Are gravity and electromagnetism the same?

jimiproton
Topic Author
Offline
Premium Member

22 years 1 month ago #3284 by jimiproton

Reply from James Balderston was created by jimiproton

quote:

For fun I considered the notion of treating the electron like a tiny microplanet.

You might be interested in a similar comparison of electrons to the net effect of galaxial zones/arms (about which we are still very much ignorant). Such a ratio of scale is suggested at the site: www.fractalcosmology.com

The matierial is presented layman-style (for the purposes of internet viewers), but seems to be an intriguing direction not incongruous with reason, and, due to our current level of empirical data, not incongruenous with reason.

The implications would stagger a mainstream academician. A ration of order of scale is postulated at 1/10^30; atomic nucleus to galaxy core; from the electron to galaxy; molecule to supercluster; etc.

An identical (forgive me, TVF) correlation [1/10^30] is mentioned elsewhere in these forums regarding the occurrence of interactions between gravitons and matter in our scale-reference.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

22 years 1 month ago #2878 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jeremy]: The Meta Model proposes that what we call different forces are due to particle motion in different media<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That is because gravitons have a minimu speed of 20 billion c and show no wave properties, whereas the light-carrying medium has a wave speed of c and mainly wave properties.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>...about the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. ... Suppose further that gravity was operating here and not electromagnetism. What would the gravitational constant Ge of our micro-world be?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You said "suppose gravity", then proceeded to throw out the gravitational constant and substitute in its place parameters used to derive the strength of the electrostatic force of the electron (its charge and classical radius). This then becomes a pure electrodynamics problem with no gravity mixed in.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Using Newton's gravitation we can show that Ge = (c^2 r)/m<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Again, the force operating is electrostatic, not gravitational. You have just derived the strength of the electrostatic force.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now suppose that we write a "newtonian" equation of electrostatic force as follows: F = Ge (m1 m2)/d^2<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Substituting the above equation into this one (with r = d and m = m2), we get F = m1 c^2 / d. This is essentially the formula from which the "classical radius of the electron" was derived. Real electrons have no detectable dimensions, and behave as point sources in all experiments.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you do this you will find that this equation will give you the EXACT same value of force between charges as the conventional electrostatic equation does.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because gravity is not involved, it had better be consistent in the way you describe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I do not think this a coincidence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Definitely not. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

AgoraBasta
Offline
Elite Member

22 years 1 month ago #3285 by AgoraBasta

Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Real electrons have no detectable dimensions, and behave as point sources in all experiments.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
That's not so. Check here [url] www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/970110.Koltick.electron.html [/url] - it's easy reading, and here [url] www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/QCDH/QCDH-1/qcdh-1-4.nisius.pdf [/url]- this is a slide presentation full of self-explanatory graphs from a very recent event. In fact, all the massive particles come with size, students are taught to consider diameters of leptons/quarks to be somewhere below 10^-18/10^-19m respectively.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

22 years 1 month ago #3168 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That's not so. Check here<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No electron has ever been observed tp display a diameter in collision experiments, which is one reason why electrons must still be treated as point particles in QM. Electrons simply do not collide, regardless of their number density.

The lack of collisions apparently must mean one of two things: (1) electrons are incredibly small; or (2) electrons are a wave phenomenon. (Like waves pass through one another without collision or interference.) The latter makes more sense to me, despite mainstream physics having chosen the former path.

The first link you listed does not mention any size or radius for the electron. It mentions "structure", the appearance of which can apply just as well to waves as to particles. I could not get the second link to load a viewable PDF document. It hangs after the title page. But I suspect it is of the same character, because the point-like character of the electron is pretty well established. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

AgoraBasta
Offline
Elite Member

22 years 1 month ago #2880 by AgoraBasta

Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
No electron has ever been observed tp display a diameter in collision experiments, which is one reason why electrons must still be treated as point particles in QM. Electrons simply do not collide, regardless of their number density.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
They use electron-positron collision instead.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The first link you listed does not mention any size or radius for the electron. It mentions "structure", the appearance of which can apply just as well to waves as to particles.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Structure means existence of size, since the parts of the structure are specifically spaced, hence the size. Developing your point of view, one quickly arrives at impossibility to attribute size even to the macroscopic objects, that's because the size is somewhat different in various mechanical interactions, even within the elasticity limits.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I could not get the second link to load a viewable PDF document. It hangs after the title page. But I suspect it is of the same character, because the point-like character of the electron is pretty well established.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
The "point-like character of the electron" used to be "pretty well established" till about 25 years ago.
Try the "save as" upon right-click on that second link, it's worth it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

22 years 1 month ago #3286 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[AB]: Structure means existence of size, since the parts of the structure are specifically spaced, hence the size. Developing your point of view, one quickly arrives at impossibility to attribute size even to the macroscopic objects<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Not so. Waves have structure too, and (unlike particles) they don't collide. As I read link #1 (which was pretty sketchy), I saw nothing that could not be a wave description, if one simply has that idea in mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Try the "save as" upon right-click on that second link, it's worth it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No go. Anything I do, including "save as", produces a hang after the title page. The "save as" appeared to be almost complete before it hung in the same way.

It's clearly a defective paper. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.509 seconds