Hello John:

The C is Coulombs. Think about the 2 force equations. Coulombs force law is:

F = q q'/R²

Newton's law is:

F = -(G^1/2 m) (G^1/2 m')/R²

written in this odd way to make the point.

doug

Ah, as I read this, you postulate an electric charge for any charged particle which is related to the mass of the particle, in addition to its inherent charge. (And the 'mass charge' is very small.)

Would this idea work better if the 'mass charge' was quantized?

Hello John:

I am not free to choose if mass charge is quantized. We have observations, and history. We have the observation of the inertial mass of a proton. We have an observation of the electric charge of a proton. We have the history of what units were used for both of those. They could have been the same, but that is not the way the history of physics went. There are some measurable things where the units can never be made the same: a length will never have the same units as an area (it is this kind of simple logic that I use to reject all work on strings). It is not really a postulate that mass charge and electric charge can have the same units - you can check it out yourself and confirm it to be true. It is not conventional, but doable.

My speculation is that there is some sort of pattern to the masses, but I am not in the hunt to find it.

doug

Mass is not quantized, therefore 'mass charge' is not quantized?

Hello John:

The way we use the word "quantized" today, is that something not only comes in a specific amount, but that amount is a simple integer (or rational number) away from another: the electron is -1 times the fundamental electric charge.

Mass charge does not have this property. When I look at an electron, I have no trouble seeing it as "generally quantized" because it always comes in the same size clump, 511 MeV, or equivalently 7.440 x 10^-36C. An electron never has a little more or a little less than 7.440 x 10^-36C of mass charge. So in isolation, that is just like quantization of electric charge.

The difference is the relationship between different particles. For electric charge, they all use a few positive and negative integers. For mass charge, we do not see the pattern now. It is just a belief, but I think there has to be an entirely mathematical explanation of pattern. I would say that mass is quantized as we know it today using a broader sense of the word "quantized" that in currently in vogue.

When people claim that mass is not quantized, then are imposing the electric charge model on mass. Nature may be telling us a different story.

doug

Hello:

I thought I would provide the readers of this thread something simple and logically solid, to carry around after this thread closes down and the details of the calculations have been lost.

Newton's theory of gravity remains the most practical approach to doing calculations. It is a rank 0 field theory, depending only on the potential. Rocket scientists prefer Newton to GR when it comes to doing their calculations, unless the rocket carries atomic clocks or is part of an ultra sensitive measurement. The instantaneous nature of Newton's law can be picked out by the super-fastidious.

One can derive the field equations of GR by making Newton's scalar field equation and making sure it respects the speed of light c limit. The result is a rank 2 field equation. So far, Einstein's proposal has survived all tests thrown at it. There have been many variations tried - probably more by Einstein himself than anyone else - but none of those proposals has knocked the king off the mountain.

GR fixed one small problem of the day, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, an effect an order of magnitude smaller than Jupiter's contribution to the perihelion shift.

Today, the problems with large gravitational systems are huge. If a system is large, we do not understand at this time how it works: the classic big bang, the rotation profile of galaxies, the dispersion of galactic clusters, the acceleration of the Universe. For each of these problems, there is an area of study with folks trying to get things to work by using a "no see 'em"'s. On a camping trip in my youth, a squadron of little unseen flies nearly ended a canoe trip they had dined on me so well. Because of the welts, it was easy to believe in the bugs I never saw. In a similar way, much of the physics community accepts dark matter, dark energy, and Higgs flying in on a plane from no where to do big work. These good physicists do so because they see no other possibility. These are desperate times, and it would be the grandest sign of desperation to work with an idea announced here on the ATM board.

We need to march with confidence. These are our two rocks of knowledge about gravity: Newton's rank 0 scalar theory and Einstein's rank 2 tensor theory. Therefore there must be a reasonable rank 1 field theory for gravity between them, or my name is not Goldielocks. In my survey of the literature, no one has started from the "obvious" action needed for a spin 2 particle for an attractive force that is gravity.

Why not? Unless every duck is line up, well, the boys come at you with bats. Theoretical physics is a contact sport. That is not true: the boys are too busy with their own stuff to notice. I don't care about this social stuff, just the technical issues. If anyone finds a weakness, I want to know. Send me email to sweetser@alum.mit.edu. Should I become convinced that there is a technical error, I'll start a thread here and write it out. I'll do the same on my web site and on sci.physics.research. There would be no sense in getting people to fall down the same way.

I've thought seriously about Goldielocks. She broke into the bears home, ate their food, destroyed furniture, and then slept it off in the sanctity of their bedroom chamber. Why the bears did not maul Goldielocks is beyond me (it would have made a different story). The GEM proposal breaks all kind of work on the library shelves, like everything written about singular solutions to what would be the no-longer-relevent Einstein field equations. There will be a few upset bears out there.

The true value of GEM will shine someday, but I will not wager on the time.

doug

A neutral electromagnetic wave may be transformed into a charged particle-antiparticle.
How is it made in GEM ?
czeslaw

Hello czeslaw:

I don't know that it can. A neutral mass charge means one thing: a vacuum. The lowest form of wave that can be made with isolated mass charges is a quadrapule wave.

doug

A photon is an electromagnetic wave. I have read a photon of the energy may create a matter-antimatter pair. It isn't true, I think.
I think, it is not made of the photon (an electromagnetic wave).
It is made just by a separation of the charge in a neutral vacuum and a surplus of (-) and (+) is created.
It is possible to do at relativistic collision (CERN, Fermilab, Earth atmosphere).
A vacuum is in state like a double layer close to charged particle and very dense (Casimir, van der Waals). It is easy to separate a charged pair from a neutral virtual plasma of the vacuum.

Is there a matter-antimatter creation process in GEM ?

I'll buy that. I like your summary, also.

Thanks, John M.

Hello czeslaw:

It is true that if you have a pair of high energy gamma rays, they can create an electron positron pair. That has been observed. So has the reverse: an electron and a positron colliding, leaving only a pair of gamma rays. There is no reasons why these cannot happen in the GEM proposal as far as I can see, although there are many canculations I have not done.

doug