Re: Gravitational vs. Electromagnetic forces

On Jun 3, 6:14 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:33 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 3, 4:17 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
You completely misconstured the argument. Read my reply to Tom

OK He is raising the same issue:

Tom: "At base, one need not imagine that an
electron consists of two components, one with
mass and one with charge. In the standard model all
bare constituents have both (some have value zero),
plus additional properties like spin, color, hypercharge, etc.
But even if one did imagine a separation of charge
from mass, they need be bound only strong
enough to withstand the energy density at which
pairs are produced out of the vacuum."

I couldn't see how your response addressed it.
His version is formalised, mine more illustrative.
If you can 'channel' what the concern is and
elaborate in either form I'll read it in the the
subthread Tom started because I think he
raised other issues.

I wasn't trying to cut you short but the remainder
of your narrative seems to hinge on that assumption.
You may want to rethink the whole thing if
the "gravitational mass of an electron" is seen
in a different light.

Sue...

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,340 for "gravitational mass of an
electron" .
Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for "electron gravitational mass" .
©2007 Google

Like I said, read the reply to Tom. Both of you missed the crux of
the matter. No pun intended. I was simply pointing out a logical
error in classical thought, that error being in turn the only basis
for separating gravitation from electromagnetism on the fundamental
level. Regardless of the empircal validity of any formalism, there is
no physcal model presented by that formalism that can account for
possesion of all of these caracteristics of an electron, which is
experimentally nothing but a field, a "single" field.

OK... I think I remarked elsewhere that Einstein boxed himself in
treating too many things as point particles. The result of the this
is gravity force has to be treated as fundamental. If it isn't, there
are no spatial functions to derive complex fields like Maxwell's and
no unit events to model statistically.

Then we've come to an imapasse, because I don't subscribe to that
notion whatsoever. In fact, what I'm proposing is specifically the
fact that the metric is not a function of mass, but of charge. In fact
if you'll look back over what I've said so far you'll see that I
define the charge of the electron as precisely that, i.e. the field
surrounding the particle., which is in turn just the space around the
particle, is it not. The electromagnetic field, as opposed to the
actual field that exists in this space, is just a mathematical
tabulation of the effect on some other electron moving through that
region. We summarize that field as simply e (the electric charge), but
along with this e we associate a very defnite field of force, and so
the two (e and Efield) are precisely the same entity. Although I don't
especially subscribe to that sort of field either. The field is not
specifically an E field, it is an electromagnetic field, niether E nor
B. It's the field that upon integration over all particle pairs yeilds
the macroscopic effects that we call the E and B fields.

Actully I think we may be agreement. Where you say
"charge" I am expecting "charge pair" (e+ e-) which has
the necessary bells and whistles to form an induction coupling.
I alluded to that fine point elsewhere. Perhaps too subtily.



Tom's response apportioning
mass and electrical charge from the standard model may sound
awkward but that is exactly what you'd expect expressing
something fundamental in terms of the more complex things
it comprises. So if that is the classical progression of thought
I would agree it is certainly appears inside-out. But we can process
sums and differences with two quantities in ways that perserve
their values so I wouldn't call it an error unless the wrong numbers
fall out of it. It would be an impediment to clarity, for sure.

Then you've just signalled your ok to continue with those same
obfuscations, and retain the current view that gravity can never be
found to have an electromagnetic solution. That the current formalism
works isn't the issue, that it is a physically incorrect model is.

It is a moot point if gravity has an *electrodynamic* solution.
The standard model was formulated with photons which
assumes the Lorenz gauge. The anomalous London moment
and Cooper pair mass anomaly suggests the standard model
is in error anyway. I don't expect that problem to be addressed
untill GP-B gets its two cents in so I'll do what I've always done
...disregard it. >:-)

Sue...

[...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The standard model was incorrect long before any anomolies showed up.
Photons shmotons, what the heck is a photon anyway? :)

BTW, don't expect any of the currently accepted theories to ever be
abandoned. They have way too much momentum at this point in time. Any
anomoly that has ever been observed has without exception been
explained by yet some other exotic particle, one with precisely the
properties required to account for it. Another experiment is then
conducted, exhibiting the same or a related anomoly, and the
observance of such is regarded as proof of the existence of that
particle, whether it be a gluon, or a charmed quark. By now the
particle alphabet is sufficiently large to allow description of most
anything, that is, exept for its own existence, which is by the
historical record the result of pure imaginitive speculation.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
    ... >> Yes you should have an angular dependence AND there should be no charge ... source is monopolar cf charge field from an electron assuming that the ... propagation and when they separate the also become charged and have mass. ... So a neutron and an antineutron will annihilate on ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO
    ... and electron, so the charges neutralize each other. ... Neutrons DECAY into a proton and ... mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay. ... We also have charge parity as the neutrino has no charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New Explanation of Hydrogens Fine Structure
    ... included the effects of the central charge produces a pathetically small ... given the small charge of the proton. ... bind an electron. ... it's the square of a charge to mass ratio made out of these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time
    ... Then we'll be able to figure out the "mass" of a magnetic monopole ... just as an electron has a charge of 1 electronvolt. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: CODATAs Value for Hydrogens Rydberg Constant R_H
    ... If an electron has mass, to me it is absolutely real ... An electron has no charge in isolation. ... definite position at the instant of measurement, because if it didn't, then ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast