Charge Explained

[Farsight]

CHARGE EXPLAINED

 

Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it.

 

 

Let’s start with the easy stuff. We know that we can rub a balloon to create an electric field. It can pick up a piece of paper or make your hair stand up. We’ve all seen and felt a spark of static, blue and crackling as electricity tears the air. We know that high voltage is called high tension, and tension is negative stress and stress is pressure. So we’re happy with the fluid analogy where a current flows from the negative to the positive terminals of a battery. It doesn’t much matter that they got electricity backwards. We measure this rate of flow in terms of amperage, and multiply by time to get charge, and multiply again by voltage to get energy. We work out that the amount of charge in a battery is all about the number of electrons available to flow, and we know that our charged-up balloon has a surplus of them above and beyond its protons.

 

So, how much charge is in a flat battery? None, I hear you say. Wrong. It’s chock full of charge. It’s full of positive charge and negative charge. That’s why it’s got mass. That’s why it’s a material object. If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation, and you and I would be looking like something out of Mars Attacks!

 

 

 

LOL. But let’s keep it simple and stick to electrons. What is it about these electrons that keeps our laptops humming? What is this thing called “charge” that causes motion? The answer is trivial once you know how to see it. Go to the kitchen, get a glass, then pour a glass of water and hold it up to the window pronto. You will see bubbles swirling and silvery, pop pop, popping. They aren’t actually silver of course, they just look that way because they distort the light. Now go to the cutlery drawer and pull out a spoon. It’s silvery. Metals look that way because they are awash with electrons. When you look at a spoon you are seeing those electrons, or more properly, their charge. It’s reflective, silvery. Charge looks like this for the same reason as those bubbles. It’s like a highway mirage on a hot sunny day. You see what looks like water on the road far ahead, but it’s merely the light from the sky bent towards your eye. You are seeing distortion, and it’s silvery like a bubble because it bends light.

 

 

Charge is distortion too. Charge is “curl”. Charge is twist. If it wasn’t there, your electrons would be gamma photons of 511KeV apiece. To show you how it works, I need you to play with plates. Take two dinner plates, one in each hand. Find a swimming pool or a pond, preferably on a sunny windless day. Dip one of the plates halfway into the water. Now stroke it gently forward in a paddling motion whilst lifting it clear. Notice that you create a “U-tube” double whirlpool that moves slowly forward through the water.

 

 

This is a Falaco Soliton. If your pool is big enough, the double whirlpool will settle down into two dimples on the surface of the water, visible as two black-spot shadows on the bottom. They are very stable, and can persist for maybe an hour. But you don’t need to wait for that. Create one double whirlpool with one dinner plate, then step to one side and create another one with the other dinner plate. You’ll need a little practice, but after a while you’ll have the knack of it, and you’ll be able to create two double whirlpools with ease. Aim them at each other. Notice what happens. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move together. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools move apart. What you are seeing is attraction and repulsion.

 

Now aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on. This is best in a shallow pond with a muddy bottom. The two double whirlpools meet and merge and are gone with a surprisingly energetic puff of muddy water. You’ve just seen annihilation.

 

It’s another fluid analogy. But the vacuum of space is not a fluid like water. It doesn’t flow. It’s more like an elastic solid, but one with no solidity at all. Let’s recap a little. I explained energy in terms of stress. Stress is force per unit area, and energy is force times distance, so energy is stress times volume. I talked about a photon as a stress travelling through space like a transverse wave propagating through a block of ghostly rubber. I explained mass by talking about pair production, where a massless gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron.

 

 

Both the electron and the positron can be viewed as a photon configured as a moebius doughnut, twisting and turning to stay in place. It takes two turns round a moebius to get back to where you started, hence the spin ½. The difference is that one twists and turns one way, and the other twists and turns the other way. They are mirror images of opposite chirality, primitive 3D knots tied different ways. Do note though that there are no surfaces involved. An electron has no surface, just like a photon has no surface, just as an ocean wave has no surface, because it’s the ocean that does. And space does not. The electron isn’t some little particle that’s “got” charge extending out into space. Instead charge is one of the things the electron is.

 

 

The electron and positron will attract one another like the Falaco solitons, and if they meet it’s like pushing two opposite twists of fishing line together. Twang. The electron and the positron annihilate, and become gamma photons flying off in opposite directions like that puff of muddy water.

 

 

Energy is fundamental. You cannot create energy, and you cannot destroy it. But you can create charge just as you can create mass, via pair production. And you can destroy charge just as you can destroy mass, via annihilation. Because charge is the twist that you need to apply to a travelling stress to keep it twisting and turning in one location to re-present momentum as inertia. And because there’s nothing solid to brace against in our pure marble geometric world where stable particles are knots, the only way to make a twist is to make an untwist at the same time. That’s why charge is always conserved. Yes, you can make a mass without any charge, but that’s only because one twist is masked by another, as in a neutron. A neutron is pinned down stable in a nucleus, but let it escape that nucleus and it comes apart.

 

 

This twist is what charge is. It’s a twist in the thing you call space, stretching out into space. You could call an electric field a “twist field”.

 

Let’s see how it affects an electron. Remember, an electron is a photon travelling in a twisting turn, a moebius doughnut. Drop it into a cube of space so it looks like this: ◙. If we take a side view of our photon at one instant in time it looks like a vertical slice of the moebius doughnut, like this: o. Now twist the cube from top to bottom. What happens to the o? It tilts. Its orientation has changed. It’s now angled downwards. So the electron digs down through the electric field like a drill bit.

 

Note that that the electric field isn’t just a twist in one dimension, it’s actually in three dimensions. Your electron digs down like a drill bit from any direction. But it’s very difficult to think in three dimensions. Our primary input is visual, and whilst binocular vision permits depth perception, we tend to think in two dimensions. That’s why getting the feel for something is what intuition and grasp are all about. It gives us a better, three-dimensional concept. To illustrate this, get a block of plasticine or maybe the wax from Babybel cheese, and make a cube. Now try twisting it in three dimensions. Two twists is easy: twist, turn, twist. But doing the third one is surprisingly difficult. In the end you have to just do it by feel: twist turn, twist turn, twist. You end up with something like this:

 

 

The easiest way to get your head round all this geometry is to imagine that the twisted cube is a twisted block of water, and we’ve got to swim through it. I’m really good at swimming underwater, I do it like the Man from Atlantis, undulating my whole body. Spladoosh, in we go. As you’re swimming behind me you find that all the twisting and turning means you’ve got to swim further than you thought, and you come out of the other side gasping for air. But you will now understand refraction. Light travels slower through a glass block because it’s got to make its way through all that twisting and turning in all directions, be it positive or negative.

 

Talking of turning, let’s talk about magnetism. Imagine that you’re flying through space, but the space ahead of you is twisted like a catherine wheel because of the electric field. It will make you turn. We now use Relativity to work out that if you aren’t travelling through space but you find yourself turning, then the twist must be travelling through you. That’s what happens when a current flows through a wire. Imagine the current is flowing down a wire from your eyes into the screen, and introduces an anticlockwise twist. I do mean anticlockwise because I’m talking about a flow from – to +.

 

.. ←

↓ ¤ ↑ o

.. →

 

Ignore the little dots, they're just spacers because this website compresses the spaces. The nearby electron o is basically a circling photon. This comes full circle in the twisting space before it has gone round 360 degrees. So it ends up at a different place, and describes a cycloid motion. So it follows the twist and goes round the wire like it’s in a washing machine, like swarf going round a drill bit.

 

It really is that simple. It’s so simple that it’s amazing that people puzzle at the mystery of it. I guess it’s because people like a good mystery. The electric field is effectively a “twist field”, and if you move through it you perceive a magnetic field, which is effectively a “turn field”. It’s so obvious once you see it. And you can see it. You can see how a magnetic field changes the polarization plane of a beam of light via the Faraday effect.

 

 

That’s the utter simplicity of electromagnetism: twist and turn. It tells you a battery is like a wind-up clockwork spring, only the twist is in space rather than steel. The electric twist extends forward with the flowing current, and it makes things turn like a pump-action screwdriver. That’s the principle of the electric motor. But you can turn a screw with an ordinary screwdriver too, extending the twist forward. That’s the principle of the dynamo.

 

Most materials aren’t magnetic because all this twisting and turning is symmetrical in all directions, even for your charged-up balloon. It’s what you call isotropic. When it isn’t, that’s when you get a magnet. Fly through an electric field or past a stationary electron and you “see” more twist in the direction of travel, so you “see” a magnetic field that makes you turn. Move an electron towards you and you get the same effect. All you need to do to make an actual magnet is arrange the atoms so that the electrons jitter round in the same orientation.

 

.. ←

↓ .. ↑

.. → o

 

The electron is moving in a circular fashion, so its component photon doesn’t need to complete a full 360 degrees to turn around. This is why a day is less than one full rotation of the earth. So there’s a component of the “turn” left over, and you end up with a magnetic field similar to what you’d see if you flew past a stationary electron. It’s rather like the inverse of the current in the wire situation, but with no current and no wire.

 

Whilst I describe a magnetic field is a “turn field”, you have to remember that space is like an elastic solid. The electric field is the “twisted space”, and the magnetic field is only your relativistic view when you move through it, or it moves through you. There are no actual regions of space that are turning round like roller bearings or wheels. That’s why you can’t have magnetic monopoles. But you can have superconductors. High temperature superconductors consist of copper oxide planes. The atoms present an array of opposite magnetic fields rather like a conveyor belt, allowing electrons to zip through effortlessly like they’re not moving at all.

 

.. ←

↓ ¤ ↑

.. →

 

o→

 

.. →

↑ ¤ ↓

.. ←

 

It is of course a little more complicated than that. Wheels need bearings and axles. Here’s some pictures of a high-temperature superconductor called yttrium barium copper oxide, or YBCO for short. The chemical formula is YBa2Cu3O7 and it’s a crystal so you get repeating groups. Look at the third picture. In simple terms the “wheels” are where the green pyramids are.

 

 

Low temperature superconductors aren’t quite the same. You have to think Barn Dance, where you’re an electron with a “Cooper Pair” dance partner making your own magnetic fields as you go. When everybody’s cool, the dance line is tidy and you swing easily from one end to the other. But when it’s hot and late and everybody’s bumping around pissed, you spill somebody’s beer, lose your partner to a “Phase Slip”, and get into a fight. Yeehah. In both cases the superconductor is diamagnetic. It doesn’t want to be magnetised because of the Meissner Effect where internal opposite magnetic fields scramble an applied magnetic field so it doesn’t get into the material. All interesting stuff.

 

But not as interesting as the electron itself. Here’s the secret: cut a strip of paper, maybe an inch wide and ten inches long. Draw a very flattened X across the length of it, to represent the sinusoidal electric and magnetic fields over half a photon wavelength. That’s the slanted curvy twisted χ to the right of the M in the middle of this picture.

 

 

Mark the top left hand corner of your strip with an E, and the bottom left corner with an M. Mark the top right hand corner with an M and the bottom right corner with an E. This kind of thing:

 

E .......... M

..... X....

M ......... E

 

Turn the paper over and repeat. Now loop it around and twist it to make a moebius strip. You see the E adjoining the M and the M adjoining the E. That’s the nub of it, why the electron is a stable soliton. The electric field is the magnetic field and vice versa. The twist is the turn and the turn is the twist. It’s because of Relativistic abberation. Travel really fast and a horizontal line like this — looks skewed like this /. Travel at c like a photon and your horizontals look totally vertical. Change course fast and your change of course is skewed too, so you change course more than you meant to. And you do it fast so you change course even more. The details of this were worked out by Llewellyn Thomas in 1927, and is called Thomas Precession. Knock a photon just right to change its course, and it keeps on changing course because its velocity vector precesses π/2 times per revolution. The photon “thinks” its travelling in a straight line but its travelling like this: ∞. It’s all twisted, and it turns. It’s curly.

 

The twist and the turn are just two sides of the same thing. That’s how it always is. That’s why we have electromagnetism and the electromagnetic field. A magnetic field is the same thing as an electric field, it just depends how you’re looking at it. It depends on whether you’re moving through it or it’s moving through you, or not. That’s Relativity for you. Once you learn how to see things the way they are, things get a whole lot simpler. An electron is what it is because it’s “got” charge, and charge is twist.

 

The really really interesting thing about all this is that if charge isn’t fundamental, we can’t quite say that the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic force. They got it back to front, like everything else to do with electricity, and it does matter. It matters a lot.

[Farsight]

Hi guys. I'm also known as Farsight on other forums. Here's another "explained" essay. If anybody could give me any feedback to this I'd be grateful, particularly re the HTS and the Thomas Precession. I'll still be grateful even if you point out some catastrophic or indeed fatal error. Soory, I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow.

[freeztar]

I enjoyed reading it Popular, but I found it lacking in sources. If you can add references, in the form of links or written text, then your point will come across better.

 

Comments such as:

This is why a day is less than one full rotation of the earth.

 

detract from the subject. A "day" is arbitrary, defined by one rotation (approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds).

[Tormod]

A good explanation of why a day is shorter than 24 hours is found here:

 

Sidereal day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freeztar]

Thanks Tormod, that elucidates his point.

I was thinking of "day" in conventional terms (solar day).

[snoopy]

Hi Popular,

 

Yeah colourfully done as always I always seem to enjoy reading your posts if only to see the pictures in your demonstrations. :)

 

As far as I see it electric charge is fundamental because it is gauge invariant and it is the generator of U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The interaction

of a moving charge and an electromagnetic field is the source of the electromagnetic force which is one of the four fundamental forces.

 

How do you reconcile this situation ?

 

Do you consider that the electromagnetic force isnt fundamental for instance ?

 

Also if charge is a twist in spacetime how do you explain its gauge invariance ? Also how do you explain how it generates U(1) symmetery in electromagnetism ?

 

If charge is this twisty turny thing you mention wouldn't you expect it to exhibit helical symmetry and if so what type of helical symmetry does charge have ?

 

Also further questions arise from that like wouldn't this forbid an assymptomatically flat spacetime ?

 

 

Anyway your post is weird, entertaining and full of colourful ideas.

 

Just can't help thinking it poses more questions than it solves is all.

 

Cheers

:)

[CraigD]

Nicely laid out as always, Popular, and your friendly, informal writing style seems in top form. I’m concerned, however, that while very readability, the writing has strayed into serious inaccuracy.

 

Here’s a partial list of examples of what I mean, in the order they appear in post #1:

• ”We know that high voltage is called high tension” – An incorrect but understandable confusion. High tension electric power lines are called “high tension” because the wires are under a fairly high mechanical tension, allowing them to be supported by fewer towers than “low tension” lines – the sort you see strung between wood poles in older neighborhoods. Coincidentally, high tension lines are usually higher voltage (100,000+ V) than low tension ones (typically 240 to 700 V) , because higher voltage allows a greater total power (voltage [math]\times[/math] current) to be carried by the same mass of wire of the same resistance, and because the customer at the end of the line usually expects 240 V or so.
  
• ”It’s full of positive charge and negative charge. That’s why it’s got mass. That’s why it’s a material object.” - Colorful, but not entirely true. Although most all but one family of the “matter particles” (fermions), have both mass and charge, charge doesn’t cause mass – it’s just commonly found in particles that have it. If charge was necessary to have mass, neutrinos wouldn’t have mass, as theory predicts and experiments have confirmed (though not much, and not yet precisely measured).
   
  Worse for Popular’s description, according to current best theory, most of the mass in ordinary objects is not due to particles with charge (quarks and electrons, for the most part), or to a “matter particles” (fermions) at all, but due to the gluons (a kind of boson) that confine them. It’s more accurate to say “it’s full of strong atomic force – that’s why it has mass” than “it’s full of charge – that’s why it has mass”.
  
• ”If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation” - The image evoked is almost too cool to criticize, but alas, the claim’s not true. If, though some inexplicable alteration of the fundamental nature of reality, charge ceased to exist, the most likely parallel for what things would look like is that it would be like the opaque plasma the Big Bang theory postdicts the universe was like during the “photon epoch” lasting from about 3 seconds to 380,000 years ABB – a big, nearly homogenous, glowing thing.
  
• ”When you look at a spoon you are seeing those electrons, or more properly, their charge” - As actually “seeing” electrons, in the sense of being able to optically resolve the arc occupied by individual atoms, is impossible, it’s understood that such talk must be very metaphorical. “Seeing their charge”, however, makes no sense to me. That electrons must have charge to interact in the way they do to produce absorb and emit the photons they do, causing me to see what I do, is clear. However, “seeing charge” implies you’d be able to see electricity, static charge, or distinguish mater from antimatter, in which all the charges are their exact opposites. In theory and in practice, you can’t.
  
• ”I explained mass by talking about pair production, where a massless gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron.”…”The electron and the positron annihilate, and become gamma photons flying off in opposite directions like that puff of muddy water.” - A minor detail, perhaps, but, unless the electron and positron from a pair production event have some fairly high-energy interactions prior to annihilating with one another, the result will be a single photon of the same energy as the original one.
  
• ”Energy is fundamental. You cannot create energy, and you cannot destroy it. But you can create charge just as you can create mass, via pair production.” - Worded this way, this is self-contradicting. Mass-energy is (pretty much) fundamental – can’t be created or destroyed. However, if you say you can create mass via pair production, you’re necessarily destroying energy, and when antiparticles annihilate, destroying matter, energy is created.
  

As Popular and most of the people I expect are following this thread are knowledgeable and competent at researching technical terms, and as I’ve not stated anything unconventional, I’ve take the liberty of not provided any links to terms used above. Please let me know if any of the above is unclear.

[DryLab]

Hi GragD

The post by Popular is very interesting and is at odds with QM as you explain. But this is a departure from QM theory. It doesn't seem fair to say your theory is wrong because it doesn't agree with my theory :)

[DryLab]

Hi guys. I'm also known as Farsight on other forums.

Hi Popular; I followed you here from other forums. There are some details about your concept that I want to understand better. I'll get into details as we progress.

[CraigD]

Hi GragD

The post by Popular is very interesting and is at odds with QM as you explain. But this is a departure from QM theory. It doesn't seem fair to say your theory is wrong because it doesn't agree with my theory :)

Because the terms and concepts presented in post #1 are from it, I didn’t get the impression that Popular was attempting to present an alternative to the Standard Model of particle physics, but rather to an explanation and interpretation of it. Thus, when I referred to something in post #1 as “incorrect”, I meant “incorrect according to the Standard Model”.

 

Have I misunderstood you, Popular?

[DryLab]

I meant “incorrect according to the Standard Model”.

Hi CragD

I think with the torroid construct of an electron Popular is building an Electromagnetic theory for particles. That's why I followed him here. I'm trying to find out if that 200 year old concept of an electromagnetic only universe is possible.

In Einstein's words:

The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

That old idea lost standing with the advent of QM theory; but old die-hard farts like me still cling to the old concept. After all it does neatly explain relativity phenomena.

[Farsight]

I enjoyed reading it Popular, but I found it lacking in sources. If you can add references, in the form of links or written text, then your point will come across better.

 

Noted Freeztar. I was rather thinking I’d worked this on out on my own. Try googling for "What is Charge?" and you don't get much. The only thing that (I thought) gave me a clue when I was puzzling it over, was something on a Science Hobbyist website by William J Beaty, an electrical engineer at the University of Washington in 1996. See SCIENCE HOBBYIST: What is Charge?. What stuck in my mind was that charge is silvery. That seemed to be enough, because I had a head start - I understood mass. Then looking for solitons I came across The Falaco Soliton: cosmic strings in a swimming pool by R M Kein dated January 2001. See the original on http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0101/0101098.pdf. I tried it out in my pond in the back garden, and chewed it all over in my mind, then nailed it in a sitting. But whilst I thought I’d worked it out all by myself, when I check back, I realise I didn’t. I’ve just found a physorg forum post from "Good Elf" dated October 9th 2006, and he says: “I think charge is not fundamental. It is partially expressed in this reference Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark”. That predates my essay on mass, and I was realise there's less original thought and more "synthesis" here than I thought. When I dig around I find I've read Robert E Galloway’s Refracting Saddle Wave Model of Stable Fundamental Particles. And D T Froedge’s The Concept of mass as Interfering Photons. And Norman Albers and Gravitation and Vacuum Polarization. There’s Christoph Stiller and Does Matter Differ from Vacuum? There’s David Lush and Harold Aspden and many others. I need to write all this up properly and give thanks and acknowledgement and credit where it's due.

 

Sorry, I've got to go again. The sun is shining and we're off to the beach. I'll respond properly later or tomorrow (we've got guests tonight). Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it. Craig, I'm not saying the standard model is "wrong", just that there are adjustments and revised interpretations that can be made. Must go.

[snoopy]

To CraigD,

 

Yeah I kinda ignored the bits of Popular's post that you mentioned such as the bit about silver spoons being 'silvery' due to charge. When its obviously more to do with how the light reflects off its surface and how our eyes interpret that particular wavelength.

 

I viewed Popular's post of a thing, kind of akin to Roger Penrose's Twistor theory in which he was trying build a new physics based solely on geometry. Using 'complex geometry' (Holomorphic) in the case of Twistor theory.Even under Twistor theory however charge is considered fundamental.

 

Twistor Theory is obviously more developed than Popular's post but I was willing to give him some leeway in his ideas.

 

But I do obviously agree with the points you have made .

 

To DryLab

The quote from Einstein

"The final irreducible constituent of physical reality is the electromagnetic field"

 

This quote was probably made form Einstein before the discovery of the weak and strong nuclear forces which I cannot see how they can be reduced to electromagnetic fields. I have never heard this quote from Einstein before but I am willing to believe he made it, as it does sound like something he might have said I am however at a loss to explain how 'gravity' reduces to electromagnetic fields as well. But I am guessing it was some sort of UFT he was thinking about whereby some sort of more fundamental field was responsible for all fields in an earlier more symmetrical and simpler universe. Like all UFT's they are a nice idea in principle but like all UFT's they are difficult to work in as a model of the universe that we percieve by experiment fundamentally that is why QM had to be invented no-one really likes QM but it does give correct predictions to experiment while other ideas like UFT's don't, so I guess we are stuck with it until someone comes up with an insight that does work.

 

To Popular,

 

I'm not criticisizing your theory per-se, just as you have found that are a lot of theories out there in which people are trying to come up with a purely geometric explanation of the universe with limited progress in that their theories may explain one thing but give incorrect answers for another type of thing.

 

One such example is-

 

Introduction: A Physics Theory of Everything and a Formulation of a Philosophy

 

Even in this theory 'charge' is considered fundamental as a 'property' that a thing has.

 

But with most theories of this type while explaining one thing it doesn't or contradicts evidence of observation or experiment of another thing.

 

The trick is to provide solutions that explain everything and contradicts nothing, easier said than done and then go on to predict something about the universe that was not previously known and have that confirmed by experiment again easier said than done.

 

My own viewpoint is that QM although a theory which sits ill at ease with me, is still the best hope we have for a theory of everything, it only needs a theory of quantum gravity, we are building a new particle accelerator in Switzerland for that purpose or for the purpose of finding the Higgs boson. If the Higgs boson cannot be found then it would be certainly time to re-consider QM as a viable theory. But I am willing to give QM the benefit of the doubt as it is the most succesful theory ever produced by humanity even if it is a bit ugly and weird.

[Farsight]

As far as I see it electric charge is fundamental because it is gauge invariant and it is the generator of U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

 

Ask yourself why. Look carefully at every step of your reasoning. Have you ever actually sat down and thought about it? The word gauge is related to distance, and U(1) symmetry is related to circles. Pair production creates an electron and a positron from a photon. The photon has no charge. The electron does, and so does the positron. OK, charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism, but if charge is "twist" what’s that got to do with distance? Nothing. The $64,000 question is: how can charge be fundamental if you can create it?

 

The interaction of a moving charge and an electromagnetic field is the source of the electromagnetic force which is one of the four fundamental forces. How do you reconcile this situation?

 

By sucking through my teeth and saying with some hesitation: there aren't four fundamental forces. We observe motions, and ascribe causes to "forces", but we don't actually understand how these work. This essay offers a geometrical explanation for both electrostatic and magnetic attraction. A previous essay GRAVITY EXPLAINED offers another geometrical explanation for gravitational attraction. I haven't covered the strong force or the electroweak force. I suppose I’ll have to sometime.

 

Do you consider that the electromagnetic force isnt fundamental for instance?

Yes, to make this clear, I consider the electromagnetic force to be non-fundamental. The 1022KeV gamma photon used in pair production doesn’t exhibit it. It is geometrical in origin.

 

Also if charge is a twist in spacetime how do you explain its gauge invariance? Also how do you explain how it generates U(1) symmetery in electromagnetism?

 

See my first point above. I’m pushed for time, I'm something of a layman, and I'm not sure I can explain this to your satisfaction quickly. I’m fairly sure there’s a deep deep issue in the gauge invariance. It’s related to the thrust of these Relativity+ essays, and the way I use the word "ontological" and talk about seeing what’s actually there. I'm getting closer to it in an essay SPACE EXPLAINED, but I haven't finished it as yet. Can you help me out here and explain, in simple terms what gauge invariance is and what U(1) symmetry actually means? In terms that your grandmother would understand?

 

If charge is this twisty turny thing you mention wouldn't you expect it to exhibit helical symmetry and if so what type of helical symmetry does charge have?

Three-dimensional. I’m not sure if that’s best described as “helical”. Check out the twisted cube in the essay, it’s a twist in all three directions. It’s very hard to visualize. The simplest way I can put it is that it’s a twist “in”, or a twist “out”.

 

Also further questions arise from that like wouldn't this forbid an assymptomatically flat spacetime?

IMHO there is no spacetime, snoopy. In TIME EXPLAINED I said spacetime is a space. And in GRAVITY EXPLAINED I ended up saying the world is painted in light. The thing is this: there ain’t no canvas.

 

Sorry this isn't a wholly satisfactory response, it does rather open up more questions. But ain't physics fun!

 

Craig, I'll respons to your post tonight.

[DryLab]

To DryLab

The quote from Einstein

"The final irreducible constituent of physical reality is the electromagnetic field"

Hi Snoopy; I took the quote out of context; the words just before that were "At the turn of the 20th century most people believed that -- "

 

strong nuclear forces which I cannot see how they can be reduced to electromagnetic fields.

There is a way to get the strong force out of electromagnetic fields but not within QM theory. I don't want to hijack Popular's thread, so I'll attempt an explanation in another thread later.

[DryLab]

An electron has no surface, just like a photon has no surface, just as an ocean wave has no surface, because it’s the ocean that does. And space does not. The electron isn’t some little particle that’s “got” charge extending out into space. Instead charge is one of the things the electron is.

Thinking of an electron of this construct, I would put the maximum charge at the electromagnetic radius which would be at about the classic electron radius. More energetic particles like "quarks" if so constructed would possess a greater maximum charge at their electromagnetic radi, would they not?

[Qfwfq]

When its obviously more to do with how the light reflects off its surface and how our eyes interpret that particular wavelength.

Although, you must admit, the way the light reflects off silver is much due to the free electrons in there.....

 

:doh: