is the fourth component of a four vector just like the energy.

Yes, indeed and it is because what you are attempting to describe with relativistic mass is something that has more to do with the wavefunction of the particle. Relativistic mass was and still is a fuzzy notion that the gatekeepers of the science prefer and recommend to avoid. Einstein himself said this much of it:

“It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M of a moving body [aka relativistic mass] for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the “rest mass” m.

I have to humbly say that I agree and the best way to account for the dynamics of a moving particle in that sense is thru  a description of its wavefunction, of which of course we have little visibility thus far. It is true too that the idea of Energy of the moving particle is tightly related to the wavefunction ontologically. That is one of the things, I believe, that prompted Feynman to uncharacteristically say that “in physics today we have no idea what Energy is”.

Incidentally, in the paper “Time-Free Description of Motion…”, I discuss these issues more directly:

Chapter Quanto-Geometry - Vol III - Chapter 3: Time-Free Description...

@André Michaud

The Standard Model is a collection of ideas put together to present a unifying view of physics, to which Hans Hell-Mann ideas contributed as well. So attribution of a particular to Hell-Mann or the Standard Model is probably inconsequential.

You also wrote: Also, they are not hypothetical anymore since the 1960's, because, -1/3 charge for the down quark and +2/3 charge for the up quark were experimentally measured during the scattering experiments at SLAC that the paper I referred previously is one of the series published at the time.

I have not seen these papers and rely on the gatekeepers for distilling them into what is accepted science. It does not look like these results achieved in the 60’s had met the standard of proof that has been consecrated. Many feel today that the quantization of charge is a notion that lacks sufficient grounding and justification.  I cite Sylvie Braibant et al in their 2012 publication “Particles and Fundamental Interactions”, opining critically about the Standard Model:

“There are several unresolved “aesthetic” mathematics and physics problems. For example, the electric charge of the fundamental fermions and bosons is quantized in multiples of 1/3e, without a deeper justification.”

The more clarifying word that is missing there is “arbitrary”. The Standard Model has many shortcomings despite its empirical utility and it is important to remain as true to fact as possible so it can either be improved or overcome by something better. Some famous voices in physics have called it a “dirty model”. We don’t have to live with that forever.

Best regards.

Dear Joseph,

It is up to each of us to decide if we verify sources or not. I gave my information.

Dear Jean Claude

I appreciate very much your explanations, probably because you used a language that I can easily understand. I agree with you in many things. At least, in the things that I think I fully understand. Let me explain, most of my work is in engineering, and therefore, I need to understand the underlying reality before go to abstraction of relevant things, and develop models and afterwards build something.I usually don´t start with mathematical descriptions. And sometimes, the mathematical language used in the description of the universe is a little obscure for me. 

I came back to physics by an invitation of my friend João Varela from CERN, to work in some aspects of the electronic of the LHS.

I agree with you in what you say about the role of Einstein. Einstein did not change the reality. reality is the same, before, during and after Einstein. He turned it more understandable. The equivalence between energy and mass existed before,and  keep on existing. Einstein clearly formalize that equivalence.

In a similar way, Maxwell, shown us  that electric and magnetic fields can´t live one without the other. He formally described their dependence, of course based on everything that has been developed by other scientists before him, even back to the Greeks.

But now, I would like to talk a little about quarks and being or not elementary particles. When I think that in a Black Hole, matter concentrate in a volume that is almost a point of almost infinite density, is not the matter almost vacuum, constituted by "point" of very high density? otherwise, how could the volume shrink so much at T close to 0K?

sorry . I came back to physics by an invitation of my friend João Varela from CERN, to work in some aspects of the electronic of the LHC in the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. (it´s late in the evening.)

Dear I.C.,

If your friend at CERN is a physicist, you would learn a lot about up and down quarks if you ask him what really is being collided with when two protons are scattered against each other at such high energy at they use in the LHC.

Dear I.C,

You write "Maxwell, shown us  that electric and magnetic fields can´t live one without the other. He formally described their dependence, of course based on everything that has been developed by other scientists before him, even back to the Greeks"

I see that you correctly understand the mutual dependence of both fields, for electromagnetic energy to even exist.

Then maybe you would be interested in seeing how both electric and magnetic fields mutually induce each other in a self-sustaining manner in a Maxwell's equations compliant localized photon:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

@I.C. Teixeira

You wrote: is not the matter almost vacuum, constituted by "point" of very high density? otherwise, how could the volume shrink so much at T close to 0K?

I understand that you are calling for a discussion about the intimate structure of the vacuum, and matter as mass. That is the farthest towering level that you can go when considering the building blocks of physical matter, meaning the existence of the duplet mass/vacuum. There is no prior reality from which they can be derived and there is no endogenous definition, whether in philosophy or physics, for the scalarity of mass or the void of the vacuum. You can only define one by opposition to the other, from the highest towering mathematical-physics relation:

                                Q x S =1  -->  Q = 1/S or S = 1/Q,

            where Q stands for the scalar and S for spatial vacuum.

From there you can define a broad differential geometry axiomatic which is going to ultimately derive numerically the masses of the most significant particles as much as their wavefunctions as an attribute of their constitutional void. And the derivative covariance between the scalar and the vacuum in their  functional expression as determined by this development beautifully yields the numeric value of the Stephan-Boltzmann constant as the very unit of thermodynamic temperature, which you mentioned.

I welcome you to prospect Quanto-Geometric Theory to see how this plays out, in a simple and very accessible formalism.

@André Michaud

>>>If your friend at CERN is a physicist, you would learn a lot about up and down quarks if you ask him…

>>>I see that you correctly understand the mutual dependence of both fields,…

It may be intentional or natural, or you may not realize it, but the tone of your note might be construed as contemptuous and condescending, and sadly it is in keeping with the culture that has been prevalent in physics for all its existence as a science.

Let me tone this down a little bit and say that Physicists don’t know everything. There are many things they don’t know (there is a very long list of fundamental problems awaiting elucidation from them to start with), and many things they know are vacuous and counter-productive. It is my opinion that physicists tend to overvalue Maxwell’s equations. We should credit instead Tesla’s pragmatic genius, and his incredibly creative engineering,  for the invention of the induction coil and alternating current, without which there is no Maxwell “electro-magnetism”.  And probably no computer either, and all the rest…  Second, Maxwell’s equations are a phenomenological description that does not understand the underlying physics of the vacuum and the dynamics of the quanta that is being played over its tapestry. That is why it cannot explain the reason why the void of the vacuum can transport the so-called electromagnetic wave, a phenomenon to this day unexplained.

Instead it seizes two fake concepts, the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum, to build on, making good on the artificial relation: c = sq rt (permittivity x permeability). Those classical parameters have been arbitrarily chosen to match c. If this theory had the towering value that physicists sanctimoniously credit it with, it would have to have been built in such a way to instead derive the fine structure constant (alpha) and the unit of charge e. To cut it short, I will only add this: the dynamics of the magnetic field and the electric field maintain only a concomitant/correspondence relationship, not a direct causal one, and do not belong to the same gauge group as proposed by Maxwell’s theory of “electro-magnetism”.  That’s one of the reasons why we have been stuck for so long in theoretical physics! Field theory is not the best way to approach the dynamics of the vacuum if you want to uncover its hidden fundamental symmetries.

P.S.  FYI, as a pedagogical researcher, you may be interested to know that the mutual inductive relationship between magnetic fields and electric fields are one of the first things electrical engineers learn in engineering school. Teachers rarely care to mention that it is formalized in the Maxwell’s Theory, even though some textbooks do mention Maxwell’s equations. But it is generally in those sections that they don’t invite students to visit, and some other undergraduate textbooks of electrical circuit analysis do not mention Maxwell at all.

Dear Joseph,

You erroneously construed my invitation to I.C. as being contemptuous or condescending (to whom, by the way?).

Since he works at CERN, if his friend also works there, there is a high probability that he would be an actual experimentalist. So he would be a first hand source to obtain information on the inner scatterable structure of protons and their inner up an down quarks, since he mentions he is looking for information about quarks..

 I respect you opinions and have no opinion nor have I any comment about it.

I do have opinions however on Maxwell's equations and the interdependence of both electric and magnetic fields that are explained by Maxwell's equations, that explains how electric motors work, and why electrons can be guided on precise trajectories with the Lorentz equation, for example, and I feel free to exchange information with others who have the same understanding, or who wish to learn more about this issue.

You say that "Teachers rarely care to mention that it is formalized in the Maxwell’s Theory, even though some textbooks do mention Maxwell’s equations. But it is generally in those sections that they don’t invite students to visit, and some other undergraduate textbooks of electrical circuit analysis do not mention Maxwell at all."

My opinion is that restricting transmission of knowledge about the groundbreaking equations of Gauss, Ampere and Faraday is not conducive to progress, and I disapprove.

@André Michaud

Dear André,

You write: My opinion is that restricting transmission of knowledge about the groundbreaking equations of Gauss, Ampere and Faraday is not conducive to progress, and I disapprove.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not at all saying that Maxwell is being censored in undergraduate textbooks. I am saying that for some reason, the basic principles of electrical components and circuits are not taught at that level with explicit recognition of Maxwell’s contributions. The names that you mention, Faraday, Gauss, Ampere, and I might add Lenz, Ohm, Kirchoff, Fourier, Laplace  and many others, are the ones that come back over and over so that students end up becoming familiar with them. You really have to wait until graduate-level studies for the full blown Maxwell equations to come to the fore.

My point is that Maxwell’s Theory is overvalued in fundamental physics. I believe that Tesla’s contributions are much more valuable and consequential than Maxwell’s ideas. If you are looking for someone who’s been censored, talk about Tesla. There is not too many people I know in engineering who would commonly refer to an induction coil as a Tesla coil, or know that  Tesla single-handedly invented the entire technology of the electric generator. About 1000 patented inventions, without counting the many many more that were lost in the fire to his lab, of which Edison certainly knew something about. Without even counting the other ones that were seized at his passing by the US Federal government, kept in secret and exploited in military technologies that a fine eye can recognize in US military weaponry deployed in theater. I shall say that in my opinion Maxwell contribution in statistical physics are much more valuable than his theory of Electromagnetism.

Also far from me the idea of restricting anyone’s freedom to comment and share information with like-minded others. This here is all about exchanges. And that is the very reason why I am stressing that Texeira’s questions are all absolutely legitimate and making sure there is an open climate for free, fruitful and stress-free discussion for all who want to participate. I am glad to know that you are on the same page. I have seen other physics debates around here go real sour, and frankly I just would not like to see here another one of those.

Cordially.

In physics, we are not talking about components, engineering, or patents.  How education is oriented, following Voltaire, is not the matter.  The truth is, Maxwell allowed pure physics to develop tremendously, his views and formulations sparked all of modern physics progresses, the newly gauge theories are modelled after the Maxwell equations.  He is really one of the center physicist of the 19th century, that can't be denied.  Even in engineering, the Maxwell equations are useful in all that is propagation: wireless, radio, radar, wave guide, WiFi, GPS, etc, and also in high speed electronics. It is obvious that QED couldn't have arisen from the Kirchoff laws alone.

Dear Joseph,

Well, I never initiated nor perpetuated any sour debate. I am interested in physics only.

I note that you mention that the names of Faraday, Gauss and Ampere come back over and over so students become familiar with them.

I wonder why then, since students are made familiar with them, that 150 years after Maxwell synthesized of their work, that knowledge about this major synthesis is still made so difficult to access for learning students, unless they dig the stuff up by themselves.

After all, Maxwell's first equation is Gauss' law for electricity; his second equation is derived from Faraday's law, his third from Gauss' law on magnetism and his forth is a generalization of Ampere's law that Maxwell deduced from the synthesis he was making.

The major benefit that I see is that it reveals that both E and B fields have to mutually induce each other so electromagnetic energy can even exist.

His discovery also led to Lorentz discovering the first ever electromagnetic mechanics equation, that allows guiding charged particles on precise trajectories.

In my view, it is not overvalued.

@ Claude Pierre Massé

Dear Claude,

You write: In physics, we are not talking about components, engineering, or patents.

I am quite surprised at this statement which could not lie further from the truth.

Where did Albert Einstein start his career again? At the Bern patent office, as we all know.

But more importantly, the empirical method which is at the heart of all scientific discoveries, more so in physics than any other science, is all about constructing an experimental setup capable of authenticating a hypothetical theory about a known fact of polemic nature. The experimental setup which is so crucial to all physics discoveries is indeed an ENGINEERING construction. The very form of the original experimental setup is what is going to be developed and scaled up, thru further ENGINEERING, into the new industry to be orchestrated from the physics discovery. Now, I acknowledge that this second phase is what we customarily call engineering. But one has to remain quite cognizant of the fact that not because Academia has segregated the dissemination of knowledge in that manner  that one ought to lose sight that the empirical manipulation of artifacts, an engineering enterprise, is at the heart of theoretical physics. The discipline of experimental physics for itself is only a specialization for an expertise in the construction of these artifacts, as I understand it. Do not get lost into these fields of specialization created by Academia in the interest of making it a profitable business enterprise.

Now to Maxwell.

What Maxwell had done is to formalize, in a very elegant manner I concede, the link between the electric field and the magnetic field. It had set the formal basis for the field theory vision which, as a classical theory, has relatively informed  20th century physics of the cosmos, thru Relativity as a field theory, and physics of the quanta in its second incarnation of Quantum Field Theory. It had not done a single thing in the developments that led to the electrification of our entire planet, which you have to understand in the context of early 20th century. That has to be credited to the EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE of Mr Nikola Tesla. Radio transmission that you mention has to be credited to the EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE of Mr Tesla, not Marconi, and even though Maxwell’s formalism may help harness their propagation. MAXWELL DID NOT DISCOVER THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE OR RADIO. THERE IS NO ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE WITHOUT TESLA’S ALTERNATING CURRENT THRU HIS TESLA COIL! One cannot blame theoreticians for loving theory and the tantalizing math that comes with it, and I am a theoretician myself. But Maxwell’s impact in the shaping of the technologies instrumental to our modern world today is, in my view, minimal and not to be placed on that tower that academicians love to showcase it.

For me, Maxwell’s contribution ought to be sized up in the context of his vision of Electromagnetism. And there are deep conceptual problems with this classical vision, despite its apparent assertiveness, which I alluded to before. The sooner we can uncover them the better for our stalled theoretical physics. My take.

Dear Joseph,

You write "MAXWELL DID NOT DISCOVER THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE OR RADIO"

Quite the contrary, he predicted that the range of electromagnetic wavelengths of light extended all the way to the longest wavelengths,

Nobody believed him until Hertz confirmed the existence of electromagnetic waves in the radio wavelengths range 20 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz

Joseph Jean-Claude, Einstein was looking for an academic position, but couldn't get any. He has been appointed in the patent office for his knowledge of electromagnetism and the Maxwell equations!  In his long and successful career, he never filed any patent, although his father wanted him to become an engineer.  Einstein was a theorist, all his setups were Gedanken Experimente.

Maxwell introduced the notion of displacement current, without which a comprehensible description wasn't possible.  Specific laws for specific applications couldn't predict the existence of electromagnetic waves without this essential ingredient.  That's what is credited to Maxwell, not the individual equations themselves.  It then became clear that the Maxwell equations are manifestly covariant, and can be written as a single equation in tensor form.  That's why they are so important in theoretical physics today.

Hertz used electric sparks in air and coherers (tubes with iron filings), and proved the existence of the electromagnetic waves this way.  This same process has been used by Marconi as the first practical wireless telegraphy system.

@ Claude Pierre Massé  & André Michaud

Dear Claude & Andre,

Thank you for the many tidbits of the official history narrative, most of which is well known in the community. Your reports make clear once again that winners are the ones who write history, with total liberty to misinform and deform it as they please to their own interests, prestige and satisfaction (obviously not referring to the two of you specifically). Maxwell may have made predictions of the existence of a sector within the broad electromagnetic spectrum, but he did not invent or discover the electromagnetic wave as such, otherwise called at the time radio transmission. With the invention of alternating current and the induction coil, Tesla not only discovered the means for putting together the electric generators that went on to illuminate important sections of American cities like New York and Chicago, he also discovered that by feeding high frequency alternating currents to the coil the energy detached from the coil and propagated. Radio communication was no doubt in use when Tesla demonstrated for the U.S. military the use of remote-controlled watercrafts. A historic and undeniable fact, and that was much before Marconi appeared on the scene. The U.S. Supreme court officially granted to Tesla priority in the invention of radio transmission in an attempt to restore justice after his death.  Guglielmo Marconi was a British spy hired by the JP Morgan banking group allied to Edison, Tesla’s arch enemy, in order to undermine Tesla’s enterprising, and steal his inventions, after their camp had earlier set his lab on fire in the famous raging war of currents, because there was no stopping his inventiveness. Edison was the champion of direct current with not much promise and capabilities. The late 1800 was a very tumultuous period in industry, engineering and physics. But even Albert Einstein had words of praise for the genius of Nikola Tesla.

Now to your champion Mr Maxwell. It is unfortunate that theoreticians had come to model gauge theories after the electromagnetic field representation proposed by Maxwell. The idea of the invariance of electromagnetic laws within any chosen potential differential within the field, from which gauge invariance is modeled, led to the erroneous idea that the vacuum is the same everywhere, and that the laws of physics remain invariant over the tensored tapestry of any vacuum. Physics has to get off that train if it wants to really understand the vacuum and be assertive about it. Gauge theories inspired by Maxwell classical view have suffered not so long ago the most grueling failure in their attempt to computationally characterize the vacuum, with the computation of the cosmological constant, aka the vacuum energy density. The unfathomable computed number has been characterized as  a “cataclysmic failure for physics” by one very authorized voice and by another “the most notable predictive failure in the history of physics”.  This is what Frank Wilzeck, Nobelist, had written about it in 2012:

“[The solution to the vacuum problem] might require inventing entirely new ideas, and abandoning old ones we thought to be well-established.”

I tell you, one of these ideas is Electromagnetism.

Cordially.

Dear Joseph,

You are obviously convinced that you are right.

But there is one factual disconnect in the sequence of discovery that you mention.

Hertz confirmed the existence of electromagnetic energy in the radio frequencies range based on Maxwell's hypothesis before Tesla developed the alternating current generating equipment that provided useful application of this discovery.

Your  conclusion on the origin of the discovery of electromagnetic energy and the usefulness of Maxwell's equations stands a chance of being conform to reality only if an ongoing conspiracy that you suspect has been falsifying the time sequence  of discoveries, on top of maliciously falsifying (for what purpose?) the textual accounts in all history and reference textbooks and formally published papers for the past 180 years in all countries and languages used to produce the initial accounts, which involved hundreds of scientists working separately,

Interested readers all know how to study history and confirm the reliability of sources.  Opinions do not matter.

This will be my last contribution to this thread.

@ André Michaud

Dear Andre,

I have to say that for us in the United States of A., a verdict by the US Supreme Court is not an opinion, or my opinion, but our best warrant of TRUTH and JUSTICE. And by the time they rendered this judgement, Tesla had already died in poverty and loss of fame, and left no money for anyone to buy out purposeless justice on his behalf. From there anyone can go and investigate the so-called war of currents that preceded the electrification of our entire world. Tracing everything back will uncover a disconnect between the discussed claims in the area of electromagnetism officially attributed to Maxwell in academia and the events that unfolded throughout the war of currents across the north Atlantic. I suggest that the link (and this now is my opinion)  is the overwhelming influence of British political establishment in world affairs at the time, and of course in Academia as well, and their hegemonic determination to control and claim the then new awesome technology. You really have to wonder why Tesla’s name who had done so much and became a public celebrity of an era as a result of his enormous contributions to public utility, does not appear almost anywhere in the official annals of science!

For the record, I do believe that J. C. Maxwell was a respectable theoretician and his other contributions in the area of statistical physics were as genuine as significant.

             The electromagnetic force interaction is a special case of gravitational force interaction. A moving electric charge is a function of the moment of the mass, so the Coulomb law may be introduced in the form of gravity, see article :

ELECTRIC CHARGE AS A FUNCTION OF THE MOMENT OF MASS. GRAVITATIONAL FORM OF COULOMB'S LAW.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01374611v1

@Valery Timkov

Dear Valery

I tried to read but, it's a 244 page in Russian, I presume. It left me frowning...

The closest response there is to J.C Texeira's questions in established theory relates to what is known as the electron gyromagnetic moment:  e/2m. QED deals with this quantity under the characterization of spin magnetic moment of a particle.:  -g x mu/h-bar, g being a correction factor necessary in order to match the experimentally measured value for the moment of the electron.  It took 4 to 5 decades of theoretical contorsions and juggling and even the introduction of an illegal mathematical procedure called Renormalization for QED to arrive at a relatively close quantity. This was all done under the umbrella of first principles and assumptions emanating from 19th century physics of electro-magnetism. Yet, the procedure for the derivation was flawed for several reasons that make it instead empirical in my view, despite the fact that the computed moment had been sold as the most precisely computed physical constant in the history of physics. But more importantly, and that goes to the inadequacy of the assumptions and first principles, the theory’s prediction of the same moment for the muon particle, which is essentially just a heavier electron, has been catastrophically inaccurate, very removed numerically from the experimentally measured value. A long standing unresolved problem in QED.

I believe I offer a better and more cogent mathematical-physics path to this derivation in Quanto-Geometric Theory.

Electric charge is one of the most fundamental physical principles. Words do not exist to describe it. Particles may be charged or uncharged, and still have a spin magnetic monument, suggesting a volume larger than zero, and the charge characteristic discretely displaced from the spin axis, either with a positive or negative polarity depending on particle type.

Charge is related to the passage of time, since the antiparticle has opposite charge and is represented in wave functions as passing backward in time. Electric charge may eventually be identified as a vital asymmetric link between space and time, along with the symmetric connection of mass.

Mass always accompanies electric charge, and in early years of the 20th century charge was thought to be the only source of mass in the electron. That was not confirmed in other work. In rigorously integrated metric solutions of field equations where mass and charge occur together the charge is always found to be weakening gravity as if charge is tending to suppress the effect of mass. 

Tolman showed that mass effect of single particles is considerably larger than the competition from the associated charge. He neglected to say that the charge is a squared term in metrics such that total charge in large groups of particles can have greater effect on curvature than the associated mass, but this represents a dispersion of the charged mass into separate particles.

A better description of electric charge requires a better understanding of microscopic vacuum and the energy fields that pass through it. Electric charge probably has a fundamental interaction with space. Since charge polarizes space, the space must also have some effect on charge, just as space has an effect on mass in response to the curvature of gravity caused by the mass.

Worth mentioning is also "charge without charge" studied by Wheeler and others in a larger program including "mass without mass and field without field."  For some non trivial topology of space-time, there can be an electric field without a source and without breaking the Maxwell equations, for instance if two sheets of space-time are connected by two wormholes.

Dear Joseph Jean-Claude,

article:

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01374611v1

in English. Abstract of the article in Russian and English.

Very interesting discussion , I always think on the meaning of charges as below defined.

A Field is in a way an expression for a disconnection condition between 2 contrary pole conditions relative to an repose and ideal situation.

Example:

By annihilation 2 different charged particles will be transformed to a Photon with charge = 0  and reverse.

So a charge only is a disconnection condition for Photons.

Above is only my opinion - I can't prove it.

Kurt Wraae

Dear Kurt,

Your intuition is logical and sound.

It cannot be poven in 3D space, but it can be described and proven in an expanded orthogonal space geometry.

Summarily described in the second part of the first paper below, and completely described in conformity with Maxwell according to de Broglie's hypothesis on the localized photon in the second paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Dear Andre` Michaud

Thank You very much for a qualified answer.I look forward for a closer studie. about Your links 

I am using the same theory for Space Structure analyzing  with good results. 

Kurt Wraae

Dear Kurt,

Indeed, there seems to be many benefits in relating the geometric orthogonality of electromagnetic energy with the orthogonality of space.

It is entirely possible that our research might converge.

Bom dia J.P. Texeira

It might be very difficult to relate electrical charge wether positive or negative with matter, mass, gravitation... The electron has the same opposite charge of the proton but the proton is about 1800 heavier and bigger. So same absolute charge but mass of different magnitude order where the other catch being that Coulomb force does not introduce anywhere the mass storing the electrical charge.

Dear Valery Timkov

As for your paper in the link, the above comment applies to proton versus electron...

Bonjour André Michaud,

As for your paper in the link, interesting approach of the LC tank oscillator wether decaying, self-sustaining or diverging except who does provide the fuel to keep it going. What is your opinion of the vacuum capacitor with 2 metal plates separated by vacuum (i.e. Jennings model used by radio amateur): does the displacement current of Maxwell manifests a real magnetic field with associated Lenz law as it would occur with a one wire inductor ?

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01374611/document

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Dear Albert,

One important aspect of the proton is that it is not an elementary particle like the electron, just like the solar system is not a single mass like the Earth or the Sun.

The proton is a system of charged and massive elementary particles. Which were confirmed at the SLAC facility in 1966-1968 to be triads of charged and massive elementary up and down quarks (uud).

It is the sum of their fractional charges that resolve to the unit positive charge:

+2/3 +2/3 -1/3 = +1

So the electron electromagnetically interacts not with the proton, but with its charged elementary subcomponents.

I only observe that real EM photons succeed in self-sustaining from emission to absorption, otherwise we could not identify them as the same EM event as emitted. This seems to be a fact of life.Presumably a property of kinetic energy proper or/and of the underlying Coulomb force. The exact reason remains to be established, just like we have to live with the fact that the electron has a unit charge since Millikan proved it out of any doubt.

For the twin plates of the capacitor, I don't think that displacement current is involved. Only electromagnetic interaction between the elementary charged particles making up the plates.

@Jerry Decker & Claude Pierre Massé

Jerry and Claude,

Read your last posts several times. And I have to say that, though they make for interesting and valuable points of conversation,  those are the very assumptions that have been at play for a long time in physics that have in part contributed to its stagnation in my view. I have no desire to antagonize just to antagonize, could certainly make a better use of my time. But if you go and look at the very method of computation of the vacuum energy density figure in QFT, a very long and intricate calculational procedure, prolific as well because there are at least 3 different methods to do it, you will find that many of these concepts have been in one way or another at work there. If they were so correct, then why would the out-of-the-world final number that came out of it be so at odds with the number “naturally” computed in cosmological physics from observations?

It is time to stop the speculation. Theory is about hypothesis but not speculation, which is quite different. If you want to stop the speculation, you look at physics this way. There is a lot of physics that have already been done. The best of physics is distilled in what we call the fundamental physical constants, both dimensional and dimensionless. And I might even add the ones that are not fundamental as well, there is a very very long list of them published by the standard bodies, i.e. the one by CODATA. Authoritative as none other. For all its leaning  to Theory, theoretical physics has never been able to suitably and uncontroversially explain from first principles a single one of these numbers. The first principles are those kinds of assumptions that you well reported. You need to present an axiomatic framework built on a vision of the structure of mass, space and time (if you want to throw time in there too and of which I am an enemy), that is able to say at the end: here it is, my systematic view of nature has computed this or that known number, so my idea about the fundamental irreducibles must be considered valid and to be reckoned with. In that way, you would have uncovered the invariant of a fundamental symmetry in nature because these constants are each a constant for a reason.

I take this opportunity to briefly go back to one thing that Claude has said: “Einstein was a theorist, all his setups were Gedanken Experimente. “  Only partly true. Special Relativity was a response to the widely known and very effectual Michelson-Morley experiment, of which the entire physics establishment was attempting over time to provide an understanding for, as I gather. Now, General Relativity could be construed as a result of Einstein thought experiment about the falling person in an elevator, but there is no GR without SR,  is there not? So in physics intuitive insight has its place, however one ought to discipline his/her thoughts and hypothesize, but not speculate.

My take.

Any Physics theory is stated via the basic communication system which, by the aid of a theorem can be proved as contradictory [1,2]. Therefore at best, a “least contradictory” Physics can be stated based on a claim for minimum contradictions. This Physics can be regarded as consequence of principles of thought; it is compatible, under certain simplifications, with Newtonian mechanics, relativity theory and QM.  Finally this Physics is a Space-Time Quantum Mechanics which describes Minimum Contradictions Everything.

According to minimum contradictions point of view, space-time is quantum - stochastic and it can be regarded as  matter –ether [2]. However, matter can be either mass or charge. Thus, there exist both mass-gravitational (g) and charge-electromagnetic (em) space-time. The (em) space-time behaves as a (g)  one, since both are space-time and obey the same principles but it is not [3]. Thus, any time interval in the (em) space-time is incomprehensible with respect to a coexisting  (g) one and it can be regarded as an imaginary number which is incomprehensible too. According to [2,3] the energy of an infinitesimal (em) space-time can be regarded as imaginary since it is equivalent to an (em) time interval; according to minimum contradictions physics the relative energy of an infinitesimal space time is equivalent to it time flow rate [2,4].

On this basis we could say that electric charge can be regarded as an imaginary mass.

 In [3] we can see that there is a coexistence scale between (g) and (em) space-time equal to iα which behaves as a relativistic coefficient γ, where α is the fine structure constant.

For the (g) space time it can be proved that Schrödinger’s  relativistic equation is valid [2].  For the (em) space time the same equation is valid but  expressed in (em) coordinates which correspond to the (g) coordinates on the basis of the scale mentioned [2,3].

Thus, (g) and (em) phenomena are quantum space time phenomena obeying the Schrödinger relativistic equation.

According to this a unified formula for all forces (regarded as real gravitational or imaginary gravitational for charge) can be proven as valid.

This formula is the following [2]:

g(r, t) = c2 [grad P(r, t)]/ P(r, t)

where P(r, t) is the probability density function of  Schrödinger’s  relativistic equation.

Any contradiction existing constitutes a contradiction expected according to the claim for minimum contradictions and corresponds to some kind of physical reality.

P(r, t) can take positive or negative values for gravitation (+,-) and positive imaginary or negative imaginary values (+i, - i) for the (em) field. For this reason g(r, t) can take (+,-)  for (g) and (+i, - i) for (em).          

Thus, we can have  attraction  or  repulsion  for both (g) and (em) field; for  the (em) field this is obvious (positive or negative charges-electromagnetic masses). The question is raised of whether there exists  a negative mass or not; the existence of  a negative mass has been recently discovered (search in Google  for “negative mass”).

On this basis  protons have opposite polarity of electrons because of their different space time distribution which makes the factor  [grad P(r, t)]/ P(r, t)  positive imaginary or negative imaginary.

For more information on the minimum contradictions physics paradigm, please read the references cited below.

1.Nassikas, A.A., Theorem Proving the Existence of Contradiction, Minimum Contradictions, Fuzzy Thinking and Physics in Logical Communication  Scientific Journal of Mathematics Research  2013  Vol.3 No.6  2013-12-25.                             

 RESEARCHGATE

2..Nassikas, A. A, Miminum Contradictions Everything. Reviewed by Duffy, M.C., Ed. Whitney, C.K., Hadronic Press, pp. 185, ISBN: 1-57485-061-X, 2008. Amazon. This work constitutes the most complete version of Minimum Contradictions Theory of Everything I have proposed. I hope that it will be possible for this book to appear as pdf. in  the   RESEARCHGATE.

3. Nassikas A.A. (2008). Electromagnetic Space Time -  Ether. NPA proceedings.

RESEARCHGATE

4 .Nassikas, A. A.  Minimum Contradictions Physics and Propulsion via Superconducting Magnetic Field Trapping. AIP Conf. Proc. 1208, pp.339-349,  SPESIF 2010. Abstract published at SAO/NASA.

RESEARCHGATE

You just have to accept basic phenomenology without going into the why of

everything. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract,acording to the known Coulomb force law. Moving charges imply an electric current giving rise to a magnetic field.

Hence both electric and magnetic fiels are set up, that influence other charges.

The eletric force is qE, and the magnetic one is

qv cross B. The assignment of a positive charge to the proton is only a matter of convention.

I have the impression that the initial question is related to the deeper reason why different polarities exist. I think that J.P. Teixeira is asking: what is finally an electric charge?

Dear Athanassios Nassikas

In the end, everything is connected to an energy expression.

A charge as well, so a possible answer could be field energy created by the Photon process.

Kurt Wraae

Dear Thierry,

What I know is this.

Ever since protons and neutrons were physically collided against in the early years of high energy colliders, it was conclusively measured that the incident electrons rebounded with respect to an unbreachable limit at some distance from their center, which was the experimental proof that they possessed a measurable volume, contrary to electrons, for which no such unbreachable limit could be identified even with direct head on collisions between two electrons. There were also issues with the behavior of mesons.

The logical conclusion was that they were not elementary, but had to be systems made of smaller particles, that would presumably themselves be elementary like electrons.

In the early 1960's, two theoreticians (Gell-Mann and Zweig) separately concluded that the behavior of baryons and mesons, could be better explained if they were made of internal components whose charges could only be fractional if the resulting charges were to be explainable, particularly in the case of baryons.

The SLAC accelerator entered service in 1966 that could accelerate electrons with sufficient energy for them to overcome this previously unbreachable limit and scatter against whatever inner components existed inside protons and neutrons.

During the first two years of operation, they used non-destructive scattering to explore their inner structure. The scattering rebound patterns allowed calculating that the fractional charges were in sync with theory, +2/3 for one of the inner component and -1/3 for the other.

The paper that I referred specifically addresses the observation that both particles are only marginally more massive than electrons. This is revealed by the fact that directly back scattered electrons lost quite a bit of energy during the collisions, which were not elastic as would have been expected if the collided with particles were much more massive than the electron, but were highly inelastic, revealing that the scattered against particle absorbed this energy. All scattering encounters seemed to establish that they always behaved point-like like electrons, thus that they were elementary.  

From what I know, James Bjorken from SLAC teamed up with Gell-Mann in 1969 to correlate the data obtained with theory.

The experimentally determined mass ranges are from 1.5 to 5 MeV/c2 for the +2/3 particle and from 3 to 9 MeV/c2 for the -1/3 particle. Ref: The European Physical Journal C Review of Particle Physics, Volume 15. Number 1-4.2000, page 382.

So the inner structure of the proton was experimentally determined to be made of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark (uud) always point-like behaving and stabilized in resonance states within the proton structure similar to the resonance state in which an electron becomes captive in the ground state of a hydrogen atom. The same for the neutron (udd). 

This is history. Regrettable that this discovery made 50 years ago during the only 2 years of systematic non-destructive scattering experimentation is lost in the sea of information regarding the fleetingly existing partons that result from destructive scattering experiments that have been the norm since 1969.

I think that there is reason to suspect that any speculation made later to the contrary was made by people not privy to these experimental results, or people who dispute them not cleanly grounded on electromagnetism.

I personally tend to trust these results because they cleanly integrate with all else that I have gathered about electromagnetism.

Dear Thierry,

Thanks for the previous link "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?"

Do you know any attempt to do the same with proton ?

Article Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

@Juan Weisz

Dear Juan,

You write: You just have to accept basic phenomenology without going into the why of everything.

You can never tell if the phenomenology as an observable is correct or adequately understood, unless you look into the higher law that produces the phenomenology. That is why we have theoretical physics, otherwise we would only have "experimental" physics. There are many instances in which what you think you are observing is really not the true physical expression of nature, because nature can be to us very counter-intuitive. Example: there was a time when looking at the sky we “observed” a static universe, then we found means to “observe” a rather dynamic universe that is in constant expansion, then at the current times we are “observing” a universe in rather accelerated expansion. All the while we’ve been “observing” phenomenology. I already gave the example of the direction of current flow. I can assure you that at each of these instances of observation, there were physicists ready to destitute others who might have dared question the “observable”. In the current discussion, the observable is the electric charge e and the magnetic field Mu. How sure can anyone be of the state of these “observables”? If we can look at the higher law behind them, which actually establishes the numeric value of the unit of charge and the unit of magnetic flux, you might be able to find something interesting and perhaps surprising about the nature of these “observables”…

Dear colleagues,

I must insist that if we are going to keep this conversation on a sensible track, we shall all keep in mind that quark physics is not at all settled science. At this stage it is more of a hypothetical science than anything else, though there is enough experimental observation to support some of the hypotheses.

Fractional charge is not a universally accepted concept because there is not enough experimental basis for it. If the electron constitutes the unit of charge e, then there cannot be, at that level and from a philosophical standpoint, anything that can be expressed as a fraction of the unit, simply because the smallest of that fractional part would have to become the unit (1/3e). It is either the electron is the unit of charge and there is no conceivable fractional part of the electron charge, or the electron is not the unit of charge, and then you must define what a charge is, ontologically, not clinging to phenomenology.

Secondly, the electron as a fermion is unbreakable, which outright makes the unit of charge unbreakable. Because we don’t have a definition of charge, then we must for all intent and purposes subject the electron charge to its mass as an attribute of the same at the very least. Is the electron charge a function of its mass or of its wavefunction? We don’t know in established science, but we do know that it is a fermion. In other words, it is more of a scalar that anything else. So if the charge of the electron must be a derivate of its mass, that makes its charge a monolith or the natural irreducible for charge.

Lastly, the masses of quarks are not known as science certain. There is at least one quark (one out of 6) for which we hold two very very different numeric values for its mass. Nobody can tell which is the correct one. That in my book is enough to cast serious shadows on the question of the attribution of the fractional value of 1/3 to quark fractional charge if this charge ought to originate from unsatisfactorily known masses.

I do think you have to interprate data. But at the level that J. P.Texeira asks the question,

the only answer I think is to look at the basic facts about electric charge.

You cannot answer where it comes from, ,only how it works.and which particles carry it.

“…The question [What is the characteristic of matter that we refer as “electric charge”? ] raised by I.C. Teixeira is relevant, and puts in evidence how limited is our knowledge and understanding of the Universe we live in…”

-  that is indeed so, however the reality has became not so hopeless,  as that is in the mainstream philosophy and, correspondingly, in nature sciences; after the [philosophical] “The Information as Absolute” conception was developed [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute  ]

where it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. There is nothing else besides some informational patterns/objects/systems, including the system/sub-Set “our Universe” [which consists of the sub-systems “Matter” and fundamentally non-material “Consciousness”] is some informational system also.

Thus all particles in Matter are unambiguously some informational patterns; which, because of (i) – are uninterruptedly changing their internal states because of the energy conservation law, and, at that (ii) - nonetheless have stable properties, are so, with a large probability, some cyclic close-loop algorithms that are uninterruptedly run with high and stable frequency.

In  depth every material object, first of all particles, have 4 main degrees of freedom at changing of their internal states and spatial positions, correspondingly Matter’s spacetime exists and changes  in the absolute 4D [1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions] Euclidian sub-spacetime

[besides, though that isn’t too essential in this question, every material object and Matter as a whole change their internal states and spatial positions [i.e. move] in the absolutely fundamental and universal for every changing pattern/system in the Set “true time” dimension, so Matter’s spacetime is the [5]4D Euclidian manifold in scientific theories and [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” in the objective reality].

But to construct some system of object, besides the totally universal [5]4 degrees of freedom above, it is necessary to have some concrete additional logical links, in Matter for that the 4 fundamental forces exist, which connect material objects by using some mediators [informational messages] and have some “charges” that are sources and receivers of the mediators. For the EM force the charge and mediator are known and their applications in   material objects are well studied; in Gravity the charge is the gravitational mass and, practically for sure, mediators are gravitons; in weak and strong forces the situation is lesser known.

From the conception above follows, that the charges are some additional [besides the 4 main above] degrees of freedom at changing of the fundamental “logical gates” that constitute the particles algorithms, and, besides, the strength of a force at material objects interactions depends on main two parameters: (i) – the number of the fundamental gates in full algorithms where the “charges are written”, and (ii) from the frequency of the particles algorithm operation [which seems is inversely proportional to the particles Compton lengths].

More see at least Sections 2.2.8 and 3 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

@ Juan Weisz

Your write: I do think you have to interpret data. But at the level that J. P.Texeira asks the question, the only answer I think is to look at the basic facts about electric charge. You cannot answer where it comes from, only how it works and which particles carry it.

The data are the results of measurements made throughout the experimentation. So when we are talking about observable or experimentation in a generic manner, we are talking about the data. In quark physics, it is fair to say that the data or significant parts of the data are uncertain. What is established knowledge at this point is the Electron Gyromagnetic Ratio, which relates the charge to its mass to produce the spin figure of spin magnetic moment. The spin magnetic moment is an attempt in QFT to theoretically derive the empirical figure of Electron Gyromagnetic Ratio resulting from experimental data. Because the Theory has failed at computing the same figure for the Muon from the same principles, that tends to at least partially invalidate the assumptions and principles upheld regarding the physical variables in question. The hypothesis of fractional charge in QCD comes from the same vein.

The last sentence in your statement I have to completely disagree with. The only thing in nature’s fundamental physics that cannot be defined is the scalarity of mass and the void spread that is the source of the wavefunction, as the two components of most granular objects. They constitute the most fundamental primitives that you can think of, even analytically inaccessible in philosophy. Everything else in physics you can give a mathematical-physics description of where it comes from, its composition or ultra-structure (or state), and how the related dynamics play out.

And yes, there is an independent mathematical-physics path to the derivation of the unit of charge e, thereby elucidating its very origin.

Joseph

The part I might partially agree on is that the very nature of elementary particles

is still fundamentally unknown. Indeed particle physics is one of the least developed

branches of physics.

But the most problematic sector might be the mass itself, rather than charge. Charge, related to the Maxwell theory is a well developed theory, compared to the rest of particle.

theory . One still investigates on wheather the electron is a point particle, part of the unknown stuff.

If you want to ultimately understand charge better, what it has to do with other stuff,

ie. unify enm with gravity say, this is fine, but you would be jumping ahead

of yourself by many many years. Physics, not mathematical physics , is my main concern. I wish Physics would be so developed as you are trying to describe.

So if I have to answer a question, of what is known right now, without dreaming about the future, I stick to the answer.

Dear Juan,

When you write "One still investigates on whether the electron is a point particle"

I would rather use the term "point-like behaving particle", which is to the mathematical concept "point particle" what "center of mass" for example is to the mathematical point at which the whole mass of a planet is assumed to lie in astronomical orbits calculations.

You write "the very nature of elementary particles is still fundamentally unknown"

Quite the contrary, Since the physical detection with bubble chambers by Blackett and Occhialini in the 1930's that massless electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more, secondary products of cosmic radiation, convert to massive pairs of electron-positron, and that similar bubble chamber confirmation by the same researchers that pairs of massive electron-positron meta-stabilizing into positronium configuration always ultimately convert to massless electromagnetic photon state, we know experimentally and conclusively that the mass of the electron is made of electromagnetic energy.

You write "But the most problematic sector might be the mass itself, rather than charge. Charge, related to the Maxwell theory is a well developed theory, compared to the rest of particle"

Here again, it is well understood that the mass of electrons if electromagnetic in nature. There is no need to wait for any future development to verify this. This is in the past already and mass can be directly related to Maxwell's theory via the Lorentz equation.

The mass of the electron can be directly related to electromagnetism since 2007 because the invariant E and B fields corresponding to its invariant rest mass have been defined, thanks to a discovery made by Paul Marmet, in a paper published in the International IFNA-ANS Journal, No. 2 (28), Vol. 13, 2007, p. 123-140, Kazan State University, Kazan, Russia. (see below).

For an electron moving in straight line, we know that the Lorentz equation resolves to v=E/B.

By separately defining the invariant B field of the electron invariant rest mass separately from that of its ambient electromagnetic carrying energy, and combining them, we get equation (49) in the below paper.

For the combined E fields, we get equation (58)

If we then resolve v=E/B with these combined fields, we get equations (59) to (61)

You can try these equations, which are simple extensions of the Lorentz equation, with any value of carrying energy and get the right relativistic velocity for the electron, making use of the invariant E and B fields of the invariant rest mass of the electron.

So invariant  E and B fields of the invariant rest mass of the electron are already defined, which means that they can be used right now to revisit all of fundamental physics from the electromagnetic perspective. No need to wait for any further development to proceed.

Article Field Equations for Localized Photons and Relativistic Field...

"we know experimentally and conclusively that the mass of the electron is made of electromagnetic energy."

Dear André,

Does your sentence above would imply in theory that we could electromagnetically modify the mass or gravitation field or consider new science of electro-gravitation to emerge including unified theory ?

Dear Albert,

Actually, the very electromagnetic structure of the carrying energy of electrons implies that the measurable mass of elementary particles mandatorily varies with the amount of carrying energy that they are associated with, since half this carrying energy converts to an electromagnetic mass increment that adds to the invariant rest mass of elementary charged particles.

Since this carrying energy is adiabatically induced as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating charges, then yes, the mass of macroscopic bodies can only vary as a function of the distance separating them, since all of the building blocks of all existing atoms are charged (electrons, up quarks, down quarks).

Yes, I also think that gravitation can be understood from the electromagnetic perspective.

The first step, in my view is to clearly become aware of the adiabatic nature of the carrying energy induced in charged particles. Very difficult to integrate because its very existence is not yet taken account of in the traditional concept of momentum / Lagrangian / Hamiltonian, which are currently strictly grounded on the principle of energy conservation.

Andre

You know no such thing about the electron mass.

What I know is that electrons do have a finite mass, influentiable by gravity.....

saying that it is all electromagnetic is then absurd. Again I would urge you and other to

more practical, know the basics, stop getting tangled up in all this mathematical physics.

Yes, maybe you think, but no scientific consensus. Electromagnetics is unified with the weak force,...that is as far as you get.

Dear Juan,

I know nothing more than what is publicly available in peer-reviewed accounts of experiments and written accounts by the discoverers, that I contribute when I observe that readers may not be aware.

Up to anyone to dig up the information. I hold nobody's hand.

I can only provide consistent information about electromagnetism, with mathematical support and proper references to sources. If you think that the mathematical reasoning is flawed, prove it mathematically, and I will recongnize your proof if it is mathematically sound.

If you think that the sources are not correctly peer-reviewed, take your complaint to the reviewers. If you dispute the Blackett and Occhialini experimental findings, just take it up with the peer-reviewed journal that published their experimental findings. It they pull their arcticles, I will pull my referencing them as a valid source,

Stating that it is absurd is just your personal opinion about electromagnetism. It is not a scientific argument. Nothing to do with science.

Physics is not about scientific consensus. It is about correctly correlating confirmed experimental results.

Electromagnetics being unified with the weak force is obviously just as far as you get yourself.  Fine with me.

It doesn't mean that there is no going further, nor that others have not gone further.

@Juan Weisz

Dear Juan,

You write: >>Physics, not mathematical physics , is my main concern. I wish Physics would be so developed as you are trying to describe.

>>Again I would urge you [Andre Michaud] and other to be more practical, know the basics, stop getting tangled up in all this mathematical physics.

While I share your concern to keep physics as simple as it can be, I must say that there is no going around mathematical developments in pursuit of their applications to physical problems and their solutions. So mathematical physics is the method par excellence used in physics in order to tackle problems with the maximum amount of rigor and formalism possible. If that is unsuitable to your mind then you have made a choice for natural philosophy and not physics or theoretical physics.

The basics are in every undergraduate textbook. The basics are what they are, the basics. You cannot just stick to the basics. You cannot answer the questions posed by Texeira for this conversation without going beyond the basics. The questions about particles’ ultra-structure and how their phenomenology relates to their ultra-structure belong to fundamental physics, not basic physics.

Now, I do share your concern about an attempt to explain physics of particles from an electromagnetic perspective, completely bypassing quantum physics as if it never existed and did not arise for very good specific reasons. Under the assumptions of continuum physics implied in the concept of electromagnetic energy, you cannot explain the observed spectra of radiation developed both by free travel particles and bound particles, which are not continuous but discrete. Furthermore, the idea of particle mass being ontologically represented by an electro-magnetic field is a mischaracterization to say the least. This field would have to be quantized to account for the discrete energetic behavior of mass in travel, if you ever want to somehow equate mass to that field. In any case you cannot conflate them to one another: a “point-like” mass will never BE a “zero point” field. You can only compare them on the basis of energy equivalence. And as far as energy is concerned, one of the best formulae we have in quantum relativity for Energy harbored by a travel particle is: E = h c/lambda, which accords with every piece of experimental data. You can see the presence of h in there, which is crucial. Going further in physics would mean i.e. to explain why this ratio gives you E and to explain the origin of h, c, and lambda as an expression or a derivative of the wavefunction of the particle, all of which QED or QFT has been notably unable to do.

Lastly, Juan, I am not trying to describe a possible direction for physics of the future. Everything I say I have done or demonstrated with clear numeric results exposed in my publications. I do not speculate, I present computed numbers from an axiomatic framework to meet the known values of physical constants and parameters, which is the standard by which my physics lives.

If h is so crucial, how can you explain that e2/(2 eps_0 alpha lambda) also provides exactly the same amounts of energy as hc/lambda or h nu for any localized EM quantum without any need for h?

It is one thing to stick to beliefs at the cost of denying physical evidence. Everybody is free to live in his own personal reality. It is another to coherently explore promising avenues. Only the latter leads to progress.

If you think that this does away with quantum physics, you just dont understand what I have been explaining.

Dear friends,

An electric charge creates a field whose energy density everywhere is proportional to the corresponding field intensity in the square. It would be strange if a charge was the reason for the existence of energy and it did not have energy. However, if the charge had energy, it could be regarded as a mass that is not invariant to Lorentz transformations. On the other hand, according to the theory of relativity, e (the charge of the electron) is invariant to the Lorentz transformations. 

What is the correct?

The first is compatible to a unified field theory (charge-matter has the same nature with field); this permits the violation of the conservation principles.

The second is compatible to the main stream point of view; this does not permit the violation of the conservation principles.

There is experimental work which shows violation of the third law; please look at the following NASA publication: 

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

Personally I have done a simple experiment which at a first sight shows violation of the conservation principles while the explanation on this could be given through the interaction of the electromagnetic-imaginary with the gravitational-real space time by means of photons. Please see at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXYbHP5bdAs

This is compatible to a minimum contradictions point of view; please see my paper: Electromagnetic Space Time- Ether.

André, in alpha there is already h: alpha = e^2 / (4 pi epsilon_0 hbar c), so that your expression is the same as h c / lambda.

Dear Claude,

Indeed it is equivalent as far as calculating energy goes, which is also highlighted in the referred paper.

The difference is that e2/(2 eps_0 alpha lambda) does away with the time element, which allows calculating energy strictly as a function of the axial distances separating charged particles irrespective of the time elapsed, which is the manner in which the Coulomb force adiabatically induces energy in them even when their velocity cannot be expressed, as when they are captive in least action resonance states such as electrons captive in electronic orbitals in atoms, which is something that the form h c / lambda cannot represent, because it only incrementally adds energy as a function of time perpendicularly to the natural axial orientation of Coulomb force energy induction.

Moreover, this form, which allows separately defining the invariant E and B fields of the electron and those of its carrying energy, something which is out of reach of any form involving h, also allows mathematically demonstrating that all classical force equations amount to F=ma, even the Lorentz equation as shown in the first paper below. This is something that h c / lambda does not allow either.

Since the electron velocity related mass increment is provided simply due to the fact that half of its carrying energy transversally oscillates (the known transverse oscillation of electromagnetic energy), this also reveals that "mass" simply amounts to "electromagnetic omnidirectional inertia" in space, that is, "electromagnetic mass", which was measured transversally by Walter Kaufmann more than a century ago with relativistically moving electrons during experiments carried out with a bubble chamber.

Finally, the inner electromagnetic structure that this form reveals for the electron carrying energy allows upgrading Newton's non-relativistic kinetic energy equation K=mv2/2 to full relativistic status, and to derive the Lorentz factor from the general electromagnetic form thus derived in a manner different from the manner that Lorentz used, which is also something that h c / lambda does not allow, thus confirming the soundness of the whole sequence. See second paper below.

It allows much more in fact, but the rest is irrelevant in context.

Article Unifying All Classical Force Equations

Article From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell

Dear Andre,

If you would just stop making your exchanges so personal in this conversation, it would make you a better guest and give you the benefit of more people prospecting your views more extensively by reading your articles. Not because one disagrees with your views that he is either unable to understand them or living in his own world. This kind of  argument, all too frequent among alternative theorists, is not going to give you cover.

Now, if your theory does not understand or cannot capture the prevalence of h in the bottom realm of quantum physics (atomic, particle and sub-particle realms), then it has a humongous problem. It is not an interpretation or a re-interpretation of a past experiment here or another experiment there that is going to make any theory authoritative.  We have the gatekeepers of the science to make the judgement over time on the value of experimental findings for the rest of us.

If one, out of an insight he believes he has, wants to build a theory on one of those particular experiments, he is free to do so but it has to put some real cookies on the table to be palatable and command attention. I’ve been reading you very closely in search of this appetizer, have not found it. At this stage, if anyone wants to rewrite physics, he ought to do it in the light of the string of known experimental constants, because they encapsulate the entire history, empirical protocols and physical findings in our physics science since Newton. My view.

Knowing what I know (and all readers of my main Title as well), I can say that h is a primitive that belongs to a foundational parameter space of paramount importance in the organization of the entire hierarchy of experimental constants, notably those that govern the structures in place in the quantum realms. h is  second only to c as the uttermost universal physical constant. The units of electromagnetic energy come at a lower-level shell in the hierarchy.

Lastly, the many different empirical formulae that we have in physics are experimental entities that cannot tell you in a definite manner anything about the origin of any physical variable, what you might call the real physical ontologies behind them. There are i.e. at least 5 different formulae for computing the fine structure constant, which has led to many different competing interpretations among physicists of the nature of this constant. But I can understand the exercise of attempting to uncover ontology thru analysis of empirical formulae in the lack of an alternative, which finds its best expression perhaps in dimensional analysis.

I do not mean to convey the impression that I am downplaying your work, Andre. Not at all. I am only sizing it up, from what you expose of it,  in the broader context of established experimental physics and  the current stakes in physics today.

Dear Joseph,

I find rather amusing you tendency to pontificate and teach behavior lessons to others.

I find nothing amiss with people disagreeing with my views. I find something amiss with statements that are contrary to experimentally confirmed data that I know of.

You write:

"We have the gatekeepers of the science to make the judgement over time on the value of experimental findings for the rest of us"

Well, up to you to let others decide what you have the right to think is right and what is wrong. On my part, I prefer exercising my own judgment.

I don't know who the gatekeepers you are talking about are, but you should be aware that they were born naked with a blank mind just like you and me and that they can't know more than what they chanced to become privy to as they got their education, just like you and me.

If they did not individually dig for themselves the original accounts of confirming experiments, which all true scientist should do, they simply can't know about them, and can't have drawn coherent conclusions that remain coherent with other discoveries made since these experiments were carried out, so you are trusting the final judgment of people who may know even less than you.

Contrary to what you think, I am not particularly trying to attract attention. In the present thread, following a comment by Juan that from his perspective, the mass of electrons was disconnected from Maxwell's theory, I just contributed the information that I know of on this issue, so readers seeking information could become aware that this is not the case, quite the contrary, even giving a link to a paper that describes how this invariant rest mass can be directly connected with related invariant E and B fields to the Lorentz equation, by the same token allowing for the first time, separate identification and measurement of its electromagnetic carrying energy.

I find it important that verifiable information be given to people seeking information on fundamental physics, so I give the verifiable information I have. Contrary to what you think again, I have no particular theory. I just analyzed and correlated past discoveries that converge, and described the convergences.

I need no permission from any "gatekeepers" to air the coherent information that I have on fundamental physics issues. This site is named "ResearchGate", which seems to me implies that research can be shared among participants.

You write "I’ve been reading you very closely in search of this appetizer, have not found it. "

You won't find any either. Nothing I contributed was meant to appetize you. You mentioned yourself that you trust only your gatekeepers, a fact that I have been aware of from the start, since this is an attitude very common in academia, so it was obvious to me after our first exchanges that no amount of appetizing will entice you to study whatever new angle could be proposed outside what these gatekeepers previously decreed that you should consider valid, whether from me or any other would be "alternate theorists" as you say.

I have the impression that you think that your approval is required for readers to consider what is communicated in such conversations. I think it is not required. All people contributing to these threads are educated and can pass judgment on their own.

I think that you are standing too close to the one tree I planted in front of you so it blocks your view of the clump of related trees standing behind.

My work is part of the peer-reviewed permanent record of academia, upon direct invitation for the papers published over the past 3 years, so it is not going away, and is not under the control of any gatekeeper. You can size it up or down whichever way you wish (without having studied it in any way of course). This will make no difference.

At some point, the upcoming generation will become familiar and will integrate it as it pleases. Your gatekeepers are irrelevant.

As for h, I never said that it was unimportant, just that it is not crucial for calculating energy levels. It is only one of many other electromagnetic constants that mutually define each other:

h=(e2/(2 eps_0 alpha c))=(e2 mu_0 c/2 alpha)

Just like the constants in Euler's equation.

To disagree is acceptable as long as you do it in  a nobel way .

Reel science is according to Albert Einstein :

Behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle intangible and inexplicable. this area is the working field for the science spirit.

Have a nice day

Kurt Wraae

@ André Michaud

Dear Andre,

Again another post on the personal slant. Why was I expecting instead that you would come back with an insistence and counter-argument on analysis based on the experimental formulae?

You started by telling I.C. Texeira “If your friend at CERN is a physicist, you would learn a lot about up and down quarks, etc.”, implying that he does not know and that he needs a CERN physicist to teach him.

Then you tell me that my report of facts that are part of judicial records are “my opinions and that opinions do not matter”.

Then you say, to trump any criticism to your expressed views:” I think that there is reason to suspect that any speculation made later to the contrary was made by people not privy to these experimental results, or people who dispute them not cleanly grounded on electromagnetism.

Then you tell John Weisz ” Stating that it is absurd is just your personal opinion about electromagnetism. It is not a scientific argument. Nothing to do with science… … Electromagnetics being unified with the weak force is obviously just as far as you get yourself.”  

And then of course you have proclaimed this: “So invariant  E and B fields of the invariant rest mass of the electron are already defined, which means that they can be used right now to revisit all of fundamental physics from the electromagnetic perspective. No need to wait for any further development to proceed.”

Talk about pontificating!!!

I will not go on to repeat the improprieties that you sent my way in your last post. They will rest with you and only you. And I think the trail that you have left here can loudly speak for itself.

Just for the record, the gatekeepers of this science are scholars in the physics departments at U’s all over the world. They are the ones who educate in the traditions of the science, determine the experimental protocols, write the textbooks and define the direction of progress, in annual institutional meetings or conferences. Not that I am not critical of the experience, but if anybody feels that he is above them, then he needs the title of King! I suspect though that nobody will be at the coronation, nor want the King’s legacy!

Respectfully.

Dear Joseph,

I think you do not realize how condescending your comments generally come out to people that you disagree with, and how you seem to interpret contributions from this viewpoint of apparent assumed superiority.

In dealing with your comments to me, I simply react to this aspect of your behavior, to the point of simply stopping interacting with you on page 3 of this thread.

I always address people courteously.

I did not refer I.C. Texeira to his friend  at CERN so his friend could "teach" him, but so he could get "first hand information" from an experimentalist, if his friend was one.

I stand by my statement that opinions do not matter on scientific issues, only confirmed experimental facts matter.

Given what info I have on electromagnetism, I stand by my statement that " there is reason to suspect that any speculation made later [than the Blackett and Occhilalini in the 1930's on massive pair conversion from electromagnetic photons and back] to the contrary [that mass was not related to electromagnetism] was made by people not privy to these experimental results, or people who dispute them not cleanly grounded on electromagnetism".

In light of what I know about electromagnetism, I stand by my statement that flat out stating that "it is absurd to consider that mass could be related to electromagnetism" is just a personal opinion, and not a scientific argument.

I stand by my statement that " invariant  E and B fields of the invariant rest mass of the electron are already defined" and provided the paper in which they are derived.

I also stand by my opinion that "they can be used right now to revisit all of fundamental physics from the electromagnetic perspective. No need to wait for any further development to proceed".

I would add: the sooner the better.

That was not pontificating. That was contributing, with proper reference, available for anybody to verify.

You wrote "Just for the record, the gatekeepers of this science are scholars in the physics departments at U’s all over the world", which seems to enclose every individual in the physics community.

To my knowledge, every individual in the community is able to exercise his own judgment and does so as a function of the information he or she has individually become privy to just like you and me. From what I observed there is no common agreement on all physics issue in the community.

You would have to be more specific as to precisely which gatekeeper formulated the conclusion that you defend, for example, that Maxwell's equations do not reveal that free moving electromagnetic energy involves that the electric and magnetic fields induce each other.

This is a gatekeeper that I think many other gatekeepers would disagree with, and that I also disagree with.

@André Michaud

If my intervention has kept you from continuing to abuse people’s good nature here with your laxed and at times abusive language, and preventing them from freely participating in this conversation because nobody enjoys being victimized, I will be satisfied. Everyone can read thru your wise play and tactics, it’s all too common here at RG in these physics discussions. Nobody is supposed to know everything and the fact that they might ignore something does not make anybody else right or give license to disrespect. Even less if their sin is to merely disagree with you.

You can stand by all you want, and if you are genuinely convinced of your arguments, you absolutely should as any scholar would, but you should also only use the force of the argument to uphold your viewpoints, and not put others’ self-esteem on test to kick them in. In fact, that is even counter-productive. I don’t know what you understand a scholar to be, but if you are one, as I presumed you were, it only takes for you to keep a measured and respectful language in exchanges with other people here to show for that.

With that I will go back to the subject of the conversation, hoping that this restores the peace.

Thank you.

Dear Joseph,

I don't appreciate this type of chip on the shoulder conversation unrelated to physics.

For the second and last time, this will be the end of any conversation I will have with you.

Dear Joseph,

I've noticed that you posted some information about Nikola Tesla versus Maxwell and more generally wireless effect on the page 2, 3 and 4 of this thread. In my opinion as a radio engineer with decades of experience (military, civilian projects) but also working lately with scientists (electromagnetism, quantum physics) on special nonlinear resonant electromagnetic reactor, you might need to read some attached links to avoid conspiration theories approach.

The big problem I see with electromagnetism, vacuum, quantum effect: the actual physics has not been unified so this leaves many pseudo-science theories pop-up. Same with Tesla's claims bringing hoax and scam device violating what is known with physics law. So everybody has a big problem where everybody does not know the answer. The other problem I've witnessed personally, many scientists are just in theories, mathematics with no experience on building devices, coils, capacitors, antennas... there must be a middle way of laboratory or industrial experiment along with theoretical physics to improve the knowledge.

As for Tesla and Marconi, myself when age 14 built the Ruhmkorff coil plasma spark gap and Edouard Branly Coherer because was intrigued by radio-waves.... it made me study to become a radio-engineer then later being involved under special contracts to work with quantum physics worldwide experts concerning possible anomalous power electronics effects assessment.

Tesla technology and inventions are a friend and a foe with EM waves, he was not a scientist and as a en engineer, he was discovering many practical effects of radio transmission so going through a learning curve as others in those time with many mistakes.

I recommend you take time to read the attached links to re-consider the topic of Tesla versus wireless electromagnetic energy transfer wether through air, vacuum and earth.

Dear All,

Now to go back on the thread topic, I might comment that one field of my work concerns plasma and resonant electronic to generate plasma lamps. The plasma is an amazing matter-field topic because it self-constains many topics wether EM waves, sound waves, photons, electrical current and very non-linear dynamical self-organized effects. Maxwell did predict EM waves in vacuum followed by earlier proofs of EM waves done via air spark plasma as found in the Ruhmkorff coil invented prior Tesla coil.

As for the electron being charged, is it matter, is EM energy, is it photon, is it whatever... no idea except many flame wars. In my opinion but could be wrong, the electron once coming close shell to an atom generates a photon but what is described by quantum effect not necessarily explains what is the physical root cause. Same question with electrical charge of the electron, does it keep same whatever shell orbit, same with its mass... There must be special structure inside the electron to be able generate so many effects, charge, mass, photon and what effect does fuel the quantum or equivalent E=mc^2 effect.

Another topic concerns the Information Theory (Claude Shannon) which I've used on many projects and wonder if this might not explain some quantum effects so Information stored inside particle or structure would be energy equivalent transformed ala E=mC^2 to other physical effects.

Just my 2 cents.

http://www.qsl.net/vk5br/Before_Valve_Amp.pdf

http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html

http://www.capturedlightning.com/frames/Non-Herzian_Waves.html

http://amasci.com/tesla/tradio.html

Dear Claude,

I forgot to add a link to Walter Kaufmann's account of his experiments regarding measurement of transverse mass of electrons moving at relativistic velocities. Here is a link to one of his papers. He worked with theorist Max Abraham, who also wrote papers about this experiment, and Poincare also discussed in his work the topic of electromagnetic mass that was raised with Kaufmann's experiments.

http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN252457811_1903&DMDID=DMDLOG_0025

Dear Andre,

You are in your absolute own right to not directly address anyone you please in this public conversation. As much as I am in my own to feel very annoyed by anyone taking shots at other guests’ self-esteem and good nature in any manner in their interventions. And I am not going to cater to reverse censorship or self-censor myself to not intervene on your posts if I disagree with your views and even when I do agree with them, should I find it pertinent to do so. This is an OPEN, PUBLIC and FREE discussion, for the benefit of enrichment for all.

@Albert Roseiro

Dear Albert,

It is my opinion that any minute spent on the subject of Tesla’s contributions by electrical engineers and physicists of the day is one well invested, if anything to uncover what is under the brush of deletion and silence imposed by establishment of an era and to give credit back to who deserves it. It is my belief that electrical engineers of this day owe the existence of their craft an awful lot more to Tesla than theoretical Physics of the late 1800’s on. It is clear that there is a lot of reconstructive history to be done in this case, but I do not expect that to be undertaken in Academia because they have been part and parcel to the problem. Anyone who cares to look equanimously at the Tesla dossier so to speak, will easily find salient facts with no clear explanation, namely:

Why his name does not appear in any textbook

What is behind the arson of his lab

Why the almost systematic denial to patents filed by Marconi in USA on accounts of inauthenticity

Why the US government (CIA) rushed to seize all of his belonging at his passing

Why the US Supreme courts posthumously gave him priority on radio transmission

I don’t want to appear dogmatic on this and I took the time to read all the links that you posted. This is really a case where chances are there was indeed a conspiracy of many different moving parts over time, the exact nature or motives of which is only left at this stage to conjecture, as some of the authors have done.

I fully understand that Tesla was a trained engineer, not a physicist, although he ventured in theory with his proposition of an electromagnetic perspective to gravitation. He too believed in the ether, but again Einstein did as well at the beginning. And Tesla was not at all fond of Einstein’s ideas about tensored vacuum or vacuum with intrinsic geometry. So the man was not all perfect, but he was, no doubt in my mind, the luminary in electrical engineering that shaped our world.

Least we can say is that this is an open dossier…

Here is something interesting. I looked for a reference to Tesla in a 1000-page undergraduate physics book, I cite:

The SI unit for B (magnetic field) that follows from  Eqs. 29-2 and 29-3 is the newton per coulomb-meter per second. For convenience, this is called the telsa (T):

1 tesla = 1T = 1 newton/[(coulomb)(meter/second)]

Recalling that a coulomb per second is an ampere, we have:

1T = 1 N/(A x m)

An earlier (non-SI) unit for B, still in common use, is the gauss (G), and :

1 tesla = 10^4 gauss

Isn’t this interesting? The tesla unit appears out of nowhere, context-less, and it’s just for convenience! And that’s the only place where the word or name tesla appears in the more than 1000 pages.

So, people, a few questions, just as a way to approach Texeira's original questions.

This is from the relation:     c = 1/ sq rt (epsilon0 x mu0)

Are these questions even legitimate?

andre

The usual idea about mass, is that it leads to weight, if multiplied by acceleration of gravity.

If the particle is influenced by other forces, and accelerated, you may also deduce a mass, as being an inertial mass, which is then identified as identical with gravitational mass.(The princilpe of equivalence)

Thus for example it may happen that you see the curvature when an electron beam enters the region of a magnetic field. The force is the Lorenz and electromagnetic, but

the mass is still inertial or gravitational.

That is why I am alarmed to hear that some one thinks it has electromagnetic origin.

There is no reason in basic physics to uphold such a view.

Also, the fact that the electron Partakes in quantum properties reinforces the

view that we do not really understand it well, maybe what Joseph is trying to say.

Dear Juan,

I understand your explanation and current reservation.

Alternately, do you accept the photoelectric proof that confirms that electromagnetic photons have longitudinal inertia?

if so, given that electromagnetic photons have inertia, doesn't this confirm for you that there is a relation between electromagnetism and inertia?

On the other hand, given that you allready recognize that there is a relation between mass and inertia, doesn't this imply that there could be a link between mass and electromagnetic energy via the common porperty of inertia?

There is also the issue of the Blackett and Occhialini experimental findings.

Creation of e+e- pairs from electromagnetic energy is a very well known process, as well as reconversion to electromagnetic energy via positronium decay.

How do you explain that massless electromagnetic energy can convert into massive electron-positron pairs and back if there is no relation between electromagnetic energy and mass?

What is mass at the end of the day? It simply is omnidirectional inertia of localized particles, which means that they resist their state of motion to be changed whatever direction the interaction could be coming from.

The concept of "mass" means nothing more.

This changes nothing to the fact that mass leads to weight if multiplied by acceleration of gravity.

I don't understand why you would think that this is alarming. If it is real, nothing is changed. Physical reality continues as before. We just need to better understand it.

There is no conflict between the electron mass being electromagnetic and the wave function, since the wave function only represents a resonance volume within which electrons are in resonance states.

The appearance of epsilon 0  or  mu 0, in electromagnetics just responds

to the needs of the mks system of units., do not appear when you use cgs.(or gaussian units)

This is not fundamental.

The basic laws are what is important. If you need to describe what force is exerted

on a charge due to other charges you use the

Coulomb force. There is a constant involved, and that is where epsilon 0 comes in if you use MKS. 

This constant and therefore epsilon 0, have nothing to do with charge, just depends on what units the charge and resulting force, and distance are  expressed in.

The force is the constant, times the product if the two charges,divided by the square of the distance, in the direction of the line joining the two charges.

.mu 0 comes in similarly from forces due to the magnetic field.

when charge is expressed in electrostatic units (esu in cgs) the constant must be different. In this case the force is in dynes and distance in cm.

There is a fundamental quantum of flux expressed as h/e if you use MKS, not related to mu0. Read bohm aharonov or  vortices.in type II superconductors.

MKS uses coulombs for charge.

Unit in enm, may take a while to understand well. The very formulas may change

depending on the system of units.

Again "know the basics"

Regards, JW

Andre

Since photons have no charge, they are not influenced by electric or magnetic fields.

Perhaps only very weak nonlinear effects from QED, read Jackson introduction.

They have energy and momentum (ie energy evidenced in the photoelectric effect, or

momentum evidenced in compton scattering)

e+, e- production is a possibility due to energy and momentum conservation, due to photon energy and momentum.

Inertia is just the property of moving in a straight line when no forces.

I suppose that in this sense photons have inertia, but nothing related to photoelectric effect.

Inertial

mass is just the mass evidenced under Newton F=ma, F non gravity.

when you say inertia what do you mean exactly.?

There is no inertial mass for the photon evidenced under electric or magnetic field, because there is no force.

There is gravitational red shift, essentially energy conservation.

Or light deflection predicted by GR

Maybe that would

interest you.

Dear Juan,

I think I see where there is a misunderstanding since you mention Jackson.

I think you are considering QED virtual photons related to QFT quantum vacuum fluctuations, and not real electromagnetic photons.

I am definitely not talking about QED virtual photons but of the quantized form of the electromagnetic wave concept of Maxwell, which was verified to be quantized by Wilhelm Wien's experiments, which gave rise to Planck coming up with h, and that were proven to convert to massive electron positron pairs when having energy 1.022 MeV or more by Blackett and Occhialini, and back to electromagnetic photon state as the final stage of positronium decay.

You state that they have no charge, but doing so you discard the possibility that they may have neutral charges that may also be amenable to the Coulomb force, even if the concept may be strange to you.

I think that before going any further, if you are interested, we would need to find common ground about the difference between QED virtual photons and real electromagnetic photons.

As for electromagnetic longitudinal inertia, and the photoelectric effect, Einstein won his single Nobel for the discovery.

We definitely need to find common definition of terms.

Light deflection is easily explained from half an electromagnetic photon's energy quantum displaying transverse inertia. No need for GR.

@Juan Weisz

Dear Juan,

What I am trying to do is start from the basics in order to show that they lead to major lacks in order to provide a understanding of the fundamental structures. But you insist in a  phenomenology view that does not go to the fundamentals, which as it appears you are yourself satisfied with.

You should at least credit everybody here that they understand the basics, which is undergraduate level knowledge. Think of it this way: QFT was born on the heels of all this classical physics stuff that you mention, there is a reason why theoreticians wanted to provide another explanation of particle dynamics which ultimately lead to the Standard Model. By the way it is those very concepts that classical physicists were so devout to that they could not decipher what quantum physics has revealed to us about both the travel and the bound electron.

Every unit system is complete in itself as far as the physical variables. One thing I can tell you is that the MKS system is superior over the CGS, because in pure axiomatic you can recover the exact numbers put forth by the MKS to an appreciable degree of precision. Why, is a totally different discussion. In any case every unit system is integral to itself and allows sensible and valid dimensional analysis within its own boundaries, while I absolutely agree with you that the units themselves are not fundamental. The laws of physics do not exist without the constants, that is why you can transfer in one way or another dimensional analysis realized in one system to another. And matter-of-factly, the constants represent the most fundamental level of physical law. At the moment, I am not interested in the CGS system because in my book it is not natural or “natural enough”.

As to h/e, it may be a construct used by Bohm in his theories and others but it does not represent a natural unit of magnetic flux (and I think you know it).

Dear Juan,

I have been thinking about our conversation.

I just don't understand why you find alarming the experimentally confirmed fact that two .511 MeV/c2 massive particle can convert into 1.022 MeV electromagnetic energy and back, with all that this implies.

The same for the experimentally proven longitudinal inertia of localized photons.

The same if you dispute the validity of the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm these established facts.

Since all I explain is grounded on these verified facts, nothing that I describe stands any chance of making sense to you.

I think we are both wasting our time, discussing from irreconcilable premises.

andre

I believe there are two photons created in the charge recombination, to

conserve momentum. I do not dispute this result, related to the Einstein formula.

I could only say that in the moment that the electron and antielectron do not exist, then the conversion to photons is possible. I think this is more of a quantum process.

Im revising what Jackson sais.

Do you mean momentum instead of inertia?

For me the important point in photoelectric effect is the photon as a packet of energy.

We are both wrong in using classical terminology in the words electromagnetic

and gravitational

Dear Juan,

With respect to pair creation and reconversion to photon state, we end up with the same disconnect since from your perspective, neither the electron mass nor photons are made of electromagnetic energy.

Nothing I can explain based on this electromagnetic nature of the substance that they are made of will make any sense to you.

With inertia, I partly meant momentum, but here again, from previous conversations, I know that you do not believe in the physical existence of kinetic energy, since you agree with the idea that unidirectional momentum kinetic energy converts to potential energy when its velocity is impeded.

Nothing of what I explain will have any meaning to you since for you, kinetic energy does not have a physical existence and presence.

You say that for you, the important point in photoelectric effect is the photon as a packet of energy!

What do you mean exactly? What sort of energy? Kinetic energy? Electromagnetic energy?

Maybe you think we are wrong using classical terminology, but I think that there is no way to coherently express concepts except by using clearly defined terms and supporting mathematical formulations.

My analyses can make sense only for people who minimally agree that the mass of elementary particles is made of electromagnetic energy, just like electromagnetic photons, and that momentum related kinetic energy does not disappear as if by magic when the motion of a charged particle such as the electron is hindered when stabilized in resonance state in some electronic orbital.

andre

where do you get the idea I dont believe in kinetic energy?

the photon has an energy E=hf, which must be delivered in lumps in the photoelectric effect. f is frequency....in the same sense an enm wave has frequency.

The photon is closer to enm, but it is a quantum concept. You have to quantize maxwell

to get it.

kinetic energy is a scalar quantity with no direction.

momentum is a vector=mv

when speed is lessened, so is kinetic energy...It is just that the sum of kinetic and potential energy is constant in conservative problems.(classical thinking here)

Photon energy is derived from

EE=ppcc+mmcccc

where m is rest mass. If m=0 you are left with E=pc,  this would be kinetic energy of the photon, also its total energy, which is equal to hf.

This whole formula is equivalent to einsteins E=Mcc

where M is dynamic mass

The part I do not agree with you is mass being electromagnetic.

The kinetic energy does go somewhere, it kicks out electrons from the material.

you cannot think classically with the photon or the photoelectrical effect.

Dear Juan,

The electromagnetic photon is not a quantum "concept". It is a quantum of electromagnetic energy.

Maxwell's continuous waves have been proven not to exist by Wien's experiment, confirmed by Einstein's  photoelectric proof as well as by Compton and Raman scattering.

It is not a "concept" that induces kinetic energy during the photoelectric experiment, but a real electromagnetic photon. The same during Compton and Raman scattering.

Jackson paints the submicroscopic level with a mathematical vector layer sufficiently enticing that if you do not take care, you end up not seeing what the vector varnish hides. The same for Griffith. This is the mathematical flavor of the day. But there is more to physics than vectors.

When an electron is captured in resonance state at rest orbital ground state distance in a hydrogen atom, the Coulomb force forbids that it be induced with any other amount of mean carrying kinetic energy than 27.2 eV. Do the calculation yourself, since I noticed that you do believe in the existence of the Coulomb force.

How do you explain this energy if the electron is captive in axial resonance state and that its resultant velocity can only average out to zero?

You say "kinetic energy is a scalar quantity with no direction", and that it disapears when velocity falls to zero. How can it have no direction when it translationally propels a mass when you recognize its presence?

No. kinetic energy is a physically existing substance that does not magically disapear by converting to non-existant potential energy when its longitudinal velocity is hindered, and always moves in the direction that the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows, if it can move at all, otherwise it exerts pressure in this direction.

Other than that, you write "The part I do not agree with you is mass being electromagnetic", but no, it is not the only part about which you disagree with me, You also asserted that the photon is only a quantum concept but is not really electromagnetic.

You said it all. That's precisely what I told you irretrievably makes anything I can explain incomprehensible for you, because your beliefs are diametrically opposed to what I have concluded experimental data confirms.

There is no way that you can make heads of tails of anything I explain. We can go on monologuing at each other like this for years without any resolution.

You simply confirmed in your last post every conclusion I listed this morning regarding our conversation. My analysis is complete.

We are both wasting our time.

All particles are ontologically a reunion of two things: a scalar component that derives into mass (rest mass or inertial mass) and a spatial component that conforms its wavefunction. There is an ultra-structural covariance between these two components that make the particle appear in one case like a fermion, like the electron that we are discussing, and in other case like a boson, like the photon that we are discussing.

There does not exist ontologically any electromagnetic mass. It is a conceptual model that you can use in the ignorance of a mathematical expression for the structure of the particle that clearly spells out its scalar-mass and its wavefunction components, a feat that not even QED has been able to realize. Yes, we know what the distribution of Maxwell’s “electromagnetic energy” looks like under a single point of thermodynamic temperature, since Planck. At that point there is no more electromagnetic energy, but a quantum of action as the irreducible of the field, which we later called the photon with the duality insights apportioned by De Broglie. So there is potential electric energy between the plates of a capacitor, or magnetic energy stored in the flux of a magnetic field. But there is no electromagnetic quantum per se. This concept has defeated all field theories, the early classical electromagnetic field theory by Raleigh-Jeans, as much as what has now become the official, but in my mind anemic and delinquent, Quantum Electrodynamics. The idea that there is a cloud of electromagnetic energy surrounding the electron (even when thought made up of photons) is the very unfortunate springboard construction that has led to this unbelievable barrage of problems, starting with self-interaction, thru the course of the development of QED.

If you go one level up to consider the energy level transitions experienced within electronic shells of the atomic complex, they are all made up of quanta of light or photons. Not exactly this interlaced magnetic field/electric field radiation that is strictly a human artifact, to my best knowledge. If energy in the excited state should exist as a substance but not as a tensor of sorts resulting from covariant elements, then we would have quite a bit of explaining to do in regards to topology, at the very least.

So what is at stake here? What does physics of the electromagnetic mass give us? Is it a cleaner derivation of the electron’s spin magnetic moment, an unprecedented derivation of the spin magnetic moment of the Muon, a long-time coming one? A cleaner and less arbitrary QCD that can give us unequivocal quark mass quantities? A field theory of quantum gravity that can compute the value of the Newton gravitational constant? Juan, you who “knows more than the basics”, can you tell me what it is or what you see, please?

To those interested in a fundamental description of particle duality in ontology, with interesting numeric results, I suggest a read of my paper Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators.

Article Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators on Unified Quantum-Re...

Dear Andre Michaud

Do You explain below question to me.

A photon is its own antiparticle -

What does this means ?

Is it why a Photon always split up in 2 opposite loaded particle. ?

Or what  ?

Kurt Wraae

Dear Kurt,

The concept of particle-antiparticle is related the the sign of electric charges.

For example, since the charge of the electron has a minus sign (e-), then its antiparticle should be identical but with a plus sign (e+). Dirac made the hypothesis that fundamental symetry mandated that the existence of matter should involve the existence of antimatter, and made the hypothesis that since the electron had a minus sign, there must exist a corresponding antiparticle with plus sign.

Shortly afterwards, the positron was discovered that confirmed his intuition.

For the photon, since its charge can only be neutral, then this notion does not apply, and is often mentioned as meaning that the photon is its own antiparticle.

Most in the community consider that the photon has no charge, but this disregards the possibility that it could have a neutral charge, in fact two neutral charges for symetry to be preserved, which relates to de Broglie's hypothesis that the photon had to be made of two complementary half-photons so its spin of 1 could be explained, and also why light can be polarized.

Indeed, a newly defined description of the internal self-sustaining mutual induction of the permanently localized photon's electric and magnetic aspects, that was deemed conform to Maxwell's equation by the peer-reviewers, seems to confirm the possibility of such neutral charges for "electromagnetic photons", which must not be confused with QED "virtual photons", which are only mathematical artefacts that help calculate instantenenous intensity of interaction at any given distance between charges with the Lagrangian. Always a source of confusion due to the presence of the word "photon" to name both.

The presence of neutral charges in the electromagnetic photon makes sense however only if the space geometry is increased in a manner that allows correlating the triple orthogonality of electromagnetic energy with the triple orthogonality of space. This also allows explaining why light can be polarized since both electric half-photons oscillate in opposite directions on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion of the photon in normal space. See paper below.

But their presence does not change the idea that the notion of matter-antimatter does not apply since their charges are unsigned, so the idea that the photon could be its own anti-particle still makes some sort of sense.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Thank You for a good answer.

Kurt Wraae

Dear Kurt,

I forgot to mention that in this expanded space geometry, the opposite signs of the charges of the electron and positron resolve as momentum in the negative direction along the Y-x axis of half the mass energy for the negative sign of the electron, while the positive sign of the positron resolves to momentum of half the mass energy in the positive direction along the Y-x axis, which is parallel to the normal direction of motion along the x axis of normal space in plane wave treatment.

It is the fact that both charges oscillate on the Y-y/Y-z plane in opposite direction perpendicularly to the Y-x axis for the photon, which causes their momentum to be zero along the perpendicular Y-x axis, which resolves to the charges of electromagnetic photons having no sign, that is, being neutral.

If interested, see below how e-e+ pairs can be created in the 3-spaces geometry, where this is explained.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

Juan

May be you could agree with Andre (I quote you: The part I do not agree with you is mass being electromagnetic) if you say "matter" instead of "mass".

In a way, maybe you can think (broadly speaking) of "mass" (associated with gravitational field) as the "quantity" of matter.

And, matter "being electromagnetic" since it “contains” electric charges (2 types), (associated with electromagnetic field).

As I understand, matter is what it is because constituting particles, (which main characteristics we are looking for), “live” and move into gravitational and EM fields, and these fields are what they are because matter is as it is.

So if there is gravitational and EM fields, matter must be “mass” and "electromagnetic" (moving electric charge).

I. C.

Your remarks are reasonable, most people think that way.

But andre has other very strange ideas, ie. kinetic energy having a direction, paragraph

7 in his   last answer to me.

Potential energy does not exist

Objects conservation laws, etc etc

Yes, neither can I distinguish mass from matter. Mass is just a measure of the amount of matter

.If you say matter, then you can discuss other detailed properties. Electromagnetism exists due to charge. 

I have often heard debates about the mass of the electron (gravitational or electromagnetic). What I definitively object to is calling it all electromagnetic.

The concept of charge has for me though no relationship to mass. There could eventually be some well recocnized relationship  However, . Some particles are neutral, mass does not need charge, Charge is quantized, mass is not.

Charge does need mass, but in a way no one undestands yet.

Dear Juan,

If you admit that photons transmit kinetic energy during the photoelectric experiment, doesn't this involve that photons have translational momentum, that is unidirectional momentum? Momentum is sustained by kinetic energy. Once the kinetic energy has been transfered, doesn't the target move unidirectionally also?

All these ideas that you find strange, make sense only from the premise that kinetic energy/electromagnetic energy really physically exists, that is, that it is a physically existing "substance", which will remain incomprehensible from any other premise.

Once correlated with the electromagnetic behavior of this kinetic energy, that can be induced only by the Coulomb force, behavior revealed by Maxwell's equation, everything can be coherently and mechanically explained from the premise that kinetic energy physically exists, My analysis is now complete.

You say that some particles are neutral.

No "elementary" particles are neutral. Only systems made of more than one elementary particle can end up apparently neutral, like the neutron for example.

All known massive elementary particles have either a + or - charge.

The uncircumventable relation between charge and mass, is that they both are characteristics of the same particle.