Kramer

Sensei Do you mean something like this, from Cloud Chamber & Bubble Chamber x-ray photos? ---- No. Those in your chamber are all charged particle. Strange As electrons clearly have wave properties (electron microscope, double-slit interference, etc) and can also be constrained to circular movements (e.g. in a synchrotron) it would seem you are wrong. ---- It is different saying: “electron reveal property of waves” from “electron is wave”. I think you admit the difference. Swansont and Strange. ----- Sorry that I was so inaccurate in my post about the source that pushed me. And thanks Strange, for your help to mend my inaccuracy. But I thought that the idea of my thread is about trajectories of matter: For mass or mass-less particles, and their cause of movement, their mechanism that forms different trajectories. But most about mass-less particles (alleged striped by charge and mass), pure quanta.

WHAT CAUSE CURVE-LINED MOVEMENT OF QUANTA? In the news, about a model atom’s experiment in Washington University Missouri, the electron performed circular spherical trajectories with a figure like a deformed clew of thread. Indeed, this was a model. But the idea that electron in atom performs circular spherical trajectories, is something (I think) contradictory with “statement that electron is wave”. Now I am convinced that, no scientist has absolute argument to tread electron as “ wave” and to deprive it from its status as “mass particle”, as “charged particle”. But in this thread I want to learn about mechanism of trajectories of quanta, stripped by “mass”, stripped by “electric charge”, --- a simple quanta. Please illuminate me about the cause that forces “electron as waves”, and in general whatever quanta, to move in curve-lined trajectories, instead of linear movement of “light’s quanta”.

Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said: Strange So reality is not good enough for you!? ____ What kind of reality are you talking about? That things “pop out of nowhere”. That thing “vanished in nowhere”. Sure is not enough for me. Is it for you? Sensei Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said: I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”. Kramer, you don't understand how particle accelerators are used to detect new particles.. Proton at rest is accelerated to relativistic velocities (v > 0.9c), gaining relativistic mass (in some interpretations), have large kinetic energy, then collided with other particles (typically at rest). From their large kinetic energy there is created shower of new particles, that are usually unstable and decaying quickly.X-rays are/were used to take hundred photos, with slightly delay between them, revealing traces leaved by them in f.e. liquid Hydrogen (Bubble Chamber). ----- “An excessive lesson”, if you have not any “new” explanation : how energy injected in proton (inside? or out side?) , why the collide transform energy in mass particles, why they are unstable, why they move, why in the end of the end all they unstable decaying particles degraded in ten common elementary particles. The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino. ----- So “pops” off nowhere, to vanish in nowhere. Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said: Swanson e- and e+ are charged, and it's an electromagnetic interaction. Is the presence of the field really a big mystery? And, more to the point, that's what we see. Regardless of the specifics of the mechanism, that's the result of the interaction. ----- Leaving aside evasive answers, please don’t take this as disrespect, but “that’s what we see” is not enough for me. So please don’t take for rudeness, if I am lost and have some questions: 1--Are electric charges that create fields, or are fields that create charges? 2--- What is the cause (source) of movement. Is it an intrinsic property of charges? mass particles? mass-less particles? fields? or an out-side general cause? If you think this question are senseless, don’t answer. Swanson Science tries to model what we see, so what we see is the starting (or ending) point for every theory. What we observed dictates what models we develop, and models are not confirmed unless they match what we observe. So you're saying science is not enough for you. Odd, on a science discussion board. If science, being unable to explain--- why ?, or how ? , gave weird interpretations of things or phenomena, and create models with aim to support weird interpretations, that mean--- is not what we see or observe, but what we want to se or to observe. And why, instead to answer direct in questions, you see “odd” my doubt about assertion of annihilation, or reappearing in or out of nowhere. Why, you all, see sacrilege toward science, doubt that neutrality of charge doesn’t mean indispensable annihilation? So please answer to my questions. Movement is not an intrinsic property. Newton addressed that hundreds of years ago. Hundred years ago, universe was considered as a “clock builded and winded”. I don’t think that this is what you had in mind. I used expression “intrinsic property”, instead of “intrinsic ability” but this doesn’t mean that you used to dodge the too direct answer on a too direct question. This I think (ala lay-mans) is a strait discussion in a science site.

Sensei Kramer, on 01 Aug 2014 - 11:38 AM, said: You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object. -- I think it is false. No, it's not false. It's fact. ----- Right. I know difference between mass and weight. Your accuracy “in calculations”, I think failed in this your conceptual sentence. Kramer, on 01 Aug 2014 - 11:38 AM, said: By the way: You are Okey with mass of W boson , (which pops out from?? in one of neutrons ), that has a mass “more large than that of atom of iron”. Nope. But I don't know details how it was calculated/measured. And it's not subject of this thread. Why you rebuke the existence of “subs” by the cause they have an enormous mass, but by those enormous mass they can be able to conserve basis particle of matter? ------ I don’t know if you are a lay-man like me, that navigate blindly, or a specialist knowing a lot much more, in physic. I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”. I allege that two ‘subs’ possess ability to create a mass particle, with out indispensable to be the mass of this particle , created by them. Even in alleged Plank area particle, created by two ‘subs’, total mass of this particle is half of summa of two 'subs'. Because common mass of particles depend by gravity energy of ‘subs’ divided by C^2, and not by the mass of ‘subs’. Now I foresee in the future yours rebuke, the role of “dt”-------- That's exactly reverse - because of their ridiculous high masses, conservation of mass-energy won't be possible. ----- Maybe there is the cause that we have common particles with mass "around": central-------- mx = sqrt(Mplank*M1) = 3.702478156*10*-30 kg. And maybe particles with higher mass are possible in the center of B.B. Swanson e- and e+ are charged, and it's an electromagnetic interaction. Is the presence of the field really a big mystery? And, more to the point, that's what we see. Regardless of the specifics of the mechanism, that's the result of the interaction. ----- Leaving aside evasive answers, please don’t take this as disrespect, but “that’s what we see” is not enough for me. So please don’t take for rudeness, if I am lost and have some questions: 1--Are electric charges that create fields, or are fields that create charges? 2--- What is the cause (source) of movement. Is it an intrinsic property of charges? mass particles? mass-less particles? fields? or an out-side general cause? If you think this question are senseless, don’t answer.

Sensei You misunderstand what is mass, what is energy, what is force. ------ I think, that in Plank area, “mass of a particle” M = E / C^2 = G*M^2 / (R*C^2) It is the only kind of alleged “particle” that has gravity mass equal with “subs”. F = G*M^2 / R^2 = E / R You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object. -- I think it is false. Weight it in International Station and you will see that distance count. By the way: You are Okey with mass of W boson , (which pops out from?? in one of neutrons ), that has a mass “more large than that of atom of iron”. Why you rebuke the existence of “subs” by the cause they have an enormous mass, but by those enormous mass they can be able to conserve basis particle of matter? If you have 1 gram of water it's 1/18 = 0.055555 mol = 3.3456*10^22 molecules of H2O. Equal to 3.3456*10^22 atoms of Oxygen and 6.69*10^22 atoms of Hydrogen.. Each of them have mass 0.018 kg / 6.022141e23 = 2.989*10^-26 kg. Mass of single molecule of water multiplied by above quantity = 1 gram. If you move 1 meter or 1 km or 1 billion km from it, it's still the same quantity of particles. For pretty pure materials like water it's easy to make such calculations. ---- ? What is diminishing with inverse-square law is force of electrostatic attraction/repelling between charged particles, and force of gravitational attraction between any particles. ----- And force between them multiplied by radius gave energy. And energy divide by C^2 gave mass. Kramer, on 31 Jul 2014 - 12:51 PM, said: 1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1. Planck energy = 1.956 × 109 J But 2.5220631*10^41 * 6.62607e-34 = 167113666.45 J ------- And, Plank energy divided by corrected Plank area energy, equal Sqrt (α) I pay no attention to Planck units, except to Planck const (and reduced). And you're overestimating them (like in thread about Planck charge year ago, which has no meaning in quantum physics). ----- But has meaning in equivalence of all kind of energies. Robinpike Is there any other evidence that supports the hypothesis that charge - and + can be destroyed? ----- I am eager to know too. Swansont e-e+ annihilation gives you the (uncharged) photons, but there is nothing else. That's the evidence. ------Where There? In photons? What create electric field and magnetic field (that we call electromagnetic waves) ? When we know that those field are linked with electric charges as the only source of them?

Sensei Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass. ----- With distance diminish the energy of interaction. Hence the mass. Swanson I don't know what a photon of free energy is, or what an electron bounce refers to. Nothing in what I said made mention of a mechanism for motion, simply that we account for kinetic energy separately from rest energy in relativistic kinematics. KE is frame-dependent. Rest energy (and thus rest mass) is not. ---- With free energy photons I intend those that are free to move in linear movement , differ from those linked in one point from “something” that create field. With bounce I visualize electrons in orbit of atom that bounce when absorb or release free photons. About mechanism of movement of particles I have different concept. Movement it is result of intrinsic ability of subs. of matter. Two kind of different subs, create stationary status of four basic elementary common particles: electron, proton, and anti’s, (on their movement in spherical trajectories). This will be in ideal case. In fact electron or proton get “kinetic movement” when they are associated (pushed, dragged from) with one or more subs of photons or neutrinos .Which we know move ( on itself ) with C velocity. Sensei Please explain - how gigantic mass of your sub-particles (10^-9 kg) can create billions time less massive particles that we all know? ------ Here is the conundrum where wriggle my hypothesis, and I think even modern theory. In my theory the energy of an “electron in Plank area” ?!! is: Eplank = h * ( C / ((2 * pi / α) * Rplank) = h * (2.5220631*10^41) = h * νplank But we my say: 1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1. 2) Plank energy is equal summa of 2. 5220631*10^41 loops of movement of electric charge, in spherical trajectore. 3) Plank energy is equal summa of 2. 5220631*10^41 electromagnetic vibration. Yours is 1) . My is 2) . and 3) is approved. All they are disputable.

Studiot So far as I'm aware, there has never been a formula for charge, equivalent to E=mc2 for mass, relating charge to energy. An electric charge only has energy by virtue of its interaction with another electric charge or charges. A mass has intrinsic energy by virtue of its mass. ------ In Plank area we have an reasonable equivalence for all kind of energies, if we extrapolate Plank mass, and Plank length: R = Lplank * sqrt(α) and M = Mplank*sqrt(α) Ee = e^2 / ((4*pi*ε0)* R = 1677113637.7 joule Eg = M* C^2 = 1677113638 joule EM = (G* M^2) / R = 167113638 joule Eh = h * (C / (2*pi/α) * R = 1677113637.8 joule …. From above we may solve : M = e / (4*pi* ε0 * G) ^ 0.5 kg = e / g = 1. 859389987* 10^ -9 (kg.?) R = e * (4*pi* ε0 * G)^ 0.5 / C^2 = e*g / C^2 = 1.380543856*10*-36 m. Those are the characters of “ unique sub particle” that sure will scandalizes you with its huge “mass” if we call it mass, but maybe you will admit it, if I consider it “gravity energy”, the only factor able to hold photons around. The mass of common elementary particle will be: mx = e^2 / (4*pi* ε0 C^2* Rx ) = (SQRT(G) * M)^2 / Rx Here Rx Compton radius. And, for outer radius observers, it drastically diminished, in comparison with Plank mass. They differs from each other by different signs of electric charge and Sqrt(G) gravity. Short: I suppose that elementary common particles are composite of two “unique sub particles”, associated with a third unique particle, that get them out from rest status. Example: proton composed by [(+e / - g) + (+e / - g)] +(- e / + g) “joke three quarks”. Electron composed by [( - e / - g) + ( - e / - g )] + ( + e / + g) Positron composed by [ ( +e / +g) + ( +e / +g)] + ( - e / - g ) Photon composed by [( + e / +g ) + ( - e / - g )] Neutrino composed by [ ( + e / + g) + ( - e / + g)] ------------------ Now, being sure that nobody, is interested in my beloved naive hypothesis of simple structure of energy-matter by alleged “unique particles”, (and attracted by this, I am violating rules of this site), I will quit further debate. Please, don’t take my interruption of debate as disrespect.

Sensei Because you're giving neutrino special role that it does not have. At least there is no experiments that would show it. Am I mistaken? ------ When Fermi named it “neutrino”, they had not any idea what kind of particle was. He was based only in fact that was without electric charge, and that during nuclear reaction this “something” stole a formidable quantity of energy. As a no physicist, I think that this is enough for calling neutrinos “important”. I doubt only about assertion that “neutrino” pops out, from nothing, in to existence. My conviction now is that common particles are structured by sub particles, and neutrino is one of them, no less important than others. It is only my conviction, based in the “final product” of dis-integrations of all kind of unstable natural or man-made compositions. Sensei Sorry, but I don't understand what you even want from me.. Can you explain? Planck size area? Compton size? Planck length is 1.6*10^-35 m Compton wavelength is 2.42*10^-12 m Planck length is ~1.5*10^23 smaller value than Compton wavelength.. ---- In fact nothing I want from you. It is kind of a joke on myself, like a debunk of my hypothesis about the structure of whatever common particles. I think that electron particle, the same as all the others, has: 1) An electric energy: Ee = (e+e)^2 / (4 * (4*pi*ε0 )* R) where charge “e” can be + or – , and R – is a distance between two extremes of Plank area, but no zero and no infinite. 2) An inner gravity energy: Eg = ((Sqrt(G) * M)^2 / R Where Sqrt(G) may have + or - sign. 3) An outer observers “mass” m = Ee / C^2 or Eg / C^2 In my hypothesis, determine factor about energy and mass -- is the distance between two sub particles “R” . And here I am stuck: Why Compton radiuses? ( you are scandalized that I doesn’t use, instead of “radius”, “wave - length”? Because I think that wave-lengths depend by radiuses) Ups! Waite and see the last warning. Strange Disagreement because you choose to ignore all the theory, math and evidence; preferring to make up random stuff ------ Not all the theory. Part of it. For example E = h / 0 that you dodge to explain.

Sensei But that's neutron decay, 15+ minutes later.. If free neutron will be absorbed by some nucleus, and final isotope will be stable, then no neutrino, but f.e. photon or other particle will be emitted.. f.e. n0 + Li-6 -> T+ + He-4 + 4.784 MeV ----- We have debated elsewhere about the role of neutrinos in the process of disintegration and have quit with agree to not agree. Mordred you might want to look up the different types of mass photons have no rest mass but they do have a mass equivalence Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc² this formula however isn't complete for total energy, or rather the full detail isn't presented in this form ------ And where lead your logic: photons have different mass-equivalence, because of different Energy? What make them to have different energy? Oh -- I know your answer: E = h / dt --- from 0 to infinite. And “they are what they are”. Doesn’t this absurdity reason on you, that photons must have structure? Strange Yes. It will be the 110th anniversary of Einstein's annus mirabilis next year. ---- It is a pity that He has not have explained how this happen. Strange But questions such as "what is an electron" and your questions cannot be answered in this way. These are (as far as we know) fundamental things. We can we can quantify them and describe them in terms of their interactions with other things. But they are what they are. ----- We are debating about energy and the link of it with mass, about photons and the link of them with electron particle and positron. Here I introduced the idea about them -- having the same alleged sub-particles in their structure. This yours quote divides your trust and my doubt. But to continue further I am warned. Let close our debate with disagreement. Sensei It can be answered by analyze of what happens to electron while annihilation with positron, and production of gamma photons. They are later absorbed and emitted with less, and less energy, with more quantity... Single pair of electron-positron has enough energy to heat 1.3 billions of H2O molecules for 1o C. ------ May be you can solve (with your analyze) the problem why an electron particle, in upper Plank size area, degraded and stops in Compton size.?!! Strange Absolutely, you can describe it properties and behaviour, etc. But that does not say what it "is"; and there seem to be people, like member Kramer, who want to know what an electron or mass or energy "is." And there is no reasonable answer to that. ------ Because people, like Kramer, doubt about some weird assertions of science linked with behavior of things, without knowing nothing about what things are.

Strange Yes. ---Thanks for evaluation. The same I think about your answers: “rubber-stamps” Nothing "happens to its gravity". Mass and energy are equivalent; they both contribute to gravity. --- That mass is linked with gravity I knew long ago. Please explain to an ignorant the gravity of photon. Yes. Nearly all the mass of the matter around you comes from the energy binding it together, not from the mass of the particles. ----- Are you so sure? Are you really convinced that mass is created by energy? And energy is created by ??????. At, least they say, that very rarely photons with high energy may create mass. I have a ” think” that only “black bodies” in the center of galaxies re-cycles and re-new the matter. Sensei. Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus. ----Isn’t neutron emission decay in the end, results in spiting out neutrino? I wonder why equations of dis-integrations don’t go to the ending? I mean in the basic common component of matter: photons, protons, electrons, neutrinos and their antimatter components. In fact all unstable compositions – natural or man made -- mass or mass-less -- , they ends not only in energy particles (photons) but even in mass basic particles. This means that mass and mass-less particles are both side of the same coin: matter. Mass of black-box before and after annihilation remain constant. And is 2*10^9*me kg- ---- That astonished me. Photons have mass, I mean “mass” in kg.! ? I shush. Swanson Nothing happens to its gravity, since the energy is the same. ----- Again astonished. There are different kind of energy! You mean gravity energy stay the same? Increasing internal energy will increase rest mass. Kinetic energy is accounted for separately in the way we do physics. Motion does not increase mass. ---- Till now I thought that motion is the result of interaction of mass particles with photons of free energy, or with photons of fields by the other mass particles (gravity or electromagnetic) and those “photons absorbed” by particle in movement. Doesn’t it happen when electron bounce? Hijacking threads is taboo (and you've been warned about that). Here, in a physics thread, we are discussing mainstream physics. ----- I don’t think to have hijacked thread. I am debating in the line of thread about all aspects linked with energy.

Strange I never said that. That would be a ridiculous thing to say. ---- And I want to know “why” and “how”. Without it, ones may fudge what ones wants, and call it science. How: annihilation of antimatter, fusion, fission, breaking chemical bonds, etc. Why: energy and matter are equivalent. ------ Do you understand what means “annihilation”? And how many tales you may create with it? Every your explanation lack the essence of debate “how” and ”why”. Because we know anti-matter exists and how it behaves. There is no such thing (as far as we know) as "the anti-gravity". You might as well ask, "why not unicorns? ------ And I am not convinced how anti matter ( I mean your concept of antimatter ) “annihilates” mass. So I am free to wonder about different concept of antimatter. (like your sarcasm unicorn) ==== Anti-matter are particles with opposite values for various properties. This does not include mass because there is no such thing as negative mass. -----Then what is “mass”? Because “mass-particles” of both, matter and antimatter, have mass. “Mass-less) particles have not? How it disappears? What it is after you “mass”. Do you think my question is senseless? It may be a question, but I'm not sure what it means. The two opposite charges cancel, sum to zero, or "annihilate" (if you must, although that has a more specific meaning). ---It means , I think, that there is not any “annihilation” of mass or of “electric charge” ,which I think further , are pillars of matter. That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c. ---- For me, matter has two kind of display: in form of mass –particle, in form of mass-less particles. Velocity “C”, I think, is property of “unicorns!!??” sub-particles of matter. Swanson Nobody in this thread has discussed anti-gravity except you. It's not a thing. ---- Sorry, but I am not convinced how is “annihilated” mass. What has happen with its gravity? You see this doubt senseless? While gravity and electrostatics are similar, they are not identical. ----- I don’t say are similar. I say are “nemeses” of each other in the structure of matter. A photon has no rest mass, which is what I mean by "mass". The system gets more massive because it has more internal energy. I don't know what you're referring to with protons absorbing photons and getting heavier. That might refer to relativistic mass, which is another discussion. There's no point in making this more difficult by adding in more terminology to confuse things. ----- That’s confuse me: “ gets more massive” ---- do you means having more “internal” energy, posses ability to create more mass particles? Like proton in cyclotron? ( please me, don’t think it is a straw-man) It is in line of thought and debate: What is energy and what is mass. I We're discussing mainstream physics here. Charge and mass are properties. ---- I suppose we are debating about diverse interpretation of mainstream. If somebody doubt about some kind of interpretation is this a taboo!? Sensei He is searching for unified theory, that doesn't explain everything as excitations on fields. ---- “Exitations of fields” are the most difficult physics phenomena that can understand a lay-man like me which think: Particles of matter are source of fields, and not vice-verse. Suppose so we have electron and positron in black-box (or billions of them), that is put on precise weight……. ----- I didn’t understand well this example. Please explain for me: Summa of billions of electrons and positrons inside black-box: before the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 2*10^9*me kg.? after the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 0 kg? How do you explain? As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space. ---- I doubt to have decay without emission of neutrinos.

Strange There are various hypotheses along those lines but no one has been able to produce a working model (as far as I know). And there is no evidence for any such sub-particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon If you want to believe in things with no evidence, that is fine. But it is nothing to do with scienc ----- If you are sure that science has explained all the “how” and “why”(obtained this by your high education), that means to me that a lay-man must hush , ( because by lack of education). But I am not so sure. Your post , seems to me not explain “how” and “why”. To doubt doesn’t means to believe, but to ask, to questions those that are illuminated, to search reading, and again to ask when you are not satiated by answers, that i think is legitimate. Swanson Yes, you need antimatter to make the mass completely disappear. ---You admit that needs antimatter “to disappear” the mass? But not “the anti gravity”? Can you please explain “what” you mean by “antimatter” and “how” it can make “disappear” mass without “anti mass”? IN analogy with electric charges that +e and –e, do hide each other for, out of radius, observer, ---- so Must act mass gravity in micro-cosmos. + F = ((+(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2 - F = ((-(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2 But if an atom absorbs a photon, it gets heavier by E/c2, and gets lighter by that amount if a photon is emitted. ___ With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”? What about proton, which absorbs so many photons during acceleration, gets heavier? You are subtracting, not adding. +1 + (-1) = 0 --- (+1) – (-1) = 2 --This means that are two unity. Do you think has any relevance in the debate a lapsus? What are + and – it depends. THE RELEVANCE OF DEBATE IS : Are the charges annihilated, or is “annihilated” their presence for the observer out of radius , where they dance with each other.This is question. The particles are the things. The mass is a property. ----Who know for sure? Maybe --- electric charge and mass, are pillars that structure particle, the fields and the C movement are property of matter.

Strange I'm not sure what sort of explanation you are looking for. In the end, some things can only be explained by "that's the way the universe is".--- Your answers are in unison of mister Swanson. So I think my doubts there, are valid even for your explanations. If your explanations have not satiated my curiosity this has to do with my doubt that electron-positron-photon must have been structured with “the same kind of sub particles”. This reasoning gave me some answers that I not find in “ that the way the universe is”. Please don’t take this as lack of respect.

Swanson The mass has been converted into some other form of energy. Photons, for example, or kinetic energy of some other particle. Sorry but this is known in eons, now seems like a jargon. Something new, please?! How mass-particle with its gravity ability “disappear”, and a new kind mass-less particle appears. What have they in common to “flip” vice-verse in each other? The mass is not “a property” that you can get rid easily. Instead is the toughest thing as show the fact, that change (disappear) only from interaction with “anti matter “. The charge has not gone anywhere, as it's a conserved quantity. If a +1e particle annihilates with its -1e antiparticle, the net charge is zero, both before the interaction and afterward. The answer seems to me tricky. Conserved quantities? They are “zero”. So they can be: 0 = (+1) – (-1) That’s logically not true, even math is right! From zero, appears only zero. It is different equation (+1) – (-1) = 0 This means that first exist two entity (+1) and (-1) which in them selves never disappear. The disappearance, when they are together, is false. They exist but are hidden, like in atom of hydrogen. These are properties of things, not things unto themselves. “The mass-particles” and “mass-less particles” I am convinced that are things. They exist independent of what I or which other say. Electric charges are entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind they are hidden. The mass abilities “MUST BE” entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind are hidden.

Mordred Why are you confused? Mass and energy are equivalent. That’s right but not so simple: They are equivalent. But are they the same? How you explain the transformation of each other in each other, if they have not common, in their essence, something “unique”? Where is gone mass, or electric charge of mass particles, when they become mass-less.? How come that from relative stationary mass particle, transforms in run away photons? Those kind of explanation is eager a lay-man curious to listen about.

From this debate I, a lay-man, am more confused than illuminated. It is simple: Electron and positron, two mass particles of mater have: Stationary energy E = 2 * me * C^2 = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule. Interacting, they transform in two mass less particles (gamma) with Run-away energy E = 2 * h*1.2359006*10^20Hz = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule. All the mess is created by the ill term: “ annihilation of matter”

-------- I claimed to quit. But I see, from your answers, that I can’t. In fact my post was not to discus the idea of critical density, but the forces that interact with each other. I consider the problem very simple: If you fire a rocket in “radial direction” it will move up until fuel is spent, and after--- rocket will return again in the spot you have fired. This is because the force of firing and the force of gravity are the only forces that are interacting in radial direction. When I say “ radial direction “ I mean you have eliminate step by step, the third force of inertial gravity-- (which is perpendicular with radial direction)-- with a your second antagonist fuel force. Now, you have a pure repulsion force and attractive force acting in the same line. You may call it “expansion” and “attraction” if you like. But… I understand what is “gravitation attraction”, at least in my way: Mass particles of matter have ability to attract each other with a force inverse proportional with square of distance. ( By the way ---- It is strange that nature, which play with parity, on the case of gravity work only in one way. And most strange, is the absence of science efforts to explain it) I understand in my way what is “the repulsion force of matter” --- only in the electromagnetic nature of matter. And about movement of matter in space ----I think that movement is the main property of matter particles, for “mass: particles in stationary status, for “mass-less” particles in run away status. I have no idea what mean “expansion”. In fact from “elegant formula of critical density” we have: ( Ho*R ) ^ 2 * R = ( G*M ) m^3 * sec^-2 and somebody my conclude that gravity of mass is nothing else but “ volume of space divided by square of time”. A clever trick to flush the “concept of matter” away from debate. If you explain to a non-believer ( alias-- to a non understanding) what is expansion, or inflation ( But please, not with German mark inflation) I will be very grateful. What is “the fuel” that began creation of universe? that continue to act with more intensity? Without this explanation, what is the difference of “theory” from “speculation”?

Swanson ….. circular orbit requires additional constraints — that's where the detail of a tangential speed comes in. The assumption of a central mass and a circular orbit. Not in the idea of gravity itself. Does it mean that “central mass” is irrelevant for the idea of gravity? I see where is it driving at: 1- Mass of particles (alias gravity) is not matter. It is a property injected by the “field of gravity”. 2- It is "irrelevant" that mass particles, we see, to exist in "cosmic bodies" via their gravity, even that those cosmic bodies are integrated in galaxies, cluster of galaxies. For an argument about the idea of “creation” of the universe, matter will be nothing else but a few atoms in cubic km. as it was nothing before “creation”. I quit this post with a moto borrowed by somebody: For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.

Swanson Kramer, on 13 Jul 2014 - 10:45 AM, said: -The gravity velocity is a tangential circular, cyclic velocity. It is? ------------- ------ I think it is. It is uncontested that velocity of planets around tha sun depend only by: Vplanet = (G* Msun / Distance sun-planet) ^ 0.5 and the velocity of the sun depends only by the distance of the sun toward the center of galaxy where supposed to be a massive black body with mass = 1.7*10^41 kg. I think it is a big mistake to confound gravity velocity of the “ force of gravity “--- which is in the “direction of force”, with the velocity of “inertial gravity” ---- which is perpendicular with direction of force, even they have the same formula. The velocity of gravity force is always accompanied with its nemesis electromagnetic anti - force and appears only when their equilibrium (of stationary status) is compromised by electromagnetic force of run-away status (photons). And here is the aim of this post.

A confusing “elegant formula” ( Sure “ confusing” only for a lay man) It is about formula of “critic density of universes matter” ( m * ( Ho * R ) ^ 2 ) / 2 = ( G * m / R ) * ((4 * pi / 3 ) * ( R ^ 3 * ρ c )) ( Ho * R ) ^ 2 = ( ( 4 * pi ) / 3 ) * ( G * R ^ 2 * ρc ) ) * 2 My confusion is here: On the left side we have Hubbles square velocity “ (Ho * R )” caused by ????!!!.(B.B) On the right hand we have square velocity “ ( G * R ^ 2 * ρc ) “ caused by gravity. -The “ B.B velocity is a radial velocity. -The gravity velocity is a tangential circular, cyclic velocity. Doesn’t it is a mistake the sign of equivalence, when they are two perpendicular vectors? May be the specialist will give a hand about where I am wrong?

I think that the answer about definition of matter is obfuscated with the properties of matter. When we say: electron (“me”) is a mass particle we identified it as matter, not as a property. When we say: photon (ph) is an energy particle we identified it as matter not as a property. Electron particles and the photon particles for somebody seem to be two different things. I suppose that they are two kind of structure of the same matter. Sensey in its post, gave the equation of “annihilation” of matter: me+ + me- = γ + γ (sorry Sensey but I can’t identify “e” with “me”.) I think here is not at all any annihilation of matter. Is only a restructure of component of so called “matter” and “antimatter”. When I say “components” I allege hypothetic sub-particles of matter – antimatter. ((e- / g-) + (e- / g.)) + ((e+/g+) +(e+/g+)) = me- + me+ equal ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) + ((e- / g-) + (e+/ g+)) = γ + γ here (e+- / g +- ) = (e+- / +-(4*pi*G)^0.5)

Swanson say: Matter has the property of mass, and of energy. Please,can you give a definition of matter, out of it's properties? I think the property can't be identified with owner..

What about a gross speculation: Space between cosmic bodies, filled with particles that possess anti-gravity property ? This space hold cosmic bodies divided and afloat.

String Junky say: The electric field generates a magnetic field and vice versa ----- Electric field is created by electric charges in static status relative to each other. Magnetic field is created always by the movement of electric charge. You think that electric field and magnetic field exist independent from electric charge? This is, i think, a ridlle for dispute.

The photoelectric effect shows that light travels in packets on energy called quanta. Light has been shown to knock electrons off metal. There is no doubt that light travels. ------ Leaving aside the cause for fun and mocking about this thread, I think that there are some important question for debate: The concept of “movement” for a lay man is created by everyday experience of material “things” that change place … In the case of sun-light “the things “ are a torrent particles (photons) that flow like a not interrupted flow of water from a hose. Now when we see the flow of water, we don’t see the molecules of water, and in the example of sun-light, the torrent of photons is a not interrupted flow of light. This ‘not interruption’ create the false idea of absence of movement. For me the important questions are: --- What is a quanta as a thing? --- What cause it’s movement? --- Why move in linear movement? --- Knocks electrons of metal or transform itself in electrons? The mechanism of “knocking”? --- In what consists the difference between gamma photons, from those of microwave photons. What cause the difference? What is difference from other bosons? etc.