What actually is 'charge'?

[peter2100]

I know how the word is used and the description of what happens but what is it actually? When something is positively or negatively charged what is it that makes it so? Does anyone even know? Why do they attract or repel? What is actually going on?

[saul]

I know how the word is used and the description of what happens but what is it actually? When something is positively or negatively charged what is it that makes it so? Does anyone even know? Why do they attract or repel? What is actually going on?

Great question! I heard that when asked this question Dirac said "It's a spin".

Charge is a divergence of electric field. Any space-time disturbance that can maintain such a divergence due to it's internal motions or energies, we call a charged particle. This answer is unsatisfactory to me but at least puts us on common ground to start a better answer. There are numerous analogies to help illustrate, usually involving fluid mechanics. Personally I like the hurricane analogy, a hurricane is like a charged particle, in that it is a relatively stable structure that maintains a non-zero divergence of a gradient of a scalar field.. air pressure. A charged particle maintains a non-zero divergence of the gradient of electric potential.

Cheers --

[Michael V]

saul,

Charge is not "electric", that is merely a human interpretation of a kinetic phenomena.

Charge is the quantum aether particle emissions of protons and electrons. - that is what it actually is. As such charge does not intrinsically possess the property of positive or negative - that is merely an effect of interaction.

Michael

[D_Archer]

This is very clear >
http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

charge is the summed mass of the sub-particles

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael V]

Daniel,

Off topic, but worthy of mention whilst I finish reading about Mathis charge:

[quote"Miles Mathis"]With gravity, we assign the term directly to the force. Gravity creates the force or is the force. Mathematically, gravity is an acceleration caused by the force.
g = F/m = N/kg [/quote]

This small quote reveals some of the Mathis nonsense: "Mathematically, gravity is an acceleration".

This is one of the many places that he has mislead himself. Gravity is in no way an acceleration. Gravity is the force, the effect of the force is an acceleration - this is the route of his implausible attempts to assign gravity as an acceleration - he tells you the right answer, and then twists it into the wrong answer for his own mathematical purposes - no wonder he refuses to assign gravity to the only possible mechanical solution.

Michael

[Shrike]

This small quote reveals some of the Mathis nonsense: "Mathematically, gravity is an acceleration".

This is one of the many places that he has mislead himself. Gravity is in no way an acceleration. Gravity is the force, the effect of the force is an acceleration - this is the route of his implausible attempts to assign gravity as an acceleration - he tells you the right answer, and then twists it into the wrong answer for his own mathematical purposes - no wonder he refuses to assign gravity to the only possible mechanical solution.

Michael

Im not arguing who's right or wrong but if i'm not mistaken is that almost every where gravity is expressed as an acceleration.
so why is his notion that gravity is acceleration so outlandish ??


--------------
edit: added the word almost.

[Michael V]

Shrike,

...if i'm not mistaken is that almost every where gravity is expressed as an acceleration.

You are mistaken. For example, g is "the acceleration due to gravity". Gravity is the force, the acceleration is due to the force. Miles' attempt to apply the acceleration as the gravity is a mathematical fudge.

Michael

[D_Archer]

Dear Michael V,

Mathis uses Einsteins equivalence principle to use gravity as an acceleration in his mathemathics. This way he can calculate in an Euclidean field.

Gravity is then only a function of radius and an acceleration out, nothing wrong with this conceptually.

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael V]

Daniel,

Einstein equivalence principle is also incorrect.

Gravity is then only a function of radius and an acceleration out

No it is not. Physically this is utterly untrue. It may suffice as a mathematical convenience, but surely that is not the object of the endeavour. A method that puts the maths before the physics will also avoid both the process and any understanding of that physical process - I would argue that this a conceptual error.

Michael

[Michael V]

Daniel, peter2100,

To a some extent Miles is correct, at least in so much as he realises that "charge" is the emission of sub-particles from electrons and protons. Unfortunately, his logic is flawed in so many places that he ends with a misleading construction. Because his gravity model, his photon and particle model, are all incorrect he has mislead himself wildly.

Wouldn’t it have been more logical to explain the electrical field in the same general terms as the gravitational field?

... The reason, of course, is that the electrical force is caused by a large number of sub-particles and (according to my theory) the gravitational force is not.

Somewhat of a contradiction.


He analyzes the Coulomb-Ampere relationship, but ignores the definition of charge. Charge is defined as e, the fundamental unit of charge which is equivalent to 1.6x10-19 Joules. Charge has actually been defined as energy (because energy is a definition of work). Yes, charge is measured as a property of the sub-particles that are the charge, but it is not mass, it is energy. At a velocity of c and via E=1/2mv2, 1.602...x10-19 Joules represents a mass of 3.565x10-36 kg per second.

This mass of "charge" is linked to electron and proton mass, and to electron radius, to the mass of a quantum via h and ultimately to alpha, the fine structure constant, which is the density of the electromagnetic quantum aether field.

The electron orbit of a hydrogen atom (i.e. the Bohr radius, a0) can be defined as:

a0 = h / 2π me c α

(where h is Planck's constant, me is electron mass, c is the speed of light, α is alpha, the fine structure constant)

also, a0 = re / α2

(where re is electron radius)

so the orbital distance is 2πa0, which equals 2πre / α2

At a circular orbital period of

α2 / π seconds and a orbital distance of 2πre / α2, then the number of orbits per second is π / α2

The "disc" area of an electron is πre2

so the volume described by an electron orbiting at π / α2 orbits per second is 2π3re3 / α4 = 4.89x10-34 m3

h = 6.626x10-34 J which at c represents a mass of 1.47x10-50 kg, the mass of a quantum aether particle.

A charge mass per second of 3.565x10-36 kg equates to 2.42x1014 quantums per second

The the number of quantum particles emitted as charge by an electron per second divided by the volume of space occupied by an orbiting electron per second is:

2.42x1014 / 4.89x10-34 m3 = 4.94x1047 quantum particles per cubic metre

Particle density x Particle mass = 4.94x1047 x 1.47x10-50 = 0.00729

Alpha (α), the electromagnetic fine structure constant is 0.0072973525376

α is the electromagnetic quantum aether field density, e is the kinetic energy of the quantum aether charge emitted by an electron.

The relationship between electromagnetic quantum aether field density, electron size and charge emitted per second is quite clear.

Michael

[Michael V]

I forgot to mention:

Also, a circular orbital period of α2 / π seconds, together with the masses of a single electron and a single proton, via the circular orbit equation, give a gravitational factor of 1.216x107. This defines the gravitational interaction between a single electron orbiting a single proton.
Furthermore the density of a proton divided by the density of an electron is rp/re / α2

(where rp is the radius of a proton and re is the radius of an electron)

The gravitational relationship between the single electron and proton is defined with a gravitational factor of 1.216x107, and not by coincidence:

1.216x107 x α2 / electron density = 1.216x107 x rp/re / proton density = 6.66x10-11

The presently given value for G0, the Newtonian gravitational "constant" is 6.67x10-11; I would suggest that it is not constant but depends entirely on the density of the masses involved.

Michael

[iantresman]

Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charged. Usually substances have equal numbers of both, so that the overall charge cancels, and a substance has no net charge.

But if we rub some substances, such as a balloon against a nylon sweater, we are able to remove some of the electrons, resulting the balloon acquiring a net positive charge, and the balloon is said to be charged. Of course the removed electrons are transferred to the sweater, and it becomes negatively charged.

I can also recommend Bill Beaty's webpage What is Charge, on his excellent websiter about electicity.

[Sparky]

What actually is 'charge'?

That's what I'd like to know....

What gives the electron an apparent charge of something negative?

What mechanical operation does that?

[GaryN]

When I first saw this, It got me wondering about a really large glider for a Mars mission, swooping around in the ionosphere somehow, for years maybe, taking some real closeups. Could it work?

He does mention at the end of the page about objects charging to the wrong polarity sometimes, and sometimes having patches of differing polarity on the same object. Strange stuff.
http://sparkbangbuzz.com/static-flyers/ ... flyers.htm

[Michael V]

Gary,

That balloon thing is only a bit of magnetism. That stuff about "we are able to remove some of the electrons, resulting the balloon acquiring a net positive charge" is not true, and those Bill Beaty webpages are awful - they only serve to support the Standard Model by ridiculing the possibility of alternative solutions. I am offended by such material.

"Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charged."

Not true - this is electromagnetic theory's flat earth (well, one of them at least).

Michael