Alex Gaina,

==> "Sorry, do not take my time with such stupid questions"

You were not forced to give your time. Answers here are on a volunteer basis. 

These are no stupid questions, people who have a different profession than physics are free to ask questions. These people have their skills, in their domains, in which, maybe you are not a specialist. If you would go to doctor for health problems I am sure that you would ask all sort of questions, and that he won't tell you that they are stupid.

In this site, people try to enlarge their scientific horizon. EACH ONE of us has something to learn. We are all friends here, in good relationship. 

If you feel that a question is not interesting for you, the simple solution is to stay away, not participate.

Weight is determined by gravitational mass of a macroscopic body. Where as spontaneous symmetry breaking is related with inertial mass of an elementary particle which is a microscopic entity. There exists a difference between microscopic and macroscopic systems because classical force laws (such as Newton's second law) are not effective in this domain. One has to apply Schrodinger equation in non relativistic case or Dirac Equation/Klein Gordon equation in the relativistic case to have an idea about trajectories (via the expectation value of position operator) of elementary particles which are kept under the influence a given external potential (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, weak...).

One can however discuss the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass of a macroscopic body. These two are perfectly well defined quantities at a classical level. Eötvös experiment did prove the equality between these two quantities. Eötvös experiment displayed equivalence principle of masses and it also did play an important role in the formulation of the general theory of relativity.

Hi, Franz!

What you mean by

==> "If the forces in the nucleons are higher" ?

Please see, forces are not "in" something, but "between" two bodies. Did you mean "fores between nucleons"? Please see my explanation. 

There are different models for the internal dynamics of a nucleus - for your question the most appropriate is the shell model. By this model one can describe the dynamics of the nucleons as we describe the dynamics of the electrons in the atom. The difference, of course, is that the nucleons move inside the nuclear field, instead of a central electric field. (There is also electrostatic repulsion between protons, but the nuclear forces are by far stronger). The nuclear field is provided by the so called "residual strong interaction". The strong interaction is a property of the quarks.

In this model, the internal energy of the nucleus is given by the sum of the potential evergy of the field + kinetic energy of the nucleons. This internal energy is part of mc2, where m is the nucleus' mass.

Now, would you explain your question more clearly? Which "forces in nucleons" and how to make them "higher"?

Best wishes,

Sofia

Biswajoy,

The movement of a quantum particle in a constant field is given by the Airy equation. One can find the treatment in the "Quantum Mechanics" of Landau and Lifschitz.

Another thing, if the wave-packet of the particle is small, and the mass is enough big s.t. the dispersion of the wave-packet is small during the movement, and some additional conditions - see Ehrenfest theorems, the movement of the particle can be well approximated with the classical one. Again, one should read the Ehrenfest theorems for precise explanation.

But what has the present issue to do with "spontaneous symmetry breaking" ? Which symmetry? Please be so kind and explain.

With thanks,

Sofia

Oh yes! Higgs mechanism breaks a local gauge symmetry spontaneously. Here SU(2)L x U(1)Y symmetry is broken to U(1)Y by Higgs mechanism. Fermions and Gauge bosons acquire mass after the symmetry is broken. Before symmetry breaking they are mass less. Masses appear as coefficients of quadratic terms in Lagrangian density after symmetry is broken.

In literature the word "mass" has been used in many different contexts, which are closely related with each other.

A very good reference by Prof. Franck Wilczek, will answer most of your questions; because it clearly gives many different definitions of  "mass" used by various authors in widely different contexts over many centuries.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114

Dear Michael, I am post graduate in Physics, and have a little exposure to the General theory of relativity (GTR) during my post graduation, but my curiosity always lies into the fundamental principles of physics, So I may not be in a position to comment on the correctness of your proposed concept in the article "MICROSCOPIC GRAVITY AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATTER, ENERGY AND SPACE-TIME". But it is really very interesting and completely different prospective toward the very fundamental concept of matter, energy, space-time, and gravity in particular and Physics in general. In the similar line I have been also working toward the concept of matter, energy, space-time, and gravity in spare time for few years. 

Can you please elaborate the statement "Because one can place radiation terms in the Einstein energy-momentum tensor one gets the impression that electromagnetism is also a gravitational source" in detail.

Dear Biswajoy,

It is very interesting what you say. Now, I appologize, won't you be more generous with details? You recommend Prof. Franck Wilczek, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me, to ask him things that you said.

What is the cross-section of the interaction of a massless fermion or boson with a Higgs' boson? Can't it be that the interaction sometimes doesn't happen and one finds massless fermions and bosons? 

And how can Higgs' boson give them mass? To say it in a popular language, does the fermion or boson, "eat" a Higgs' boson? Can a particle "eat" two Higgs bosons?

With thanks and best wishes,

Sofia

Michael,

thanks for hint - difference matter and mass.

I will read your paper and give you a comment. But my question is going deeper. I mean realy: how can we imagine matter a n d  mass in quantum level?  How to define weight or thermal energy?

As Biswajoy writes there is a difference between a macroscopic (classical mechanics) way and the atomar and quant way. So weight is a classical macroscopic term, It's better to think it macroscopic.

Thermal energy is also better to understand in macroscopic way.

Mass (as macroscopic inertia and gravitation) is not clear in quantum level. Mass is said to be 99% originated by forces between nucleons and especially about 1% by HIGGS-particle. 

What is happening when an external matter-particle moves direct into greater matter-object?  . What is happening with their masses and nucleoid forces?

What energy is transformed into thermal energy and how is the new matter-object organised - if we suppose no matter will be lost?

Hi, Franz!

I would like to bring SOME ORDER in a few issues:

1) It's not better to think in macroscopic terms, it's better to define your experiment. If the object you have to do with, is a slowly moving particle, then it is bound to have a big wavelength, much bigger than the linear dimensions of the object itself. The movement of such an object in a constant field is described by the Schrödinger equation, which in this case is of the type of Airy equations - the solutions can be seen in Wikipedia.

But, if we have a fast moving object, with wave-packet smaller than the linear dimensions of the object itself, then Ehrenfest theorems lead us to that we can use the classical mechanics.

2) Thermal energy is not a concept valid for a single particle, but for a statistical ensemble of particles. A single object can have kinetic energy of its center-of-mass, and internal energy (in the center-of-mass frame) given by the dynamics of the constituents/parts of the object.

3) I am not a specialist in issues about Higg's boson, but I'd like to call your attention on a certain fact. The attraction forces between nucleons in a nucleus tend to lower the nucleus' mass. The sum of the masses of the nucleons is bigger than the mass of the nucleus they form. This difference is called "binding energy" , see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy.

Indeed, a fusion reaction releases the binding energy, e.g. by gamma emission. This answers also your questions:

==> "What is happening when an external matter-particle moves direct into greater matter-object? What is happening with their masses and nucleoid forces?"

==> "What energy is transformed into thermal energy and how is the new matter-object organised - if we suppose no matter will be lost?"

In principle you should have a fusion reaction, with emission of the binding energy, by gamma radiation. (By the way, the bombarding object and the target may have the same masses.) The final nucleus may be stable, in which case the fusion reaction emits only the binding energy, or may be unstable (radioactive), and then it emits additional radiation, (alpha, beta, gamma, protons, neutrons) - see for example "Decay chains" in Wikipedia.

4) It seems to me that if one looks for Higg's boson, the appropriate time is not when nuclei are created from nucleons. That's late. Higg's boson works earlier, giving masses  to the nucleons themselves.

Franz

Without going into the nooks and crannies of the various theories, The mass of a body relates to its inertia while its weight relates the force with which it is attracted to the Earth or any other celestial body.

For example, a 1 kg body moving at 100 km/h will have the same force of impact on the Moon as here on Earth.

But the same 1 kg body, if you put it on a scale here on earth will weight 1 kg, but if you were able to put it on a scale at the surface of the moon, it would show a lesser weight, because the Moon is less massive than the Earth, so it attracts bodies less strongly.

To summarize, mass relates to the inertia of a body and weight relates to the force with which this body is attracted to a celestial body.

At the particle level, weight is not an issue. Only mass is considered, and is defined in various ways depending on the theory.

Thanks Andre,

you example for mass and weight is very useful and makes the difference very clear - on classical Newton-physics.

My interests are now how to think in the quantum level about these terms. Are they valid too - they should  because it's only an other point of view.

To weight and mass comes the terms matter and in my thinking thermal energy.

Most of energy transformations are in the form of change of temperature of matter.

Matter consists of a certain amount of atoms with atoms and nucleons.  How can we imagine atomic lattices and their vibrations from the quantum level?      

The physical term mass seems to unexplainable!

Inertia may be clear but gravitation seems to be unexplainable.   

Franz

You are raising quite a few issues.

First we often say during discussions that this or that particle is "heavier" or "lighter" than this other, two terms that relate to weight. But as I said, weight is a non-issue at the submicroscopic level (the level you refer to as the quantum level). What is always meant is that this or that particle is "more massive" or "less massive" than this other one. If you keep this in mind, you won't mix up our macroscopic level with the submicroscopic level.

Mass of a body can be defined as being synonymous with "omnidirectional inertia", which means that a massive body will resist its state of motion being changed by any force or other interaction, whatever direction it is being applied from. This amonts to Newton's definition of mass.

At the quantum level, from the wave function perspective, it is difficult to reconcile this definition of mass with the behavior of the electron, for example, because omnidirectional interaction implies localization, which is deemed to occur only when the electron is immobilized (from the wave function perspective).

So when the electron is immobilized, then the definition can apply. But as soon as the electron starts moving, from the wave function perspective, it instantly de-localizes to become diffused in a non local wave packet whose sum of "wavelets" amounts to the electron energy. It is difficult then to relate omnidirectional inertia to such a diffuse concept. So quantum mechanics has an issue with correctly describing the mass of a moving massive particle at the submicroscopic level.

However, Experiments have shown that the electron remains localized as it moves so its trajectory can be deflected by causing the electron to be immersed in a magnetic field stronger than the ambient electric field. So experimental data confirms that even when an electron is in motion, its trajectory can be shown to be very precise and can also be deflected in accordance with the definition I gave.

One of the most telling experiments in this regards was carried out by Walter Kaufmann at the beginning of the 20th century (See paper below):

You also talk about energy transformations related to temperature of matter. You give a good definition of matter, rightfully referring to vibrations of the electronic escort in atoms.

Heat in fact is due to electrons being overly excited on their orbitals in atoms. The more strongly they vibrate on their captive orbitals in a body, the more heat the body will display. If the vibration becomes ample enough for an electron to be excited out of its usual rest orbital, it will jump to the next authorized orbital. This orbital being further away from the nucleus is always unstable and almost instantly, the electron will jump back to its initial rest orbital while it releases an electromagnetic photon that evacuates the excess energy.

In the low range, these photons are the infrared radiation that come out of your range as you cook diner. If the body is heated more, then the frequency will increase to reach the visible range. At some point you will see a corresponding color change, like lava out of a volcano radiating red and even yellow light, and so on.

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

Franz and André,

Don't you have the possibility to look in the book of Landau & lifschitz, "Quantum Mechanics" ? The movement of a quantum particle in a constant field is described there.

Now, I have criticism on André's statements:

"weight is a non-issue at the submicroscopic level (the level you refer to as the quantum level). What is always meant is that this or that particle is "more massive" or "less massive" than this other one. If you keep this in mind, you won't mix up our macroscopic level with the submicroscopic level."

What is no more correct at quantum level the 2nd Newton's law

(1) m d2x/dt2 = F,

where for the gravitational field F = -∇U, and U = mgx. It's not that the weight concept is no more correct, it's that the equations of motion are no more correct. As I explained, but you don't seem to have paid much attention, if the linear dimensions of the body are smaller than the wavelength, the object is a quantum object, and its movement is no more described by (1), but by the Schrodinger equation.

In the classical limit, small wavelength in comparision with the body linear dimension, eq. (1) is correct - see Ehrenfest's theorems. The classical mechanics is a limit of the quantum mechanics,

How massive is an object is not the issue, the issue is the wavelength.

André, you say

==> "because omnidirectional interaction implies localization, which is deemed to occur only when the electron is immobilized (from the wave function perspective)"

What you say there? An imobilized electron has INFINITE wavelength. It's ultra-super-quantum situation. For getting a quantum state, even finite wavelength is enough, as I explained above.

==> "Heat in fact is due to electrons being overly excited on their orbitals in atoms."

What? Who told you? The thermal energy is described in old works as kinetic energy of point-like particles, without internal structure. 

Sofia

I have read your explanation and I note your objections.

I agree that the quantum mechanics perspective is a self consistant mathematical model, and that your explanation is in sync with it.

I rely however only on experimentally ascertained facts, and provide formal reference to the experiments that support the points I raise.

I have no other argument.

Interpretation is left to the reader to agree or disagree whether or not the experiments make sense with respect to his or her own understanding.

Sofia

In the Landau and lifschitz (and Pitaevskii) series, The book of importance to me is volume 8, Electrodynamics of continuous media. I found nothing contradicting my own understanding of electromagnetism. My views are totaly based on electromagnetism.

Sofia

You say that an immobilized electron has an infinite wavelength. Do you dispute also the recognized mass of the electron (9.10938356E-31 kg) and the wavelength (the compton wavelength 2.4263102389E-12 m) of the energy making up its mass?

Dear Sofia,

what is the difference between nuclei and nucleons - as you call them?

Dear Sofia and Andre,

"an immobilized electron has an infinite wavelength": where is the problem? Such an (electrostatic) electron is not moving - one electron has no kinetic energy. 

I am no Physician - but mass is defined as inertia - so why shouldn't that be imaginable? The definition of "wavelength infinite" is a mathematical bridge only to keep wave-equations valid.

An other problem is: How to keep this mass of a single electron free from gravitation?     

Dear Franz

For nucleon and nuclei, you can look up the definitions in wikipedia or any other source.

When Sofia writes that an immobilized electron has an infinite wavelength, this means that it has zero kinetic energy. Zero energy involves infinite wavelength.

But this is a hypothetical situation of course, because the minute an electron is created, it is immediately subject to Coulomb force acceleration since it is a charged particle, and will remain subject to it for as long as it will exist.

In reality, the closest electrons can come to immobility in nature is by being stabilized on atoms' orbitals, in various least action states. In these states they always are induced with very specific amounts of kinetic energy besides the energy making up their mass.

Franz !!!!!!!!!!!!

For our talk it is not relevant if you are a "physician", as we are not (so I hope) in need of medical trteatment. Well, I speak of the majority of the people here, I don't deny the fact that there are also exceptions.

Now, as a physicist (not ohysician), I am telling you that nucleons are the particles in a nucleus, i.e. protons and neutrons.

Next you say:

==> but mass is defined as inertia - so why shouldn't that be imaginable?

We have a language problem here. What you mean by "imaginable"?

And you continue:

==> "The definition of "wavelength infinite" is a mathematical bridge only to keep wave-equations valid."

My congratulations, today you very entertaining. (Did you have some happy event in the family?) 

The quantum mechanics doesn't deal with particles at rest. Let me tell you that quantum mechanics "is pleased" with the slowly moving objects, but not totally at rest. Please see, the wavelength of a quantum object is equal with  h/mv, where h is Planck's constant, m is the mass of the object, and v the center-of-mass velocity of the object (i.e. we disregard the internal structure and internal dynamics of the object). So, if the object is at rest, i.e. v=0, the wavelength is infinite. This a very inconvenient case, because the object's position is totally undefinite. It may be here, on the Earth, or in another place in the space.

Last thing:

==> An other problem is: How to keep this mass of a single electron free from gravitation?

The gravitation acts on the nucleus too. It's the same gravitational acceleration for both the nucleus and the electron. So, we can judge the electron movement in the central electrostatic potential of the nucleus taken at rest. Therefore, this calculus regards the internal dynamics of the atom. In this calculus we write only the wavefunction of the electron, not also of the nucleus, otherwise we would fall on the pathologic case discussed above.

My best wishes,

Sofia

Alex Gaina,

==> "Sorry, do not take my time with such stupid questions"

You were not forced to give your time. Answers here are on a volunteer basis. 

These are no stupid questions, people who have a different profession than physics are free to ask questions. These people have their skills, in their domains, in which, maybe you are not a specialist. If you would go to doctor for health problems I am sure that you would ask all sort of questions, and that he won't tell you that they are stupid.

In this site, people try to enlarge their scientific horizon. EACH ONE of us has something to learn. We are all friends here, in good relationship. 

If you feel that a question is not interesting for you, the simple solution is to stay away, not participate.

You are absolutely right Sofia.

Dear Alex,

=>"Sorry, do not take my time with such stupid questions"

that's a very bad answer - you got the correct answers from other members! 

Only having a small amount of correct knowledge gives no right to think all other meanings are "stupid". In  my case I realy had this information about mass of HIGGS-bosons (see Victor TODT, co-researcher at NASA). I looked in WIKIPEDIA and have to say that you are correct in parts only. One HIGGS-boson has more mass than a proton or neutron but the whole nuclear mass of an atom is based on protons and neutrons (99,5%) and HIGGS-bosons (0,5%). 

For me so I have found a new quantum mechanical fact. But not more. I don't think now to bee  intelligent - and before I was silly. That's a too narrow thinking.

I wish you more human abilities - and never forget : an OLD GREEK philosopher (Sokrates) said 2000 years before "I know I know nothing" - but he is very well known and respected today too!

=> "Now, would you explain your question more clearly? Which "forces in nucleons" and how to make them "higher"?

My question should be "How can forces in nucleus change?".

The answer is given by you, thanks: The gravitational mass (weight) can only change by the number of nucleons. The forces between quarks as parts of nucleons don't change.

I hope I am correct? 

The issue is to disantangle several concepts of Physics.

We deal here with material bodies. They are defined by properties, which are represented in some mathematical variables, and can be measured by some experimental protocol.

The first property of a material body is that it occupies a precise location, in space and time, which can be measured. This leads in the relativist context to assign to a material body a location and a velocity in a 4 dimensional universe.

The second property is that a material body shows a reluctance to alter its trajectory, what is called inertia, and this can be measured by a different protocol. In your mobile phone there is an accelerometer which shows if the device has changed its motion, without measuring the location. This property is the momentum. It is a vectorial quantity. By construct it is linked to the inertial force.

Newtonian Mechanics states that there is a relation between the momentum and the velocity, two independant variables, and this relation is given by a scalar, the mass. So actually mass is not a physical property which is measured, one can compare masses or compute masses, but they are not directly measured, and its definition is somewhat conventional.

The mass so defined is the inertial mass, but the gravitational forces, as usually modelled, involve a charge, and it has been measured with great accuracy that the gravitational charge and the inertial mass are equal. This is made consistent in the framework of general relativity, which can deal without problem with this issue by using the gauge formalism.

However there are still some issues, not totally solved. A material body is characterized not only by its location, but by the arrangement of an orthonormal basis attached to the body and a basis of an observer : it rotates. So actually the motion of a material body encompasses two properties, which can be each independantly mesured : its translational motion and its rotational motion.

And we have the same duality for momentum : a material body shows a reluctance to change its rotation as well as its velocity  So we have a translational momentum and a rotatiional momentum, both physical quantities independently measured. In Newtonian Mechanics the rotational momentum is clear only for solids but not at the level of the material point. This raises several issues.

The first is that one can measure only a change in the momenta, It is impossible, by definition, to measure the rotational motion of a perfectly symmetric ball, however one can easily measure a change in its rotation ! And actually the accelometer in your mobile phone does that.

The second is that all that which has been said holds at any scale. The so called Quantum Physics is due to the fact that it is physically impossible to make some measures on atoms or elementary particles. So their behavior is modelled using simplified specifications which are efficient. For instance it is impossible to measure the rotation of an atom, so one assumes that the motion is periodic with a fixed periodicity and one gets the spin. The axis of rotation can change, but the  speed of rotation is quantized. The same holds for the velocity : one cannot measure the velocity by the measure of different locations on the trajectory, so one assumes that identical particles follow similar paths, which are then quantized. The mystery of the wave function is nothing more than a complicated and obscure way to do this.

The third is that, if for solid in Newtonian Mechanics there is a clear definition of an inertial (rotational) tensor, there is nothing equivalent in the Relativist framework. The Poincarré's group is useless, and even misleading. A motion in the Poincarré group is defined by 10 parameters, meanwhile 6 suffice in Galilean Geometry. This is a difficult issue on which I work, but it is still unknown territory.

Dear Jean-Claude,

Very clear and complete description of mass and inertia and also quite appropriate description of spin related to rotation of massive bodies at the macroscopic level.

As you mention, there are issues at the submicroscopic level particularly with the notion of rotation when point-like behaving particles such as electrons are considered. It is indeed impossible, by definition, to measure the rotational motion of point-like behaving particle.

But contrary to what you have been led to understand, it is possible to measure some characteristics of elementary particles such as the electron and even photons.

Einstein's photoelectric experiment, which he earned a Nobel prize for, brought proof in 1905 of the longitudinal inertia of individual photons on top of confirming that they behave as if they were separate localized quanta when intercepted.

Walter Kaufmann also confirmed in the same period the longitudinal inertia of electrons moving at relativistic velocities on top of bringing attention to the fact that their transverse inertia at these velocities, measured by deflecting their trajectories with magnetic fields, was lower than their longitudinal inertia, which gave rise to the idea that the electron mass was of electromagnetic origin. See paper below regarding Kaufmann's experiment.

Although the notion of "spin" of electrons seems to relate to some form of rotation, which cannot be more than an assumption as you mention with regards to such point-like behaving particles. Electron "spin" (an unfortunate misnomer in this case) is in fact related to the magnetic aspect of electrons, which can resolve in only two possible relative states, that are named "relative parallel spin orientation" between two electrons (magnetic repulsion) and "relative anti-parallel spin orientation" between two electrons (magnetic attraction), the latter case directly explaining covalent bounding, and filling of orbitals by electron pairs.

It was recently experimentally demonstrated that this magnetic aspect of electrons obeys the inverse cube interaction law, contrary to the electric interaction law between the same particles which obeys the inverse square interaction law (the Coulomb law between charged particles).

The second paper I give a link to below describes the 2014 experiment with two electrons made to interact in parallel spin orientation (magnetic repulsion) which proves the inverse cube interaction law involved.

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

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

Dear André,

The photon is not a material body. This is a phenomenon which appears to behave like a particle, and one can give it a momentum, but is has a null mass...

The meaning "spin up or down" relates to the fact that a rotational motion can be represented in two equivalent ways, with the opposite axis and rotational speed. So the right group to represent a rotational motion is the Spin group, this holds for any material body. Because in Relativity material bodies travel along their world line, it is always possible to identitfy one of the two rotations by the orientation of the axis with respect to the velocity. So all the paradoxes of the spin have nothing to do with QM. It makes sense that the fact for a particle to change its axis of rotation involves energy.

As for the relation between spin and magnetic moment, this is not a mystery. The representation (in the Standard Model) of elementary particles is the tensorial product of a spinor (for the kinematic characteristics) and a charge (represented in a different vector space). The EM field acts through the charge, but of course impacts the motion, which includes rotation.

Dear Jean Claude,

How the photon is not material? Everything is matter. The photon doesn't have rest-mass, but it is material, it is not a ghost. A photon of sufficient frequency transforms into an electron-positron pair. Only matter transforms into matter.

But there is more here: in presence of big masses, the trajectory of the photon gets curved. Of course, one can say that the space-time gets curved, but one can say that the photon has movement-mass, and is attracted by the massive body.

(Note: I was explained that working with the picture of curved space-time is better.)

So you say..."Everything is matter. " so what is a field ? Why so much confusion ?

A force field is something clearly defined : this is what interacts with particle to change their momentum. Fields have a value everywhere, in order to interact with partiles localy (so to avoid the idea of action at a distance). The value of a field varies even where there is no particle, it propagates, and this propagation comes from the interaction of the field with itself.

However in our common representation of fields by continuous and differentiable variables there is an issue. In the interaction with a particle, there is a discontinuity in the value of the field, between the incoming and the outgoing field. This discontinuity does not matter if one looks at the field at a scale such it can be smeared out (what do all engineers in telecoms). But in some case this discontinuity must be accounted for, notably in discontinuous processes such as the photoelectric effect. The question is then : what happens to this discontinuity ? One can show that it propagates with the field (no surprise) and behaves like a particle, notably it has a momentum, but no mass. But this is just analogy. It does not make a photon a particle.

No, Jean Claude,

there is no confusion. You say,

==> "A force field is something clearly defined : this is what interacts with particle to change their momentum."

A force-field is first of all a form of MATTER. Whatever acts on matter, is matter. I stressed this and I say it again: there exists matter with rest-mass, and matter which doesn't have rest mass - as the photons. But they are material, they are not ghosts, neither ideas, nor pure soul, etc. You know to calculate the energy of a field, even of an electrostatic field. This is a form of matter.

Only matter acts on matter, and I remind you the 3rd Newton law in classical mechanics.

At quantum level, when an atom absorbs a photon, the atom gets a "push", a linear momentum Δp, in the direction of movement of the photon. And, as you know, Δp/Δt = force. André told you this. Only matter can carry linear momentum; for the photon it is equal to hk. A dream, or pure soul, etc., don't have such properties.

Another example: in the fusion reaction two particle of masses m1 and m2, and generate a new particle of mass m3. Usually m3 < m1 + m2. The difference, called binding energy, may be eliminated, for instance, by gamma rays. So, rest-mass transforms into matter with no rest-mass. Still, matter transforms into matter.

Matter transforms into matter.

Sofia,

So there is no field. I wonder why thie  word is always used in Physics Books. What does it means ? And the propagation of a field results from interactions between photons. Ask the engineers in telecoms. Mass is measured by the wave length ? I hope that your butcher uses more convenient tools. I know all your agruments of course. But it is always a surprise to see that QM priests, who pride themselves of their strict observance of measure and experiments, can forget the most sensible observations.

I believe that the purpose of Science and Physics is to give consistent and understanble interpretations of the world, not piling mysteries and different physics according to the scale or the season. But in order to get a Nobel Prize a touch of mystery is always welcome. And of course to get there the path is not keep his common sense but to quote enough great priets. Sorry, I am not a man of faith.

Jean-Claude

You have to take into consideration that on RG, numerous people of all mother tongues converse in a second language to them (English) and that confusion may arise due to various degrees of mastery of this second language and some pacularities of the mother language.

As an example, in Russian the words "permeability" (magnetic) and "permittivity" (electric) translate to the same word. To my knowledge, Sofia is not a native English speaker. That she doesn't necessarily use the standard terms to speak about the fundamental level doesn't mean that she does not understand QM nor that she is some sort of QM Priest.

As mentioned previously in this very thread, "courtoisie est de rigueur" on RG.

You are free of course to believe that photons do not have inertia and that this was not confirmed by the photoelectric experiment. Others are also free to put more faith in experiments confirmed by peer-reviewed formal accounts.

As far back as the beginning of the 1930's, Blackett and Occhialini verified out of any doubt, by experiments that have been systematically confirmed since that massless electromagnetic photons of minimal energy 1.022 MeV, that possess longitudinal inertia, can convert to a pair of massive electron and positron that possess omnidirectional inertia, that is mass, each made of 0.511 MeV/c^2 coming from the mother photon. Any energy in excess of the 1.022 MeV converting to the two particles masses is linked to the velocity in opposite direction of both particles in opposite directions. See paper below.

Moreover, the two same experimentalists were the first also to confirm that a pair of electron and positrons can be made to interact in such a way that they convert back to electromagnetic photon state.

So we know de facto that electromagnetic photons and electrons and positrons are made from the very same substance, that is, electromagnetic energy.

http://hep.ucsb.edu/courses/ph225a/blackettocchialini.pdf

André,

Sofia and me have some history.

The problem is that people do not answer the questions, and give at length examples coming from the litterature, that usually I know quite well. We are not here to prove that we know the classics but to answer questions, and try to go a bit further than the litterature.

As for your points  : I have never written that photon have no momentum. I know the theory. But this does not imply that photons are particles : they share with particles some properties (such as a location, a trajectory and a momentum) and behave as such, but it is for a reason that the Standard Model distinguishes fermions and bosons. And one problem to solve in Physics is to give a convincing interpretation of bosons. They are related to the fields, they are said to carry the fields, so we need an explanation of this phenomenon. I have one, one can disagree with me, but it does not give more light on the topic by doing a copycat of the theory of particles with some bizarre features added (such that they can be massless, have or not a charge, are or not their antiparticle,,...). 

Another point is many experiments which are quoted involve very special phenomena, at high energy. It is of scientific interest to explain these phenomena, but it is of greater importance to explain the common world. Physicists love the big experiments and billions  € tools, but explain the every days physical facts by anhiliation of particles, virtual or not, seems to me a bit of stretch...

Jean-Claude,

I see.

You say about photons: "they share with particles some properties (such as a location, a trajectory and a momentum) and behave as such".

Isn't this the very definition of a particle?

Speaking of fields, from what I understand, Gauss defined what we know as the electric field as a 3-dimensional mathematical gradient to represent the Coulomb force intensity centered on each charged particle. So it seems to be only a mathematical generalization of the Coulomb force. Indeed, it is easy to derive the linear Coulomb equation from Gauss's field equation.

So, my understanding is that if a charged electron interacts with another, the second electron does not create a discontinuity in the field representation of the first, it simply introduces its own 3-dimensional mathematical gradient that correlates with that of the first as a function of the inverse square of the distance. Isn't this what you understand also?

The simplest analogy is with phonons. Deformation of a medium can be represented as a wave which propagates. And there are discontinuities, such as shock waves. Some discontinuities behave like particles, the phonons.

A particle is a material body, it has a location, travels on a world line at a constant velocity, and has a momentum. It cannot travel at the speed of light.(it would have no proper time).

A force field exists everywhere, changes by iinteraction with particles and by interaction with itself. It propagates at a definite speed (the concept is difficult to represent clearly, but this can be done). There is no need to introduce two electrons : fields have been invented to avoid the representation of actions at a distance. When two particles interact each particle changes the value of the field at its location, then the modified field propagates and interacts with the other particle at its own location.

Because a field propagates in the vacuum, it has a definite value before and after interacting with a particle. The particle occupies a point, so at this point the field has two values. There is discontinuity. It can be usually neglected, we assume that the variables are continuous, but in some discontinuous processes (such as an electron which goes from a state to another) it cannot be neglected. And another equilibrium is reached by the propagation of the discontinuity.. The particularity of fields in a relativist context explains that we do not see shock waves, but propagation along a line.

I See

Interesting concept. I have to think.

Andre,

in einem von Ihnen angeführten Artikel fand ich einen Satz der mich vor neue Tatsachen stellt. Walter Kaufmann summierte bereits im Jahre 2003 seine Messungen von Massen von Elektronen dass diese "rein elektromagnetischer Natur" seien.  

Photonen haben keine Masse aber Energien.

Elektronen haben Masse - aber rein elektromagnetische - ?

Für mich ist bisher Masse keine elektromagnetische Eigenschaft. Ich kennen nur Ladung und Spin.

Was soll eine "elektromagnetische" Masse? Verhält die sich anders als "inertiale" und "gravitatorische"?   Ich bin ein Informationswissenschaftler - wir lieben klare Begriffe, Strukturen und Systeme. Kenn ich diesen über 100 Jahre lang bekannten Begriff nicht? Oder ist er ein Synonym? 

Franz

Sie sind ein Informationwissenschaftler. Wir mussen Partikels wie zwei Systems Kombinations sehen. Der este ist fur Kinematik (und Gravitation) mit Momentum. Der zweiter ist fur andere Krafte, mit Ladung. Wir konnen beweisen, das der bessere Darstellung fur zwei Systemes mit Tensor ist. Die recht Variable fur die Partikel ist das Tensor Produkt momentum (spinor) x Ladung (ein Vektor). Das ist der Standard Model Losung. 

Franz

Wir wissen seit Einstein, dass Photonen, die aus nur elektromagnetischer Energie gemacht sind, Längsträgheit besitzen. Wir wissen auch, dass Elektronen, die auch aus nur elektromagnetischer Energie gemacht sind, längsgerichtete als auch querlaufende Trägheit besitzen, d. h. "Rundträgheit", oder mit anderen Worten: dass sie "elektromagnetische Masse" besitzen.

"Masse" bedeutet nur " Rundträgheit ", und "elektromagnetische Masse" bedeutet nur, dass Elektronen aus nur elektrolytischer Energie gemacht werden. Ebenso einfach wie das.

Oops! ich meinte: "Masse" bedeutet nur "Rundträgheit" (omnidirectional inertia), und "elektromagnetische Masse" bedeutet nur, dass Elektronen aus nur "elektromagnetischer" Energie gemacht werden.

Franz

If you want to understand how Walter Kaufmann's experiments correlate with a major discovery made by Paul Marmet, which allows explaining the photon deflection angle by the Sun from simple Newtonian mechanics, you can find my analysis on this issue in section "17.9 Der Ablenkungswinkel der Photonentrajektorien" of this paper:

Sorry. The link failed:

Article Über die Hypothese des Doppelpartikelphotons von Louis de Broglie

Let some comment to the thread’s question on some non-native English; so

“Why mass is existing? How is the relation to weight?”

- the physical parameter “mass”  indeed relates to some properties of material  objects – of particles and systems of particles, at that this notion/parameter is applied to two properties – (1) every material object has “inertial mass”, i.e. it conserve the state of straight and uniform [4D] motion in the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime if no forces impact on the object  or the sum of acting forces is equal to zero; and (2) – if there is a system of material objects, then between objects  a gravitational force always acts, which is proportional to “gravitational masses" of the objects.

Though these properties are [very probably and evidently] quite different, both masses correlate at physical interactions – the more inertial mass the more the gravitational mass, though the correlation is hold in static systems only and isn’t linear if the objects are moving in the 3D space. For example even without gravity inertial mass of a moving body depends on the angle between directions of the impact [force] and of the motion.

Besides for fast bodies there is a difference between directions of impacting force and resulting acceleration.  From this seems as rather reasonable to suggest that particles are some 4D gyroscopes and the difference of, say  “longitudinal” and “transverse” masses is because of different angles between impacting force and the gyroscope’s rotation rate.

Such suggestion seems as rather reasonable also because of indeed with a great probability particles are some close loop cyclic 4D algorithms, what indeed is realized in Matter as some gyroscopes.

Since every particle of every body is a gyroscope, the inertia correspondingly is, in more then first approximation, the sum of inertias of all/every particles.

Analogously seems as rather probable that the gravity potential of a body is the sum of potentials that are created by every body’s particle also;

from what follows the observed equivalence of the gravitational and the inertial masses of a body in the statics.

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics           http://vixra.org/pdf/1503.0077v2.pdf   DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494

 Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Sergey,

Fine, but the problem is that when we think about "motion", there are two different concepts : translational motion (along a world line) and rotational motion (a material body rotating around itself). The second feature is difficult to catch. Even in Newtonin Mechanics it works only for rigid solid. But what can be hold as a fact is that even elementary particles rotate : this is not a single rotation (say the difference between two orthonormal bases) but a motion (involving the derivatives). One can deal with this issue in RG, but going from the motion to the momentum, say the rotational momentum is difficult.

Franz,

Seit Blackett und Occhialini, Beginn der 1930er Jahre, wissen wir dass Photonen ohne Masse der Energie 1.022 + MeV destabilisiert werden kann, um zu Elektronpositron-Paaren zu verwandeln, die Masse haben, und sich diese Elektronpositron-Paare zurück zu Photon-Zustand verwandeln können. Sieh Abhandlung unten.

Jetzt wissen wir, dass Photonen und Elektronen aus derselben elektromagnetischer Energie gemacht werden.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/96057?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Sergey,

Correlating Walter Kaufmann's experiments with the discovery by Paul Marmet that the magnetic field of moving electrons increases as the square of its velocity shows indirectly that the electron translational energy, which is unidirectional in space, is impervious to any transverse interaction, gravitational, electrostatic or magnetic.

This is why there is a difference between longitudinal mass (longitudinal inertia) and transverse mass (transverse inertia) of electrons moving at relativistic velocities. This is summarily described in page 5, second column of the first paper below:

If you correlate Paul Marmet's findings (second paper below, equation 1 to 26) with Walter Kaufmann's paper (previously given), you will understand.

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/index.html

Besides the answers below:

The inertial mass of an object is visible or observable in its behavior under the effect of external forces. The forces can be very different.

The gravitational mass (or weight) of an object is the behavior under the effect of gravitational force. Therefore an identical inertial mass show in different gravitational fields differnet gravitational masses.

The question shall be allowed: Have different materials of equal inertial mass different gravitational effects? The imprecision of the gravitational constant allow this conclusion.

@Franz: You can also ask instead of "why mass is existing?", "why charge is existing?"

Hans

Franz

You say "Have different materials of equal inertial mass different gravitational effects?"

The logical answer is no.

All bodies in the universe are made from the same collection of atoms. They all can be found in the periodic table of elements.

All atoms are made from the same particles: electron, proton, neutron.

Consequently, very straightforward logics leads to conclude that they all behave in the same manner with respect to external interaction.

Jean claude,

“…there are two different concepts : translational motion (along a world line) and rotational motion (a material body rotating around itself). The second feature is difficult to catch…”

- here isn’t principal problem, though for particles that have “rest masses” , i.e. which at [absolute] 3D spatial rest move only along [coordinate] time dimension with the speed of light [particles move in positive temporal dimension, antiparticle – in the negative one] some problem indeed exists. The point is  that a gyroscope – and corresponding rate of rotation and angular momentum – can be well defined in a 3D space[time], when in Matter every particle is 4D gyroscope and so, for example, for “rest mass” particles there exist two possible angular momentums – for rotation around the [c]t-axis and, say, if the rotation runs in the (X,Y) plain, around Z-axis simultaneously. What results in that all fundamentally elementary particles are fermions – their angular momentums, i.e. the spins are [h-bar]1/2, when each of the momentums above rather probably is equal to 1. For photons, which move in the 3D space only this problem doesn’t exist and they have “true” spin that is equal to 1

- more see in the link in the SS post on 5-th page above.

Cheers

André,

“…Correlating Walter Kaufmann's experiments with the discovery by Paul Marmet that the magnetic field of moving electrons …”, etc.

- the “longitudinal” and “transverse” masses of a particle/body are different without any relation to  what force – magnetic, electric, gravitational, etc.  impacts on the particle/body, that is first of all some kinematical effect. Including, for example, the “transverse” and “relativistic” masses are equal just because of these masses relate to particles [and so, of course, to bodies] that have rest masses, and, so, these particles move at 3D spatial rest along the [c]t-axis – when the [c]t axis is orthogonal to any/every spatial direction; and since  macrophysics considers practically only spatially directed impacts (temporally directed impacts if strong enough result in appearance of other “rest mass” particles), that is hold in such cases;

- more see in the link in the SS post on 5-th page above.

Cheers

Sergey,

Thanks, but I know all that. The best way to represent the spinor is through Clifford algebra. The problem is that one gets a representation in a 4 complex dimensional vector space, (the Dirac's spinor) and there is no simple way to relate this space to the usual one (4 dimensions is not a problem)., The complex momentum (the spinor)  should be measurable, meaning it should appear someways related to the usual space. And we should have, including for elementary particles, the equivalent of a rotational inertial tensor. I has a solution (in my last papers) but I realize that it is incomplete. As for the photon there is no problem and of course they have a spin 1.

Sergey

From Marmet's discovery, the difference between longitudinal and transverse inertia has nothing to do with force, but is due to the apparent fact that part of the kinetic energy provided to cause the electron to move at relativistic velocities converts to a velocity related momentary mass increment that displays omnidirectional inertia just like the energy making up the rest mass of the electron.

This mass increment added to the electron rest mass is what Kaufmann measured transversally.

Longitudinally, the remaining amount of kinetic energy provided, which is the translational energy that propels the total momentary mass (rest mass plus momentary mass increment) also has longitudinal inertia, so it is also part of the longitudinal inertia measured longitudinally.

Transversally, it seems that the unidirectionally directed translational kinetic energy that propels the electron, which amounts to half the kinetic energy provided, has no transverse inertia so cannot be measured by any transverse interaction with the electron in motion.

This is what causes the difference between transverse inertia and longitudinal inertia of the electron in motion.

The pertaining calculation is quite easy to make.

Calculate any amount of kinetic energy that you want to give to an electron with relativistic equation E=mc2(gamma-1).

Since this is only half of the kinetic energy that needs to be provided in physical reality, convert an equal amount of kinetic energy divided by c^2, and add this amount of mass to the mass of the electron with equation:

m = m_0 + E/c^2

You can verify the validity of this momentary relativistic mass by any traditional calculation method, and you will find that this is exactly the momentary relativistic mass of the electron at any velocity you choose.

This is due to the internal electromagnetic structure that the electron carrying energy seems to naturally adopt as it accumulates. This is analyzed in the following paper.

Since the published paper is in a difficult to navigate .swf format, I also append a pdf format easier to navigate.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue4/A06040110.swf

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3197

@André:

Gravitational force acts most probably only between atoms resp. atomical structured matter. The atoms which all listed in the periodic table are a bit various. Without dealing with the reasons: The gravitational effect of heavier atoms (e.g. Iron or Lead) should be a bit smaller as the effect of lighter atoms (e.g. Silicon or Oxygen).

Hans

Hans

I would go even further in this direction.

My analysis leads me to conclude that gravity acts only between the very restricted set of charged scatterable massive and point-like behaving electromagnetic particles that are the only elementary particles making up all atoms in the universe: electron, up quark and down quark.

It is even easy to demonstrate that all classical force equations all amount to F=ma.

You can find my analysis in this paper:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue6/F06062734.pdf

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Michael

Highly interesting paper that you and Ahmet wrote. I see convergence on many issues.

Note that on my side, I approached the whole issue strictly from electromagnetism, at a level below SR, GR and even QM.

As I came across your idea of a small volume of spacetime related to newly formed particles, I immediately made a link with my own 3-spaces local geometry associated to any particle, but of course the implementations are different.

You say something that intrigues me "- we do not know of any experiment or observation that energy, as radiation, exerts gravitational attraction. On the other hand, evidence that light follows curved spacetime from massive objects is firm."

Isn't the second sentence in contradiction with the preceding one? If light can be deflected by massive objects, isn't this precisely an observation that it can somehow interact gravitationally?

From my electromagnetism viewpoint, Electrical charge is an exclusive characteristic of all electromagnetic elementary particles. I see the sign of charges as a separate issue.

I was intrigued by your mention that E=mc^2 was a first order approximation and E=(mv^2)/2 was the second term of some famous relationship. Then I understood where this was coming from as I got to your equation 10.

E=mc^2 + (mv^2)/2 + U

This equation in fact gives the total energy of a particle in motion. Let's consider an electron in motion. The mc^2 term is the energy making up the invariant rest mass of the electron, which would resolve to m_0 c^2 in the 3-spaces model. The second term (mv^2)2 is the translational energy that propels m_0 c^2 + U. In the 3-spaces model, this second term becomes relativistic as mc^2(gamma-1), and third term U, in the 3-spaces model, is always equal to a second occurrence of  mc^2(gamma-1), which is the energy going in to the relativistic mass increment corresponding to velocity v that I mentioned to Sergey above.

So we converge rather closely on this particular issue.

You also mention compliance with the first law of thermodynamics. Then maybe you would be interested in my last paper, just published in the Journal of Physical Mathematics, where I analyze the relations between the principle of conservation of energy, adiabatic processes, least action states, and entropy at the elementary particle level:

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Andre,

=> "Masse" bedeutet nur " Rundträgheit ", und "elektromagnetische Masse" bedeutet nur, dass Elektronen aus nur elektrolytischer Energie gemacht werden. Ebenso einfach wie das.

Franz,

Tut mir leid, sie aus Versehen mit dem Wort "elektrolytisch" veranlasst zu haben. Ich hatte vor, das Wort "elektromagnetisch" zu schreiben, nicht "elektrolytisch". "elektrolytisch" hat nichts, mit dieses Thema zu tun.

Trägheit, oder Massenträgheit, oder Beharrungsvermögen ist der Widerstand eines Körpers, geschoben zu werden. Suchen Sie "Trägheit" in Wikipedia. Sehr gut erklärt.

Sie verstehen richtig, wenn sie sagen "Elektromagnetisch bedeutet für mich eine Sammlung all dessen, was durch Ladung, Elektrisches Feld und magnetisches Feld beschrieben wird". Sie haben gerade das beschrieben, was ein Elektron ist.

Elektromagnetische Energie ist nicht von elektromagnetischer Masse zu trennen. Sie ist die elektromagnetische  Masse. Die genaue Masse des Elektrons ist 9.10938188E-31 kg.

Ich verstehe nicht was Sie durch "Gibt es die dann eigentlich?" meinen.

Andre,

wenn Elektromagnetische Masse und Elektromagnetische Energie nicht zu trennen ist, dann ist die Masse eines Elektrons eben diese beiden?  

Ein Elektron würde also doch keine Materie haben oder sein?

Das sind die Fragen, die direkt daraus folgen....

Franz,

Wirklich ist die Elektronmasse ausschließlich elektromagnetische Energie, wie bezeugt, durch die Tatsache, dass es eine elektrische Ladung hat, und dass sein Trajektorie mit Magnetfeldern abgelenkt werden kann.

Wenn Sie mit dem Elektron elektrisch- und Magnetfeldern spielen möchten, befestige ich eine Abhandlung, die alle Gleichungen erforderlich gibt, um beide Felder zu berechnen, und auch jede Geschwindigkeit, die es haben konnte, weil nur das Elektron Compton Wellenlänge und die Wellenlänge der tragenden Energie verwenden.

Jetzt, über Materie.

Materie, wie nehmen wir es an unserer makroskopischen Ebene wahr, hat dieselbe Beziehung in Bezug auf submikroskopische Atome, dass Mobiltelefonschirme in Bezug auf Pixels haben, aber an einer völlig anderen Skala.

Während auf einigen Mobiltelefonschirmen haben wir eine 2D-Bildschirmauflösung 240x320 Pixels, von der wir den Rasterung nicht sogar unterscheiden können, die Atomrasterung der Materie ist 3D und Hunderttausend Mal dichtere.

Zum Beispiel, um eine Länge aus 1 Cm zu machen, Sie würden 100 Millionen Wasserstoffatome ausrichten müssen

Aber für Materie, statt fast mikroskopischer LCD Zellen, Sie haben elektromagnetische Atome, die aus elektromagnetischen Elektronen gemacht werden, die den außenschells aus fast leeren Atomen zusammen setzen, am Zentrum von jeder von denen finden Sie einen äußerst dichten Kern, aus Protonen und Neutronen gemacht, jeder von denen aus 3 elektromagnetisch up- und down- Quarks gemacht, (uud) für das Proton und (udd) für das Neutron.

Das ist alles, dass Materie ist.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257

Dear Andre,

your responses are remarkable. You are interested in publishing of Skripts in Physics only. I read about them and would have to read till I die. My admiration for these great amount of knowledge.    

What I miss is Science of Structures and Systems (like Information Sciences are).

Actually we have to separate first of all

a) the electromagnetic system based on Photons and Electrons and fundamentally on charges q in Coulomb, electric Field E and magnetic Field H and

b) the "mass-system" based on mass and matter and fundamentally structured by  the Gravitation.

Already at University we found the possible relation between Charges and Masses in a same structured formula q1*q2/d²,q1, q2 charges and m1*m2/d² m1,m2 masses and in both d the spatial distance. That's till now not scientifically found, but there is generally a basically system-difference - that's a basic fact, we shouldn't mix it. 

Lieber Franz,

I am honored that you would find my papers so interesting. Thank you for the good words.

Regarding a) and b), I can tell you that both the electromagnetic-system base and and the mass-system base can be shown to be the same.

You can see a link already by decomposing the SI mass unit kg into its more elementary sub-units.

First, from m=E/c^2, you know that kg = (joules x meter^2)/second^2

Now, in the first paper below (see equation 35), I explain why Joules = (Coulomb^2 x meter)/second^2

This means that kg = Coulomb^2 / meter. This is derived with equation 38 of the same paper.

So you can see already that you have charges in Coulomb embedded in the unit kg which defines mass, with a relation to distance (the d in the two equations you mention).

Now, about your equations q1*q2/d² and m1*m2/d², with d being the spatial distance in both equations.

I can tell you that it is now scientifically found, and that both systems are equivalent.

The key is the so-called universal gravitational constant G, which is not correctly understood.

You will find the explanation at the beginning of the second paper below.

You will see that the mass of the Sun, the radius of Earth's orbit and the time for the Earth to complete one revolution about the Sun are directly embedded into G which gives it a value of  6.674×10−11 N⋅m^2/kg^2 .

It is consequently totally illogical then to use it when calculating the force inside atoms.

If you embed instead the mass of the proton, the radius of the mean electron ground state orbital in a hydrogen atom and the time for one complete theoretical revolution of this electron about the proton, you obtain a value of G of 1.514172983E29 N⋅m^2/kg^2 .

With this value of G, you can calculate the correct force at the mean electron ground state orbital:

F=G_corrected x (M_proton x m_electron)/(r_restorbital^2)= 8.238721759E-8 Newton, which is your m1*m2/d²,

With the Coulomb equation, you have F=k x (e^2/r_restorbital^2) =8.238721759E-8 Newton, which is your q1*q2/d². where k is the Coulomb constant.

Since kg is the same as C^2/m, surely you can see the relation.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue4/G0704032039.pdf

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue6/F06062734.pdf

Oops!

I meant to write "First, from m=E/c^2, you know that kg = (joules x second^2)/meter^2"

Dear Andre,

thanks for the hint "universal gravitational constant". It would be a sensation for me if it is correct. I will read it and give you response! 

Dear Franz

You should find no break in the logic. You will also be able to verify for yourself the mathematical proof that all classical force equations all are equal to F=ma,

Dear Andre,

don't understand: F=ma is the classical  formula of Newton; but I think in the relation between  attraction of masses and charges. They are physically not the same.

Dear Franz

They are the same because both masses and charges obey the same law of inverse square interaction with distance.

F=ma is the acceleration equation and major textbook say that the gravitation aquation and the Coulomb equation are equal to F=ma, Like Halliday and Resnick "Physics".

Dear Andrew,

I can't yet believe it. That would be a sensational new fact and solving a problem which I follow since 50 years about. Thanks for your hint. I will follow this topic ! 

Hi Franz

This identity with F=ma is why I recognized your 2 equations m1*m2/d^2 and q1*q^2/d². because they precisely represent two quantities interacting as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them.

See equation 3 in paper "Unifying All Classical Force Equations"

Dear Andre,

just reading your "Unifying All Classical Force Equations" I want to give a formal hint:

in Keywords: Lorenz is written without t. All other are correct as Lorentz. 

But please open the link with Adobe Reader. I hope you can see my comments....   

Dear Franz,

Sorry for the typo in Lorentz's name.

About your first commentary "... only centripedal acceleration - no orbital acceleration !"

Note that "centripedal" is another typo on my part. I should have written "centripetal"

"Centripetal" is the word that Gamow used in his book. See image below.

It simply means that the force can be considered in action "between the centers" of both orbiting bodies, even if the velocity is expressed perpendicularly to the force being applied.

About your second commentary: "...this is the whole speed  ... not the centripetal or centrifugal speed only !"

This is right. This is the whole speed.

The velocity of a body depends only on the amount of kinetic energy induced in it by the force, even if the direction of motion is not the same as that of the force being applied.

At any distance r from the Sun, the Earth is adiabatically induced with the exact amount of kinetic energy that sustains its exact velocity at this point of its orbit. This energy would be translationally directed perpendicularly to the force if its orbit was circular.

Dear Andre,

thanks for your hint -> centripetal!

My next problem is: -> the period T is quite OK for a circle, but we can use it not in universe - we can take a real cyclic motion of any masses. So I can take that comparison of Centripetal Force and Gravitation Force.

But generally you use the Newton Formula F=ma for different physical situations and say it is everywhere the same. 

If you take F=mv²/r and F= Gm1m2/d² and use it equal. I mean that's not possible. 

Firstly it's a kinetic energy situation with one moving mass and secondly it's a static situation with two masses.

In first case It's in physics called involved inertia mass and in second situation it's a classical involved gravitational mass. The same I suppose for Coulomb Force : that's not the same physical situation as before - here it's a force between electric charges.         

I fear you make the Newton Formula too common for all situations and say that all involved physical terms (inertia mass, gravitational mass, centripetal force , force on electric charges and later force on electrons in electromagnetic  field are direct transformable. That's  a mathematical possibility but in my understanding a physically nonsense - I am sorry. So I can't follow this way of transformations. But that's my point of view!

Dear Franz,

Period T is ok for any cyclic motion, including any cyclic motion in the universe.

This is very well explained in George Gamow's little book.  He explains how Newton established the gravitational theory.

If I may, I suggest you read his book, which is very easy to read, and all the math is clearly explained. This is the book that made me understand force when I was young.

I add a link to a German version in amazon:

https://www.amazon.de/Das-Gesetz-Schwerkraft-George-Gamow/dp/B0000BICAT/277-0032399-1720141?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Dear Franz,

Of course, I respect your opinion about this.

But note that it is not me who equated F=mv²/r and F= Gm1m2/d². It is explained in Gamow's book (Chapters 2, 3 and 4) and has been taught in colleges for decades with undergrad textbooks such as the very well known "Physics" by Haliday and Resnick. John Wyley & Sons, New York, 1967. Page 402.

In the same Haliday and Resnick book, page 1192, they show how F=ke^2/r^2 can be equated to F=ma.

I just do not question the fundamental logic. For me, nothing that work in physical reality is impossible.

Thanks Andre,

for your explanation. These references (GAMOV,. HALIDAY and RERSNICK) seem to be not exact enough. But I too can be on the wrong way - but think that would be a realy scientifically sensation - at least so famous as EINSTEINs SRT or GRT. Physics and Mathematics are sciences which need each other - but in that way Mathematics is not  usable. Physics is showing finer specialities in reality. We have to take care on fine physical differentiations - in reality.