A hypothesis about gravity and magnetism

[ask]

Hi Everyone,

 

Please give some help on an idea of mine, I am a drop out from physics and have poor math skill.

 

?tron hypothesis

 

I thought, maybe there is a charged tiny thing exist and fill up the space (like ether). it is too small so we can not detect its mass/charge yet or it has no mass but only charge. Suppose it really exist and carry negative charge and its strength is like e/10^100 (let's call it ?tron).

 

Then, we can image ?trons attract by proton/nuclear and form a dense ball around it. Same way ?trons repel by electron and form an empty/loose ball around it. Because the proton/nuclear and electron attracts each other, the two balls (one dense and one loosed ?tron ball) will attract each other and form atom. The rest of the space is still fill up with ?tron and its ?tron density is in between the two kind of balls.

 

In a light atom model, like H, we see two ?tron balls, one is the proton with dense ?trons around it, the other one is empty/loosed ?trons around electron. (kind of like an Earth sized beach ball float on Earth sized ocean. The ocean is the nuclear ball and the beach ball is the electron ball)

 

The H atom act as an dipole, has to marry another H to form H2 to be stable.

 

For a heavier atom model, like carbon, we see a denser nuclear ball with 6 electron balls around it.

 

In a very heavy atom, we see very dense nuclear ball with more layers of electron balls around it.

 

All the balls in all matters, act each other by electro force.

 

A magnet's structure is like many layers of atoms partially polarized, one direction is nuclear concentrated and the other direction is electron concentrated.

 

The electron concentrated plate (south pole) repels near by ?trons and form an empty/loose ?tron layer in space. This empty/loose layer will induce ?trons in the near by space to form a dense ?tron layer and so on so on. The dense/loose ?tron layers will attract each other to form magnetic field. The force strength is defined by the density of the ?tron in the field (1/R^3).

 

The nuclear concentrated plate (north pole) attracts ?tron and form a dense ?tron layer, it induce near by ?trons to form an empty/loose layer, the two layers attract each other and keep forming magnetic field.

 

Somehow, between matter/mass and matter, even the + - electrical charges are equal, it's net force is a weak attraction. The strength is defined by total charge (proportional to total mass) / R^2.

 

This is my best guess/explanation for gravity, magnetism and atom model.

 

Sorry about my poor English, be highly appreciate any comment/teaching/feedback.

[CraigD]

In the “The magical creation of the photon” thread, ask wrote:

Maybe there is no photon at all, instead a tiny mass less charged thing fill up the space. If you knock an atom/matter, a presure/shock wave will travel with speed c in space.

If I follow ask’s hypothesis accurately, he’s essentially describing empty space as analogous to a fermionic solid, liquid, or gas, with light as a longitudinal wave analogous to sound. In place of the usual fermionic matter, space contains particle with zero mass but nonzero charge of some value, which ask calls the “?tron” (pronounced, perhaps “the I-don’t-know-tron”?).

 

A few obvious problems with this hypothesis are:

• It doesn’t remove the need for a boson of magnetic force (which in the standard model, is the photon). For ?trons to interact, some particle must mediate the interaction. So, rather than replacing the photon, the ?tron adds a new particle, making this hypothesis more, rather than less complicated than the conventional theory to which it’s an alternative.
  
• There are profound theoretical problems for particles with zero mass that appear at rest relative to an observer. In short, particles with zero mass must move at c, those with nonzero mass, less than c.
  
• According to the hypothesis, single photon signals would obey the inverse-square law. Experiments and everyday technology (such as lasers) show that this is not the case. The inverse-square law applies only to large collections of photons radiated from point sources – the energy of a single photon does not vary with distance.
  
• Signals analogous to sound in a solid, liquid, or gas media are observed to have varying velocities by observers with nonzero velocities relative to the media. Light, however, has been theoretically predicted and experimentally shown not to be constant regardless of the velocity of the source or observer. In short, the hypothesis describes an aether, contradicting Special Relativity, and is contradicted by the large body of evidence supporting this well-accepted and demonstrated theory.
  

These and other problems plague all “naive ether theories”. Such hypotheses and theories, therefore, aren’t accepted or paid much attention by conventional science.

 

Ask, I recommend you make an effort to fully understand these problems. After doing so – which will require “dropping back in” to Physics, and correcting your “poor math skills” - I believe you’ll find his hypothesis irreparably flawed, and abandon it.

[ask]

Thanks for your comment! Here's my quick reply. Mostly it might be wrong.

 

 

[*]It doesn’t remove the need for a boson[/] of magnetic force (which in the standard model, is the [wiki]photon[/i]). For ?trons to interact, some particle must mediate the interaction. So, rather than replacing the photon, the ?tron adds a new particle, making this hypothesis more, rather than less complicated than the conventional theory to which it’s an alternative.

 

 

If my hypothesis about magnetism is correct, why need boson/photon? The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually (1905–17) by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy - same color light produce same photon votage - this can be explained by my ?tron hypothesis as well. Since ?tron dencity in space is a constant, an electron's (empty ?tron ball) radius is a constant, in any case, no matter how strong is the light, there is always a certain amount (maybe 10^20) of ?trons hit the electron at the same time and produce a so called photon votage.

 

 

[*]There are profound theoretical problems for particles with zero mass that appear at rest relative to an observer. In short, particles with zero mass must move at c, those with nonzero mass, less than c.

 

 

We know electricity has a speed of C and the electron in the wire is move much slower than C, then what is conducting the current at speed of C in the wire? I am very confused, be back for this.

 

 

[*]According to the hypothesis, single photon signals would obey the wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation]inverse-square law. Experiments and everyday technology (such as lasers) show that this is not the case. The inverse-square law applies only to large collections of photons radiated from point sources – the energy of a single photon does not vary with distance.

 

 

In my hypothesis, there is no photon. A force/wave carried by ?trons hit at

electron ball in atoms and knock it out with a votage which relate to the frequency of the wave not the strength. The ?tron wave's strength is inverse square to the distance of the source but its frequency is not. The model model says a single photon hit the electron and transfer energy and knock it out, if photon has no mass and move at C speed, E=1/2 MV^2 =0. Where comes the energy?

 

 

[*]Signals analogous to sound in a solid, liquid, or gas media are observed to have varying velocities by observers with nonzero velocities relative to the media. Light, however, has been theoretically predicted and experimentally shown not to be constant regardless of the velocity of the source or observer. In short, the hypothesis describes an [.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether]aethercontradicting [wiki]Special Relativity, and is contradicted by the large body of evidence supporting this well-accepted and demonstrated theory.

These and other problems plague all “naive ether theories”. Such hypotheses and theories, therefore, aren’t accepted or paid much attention by conventional science.

 

 

If ?trons fill up the space as my hypothesis, then when we travel in space, we against that tiny tiny thing and produce a resistance/force, that force act at every atom in us and our ship (not like air Resistance only act at the surface of a jet). When we speed up, that resistance/force will increase (therefor canceled part of the force in our system in our moving direction. And time relatively slows down). When we keep speeding up till the Resistance force reach infinity strong, we will be pressurized into 0 length. Therefor, motion less and time stops.

 

Wow, maybe when we travel faster then light, we will back in time and be young again. Then we slow down our ship and grow older. Then we speed up again. Repeat that, we can live forever.

 

If Einstein was right, then we have no such hope. Let's all hope he was wrong.

 

Too much to think, I be back soon, thank you again!

[ask]

Imagine electron is as big as moon, we smash it into 10^100 little pieces. Then we put them in a 10^8 moon sized perfect container (out space, vacuum, nothing can come in or out, the wall will not absorb the little pieces or electron or anything).

 

Now image we put an electron into the container, shall we see an empty ball around the electron? (Out side the ball are the little charged pieces)

 

If we knock the electron, shall we see a wave travel in the container? What's the speed?

 

If we move the electron, shall we see turbulence or vortex? Is that vortex has something to do with magnetic field?

 

If we put another proton into the container, shall we see it attracts some little pieces and form a dense ball around it? Shall we see a dense ball marry the empty ball and form H atom?

[ask]

Just found this. Electron filmed first time.

 

livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080222-ElectronRide

 

Thoughts?