Charge and mass; preferences

[pioneer]

Positive and negative charge are often viewed as equal and opposite entities but there are observations that indicates wider differences. One observation has to do with the positive charge's preference for higher mass to form a proton and the negative charges preference for smaller mass, i.e., electron.

 

Although it is possible to form a negative proton and positive electrons these are unstable or exist at a higher energy state than the proton and electron, with the latter always the final default state. One may argue that because of the current proton-electron univers, this is the reason for instability.

 

To test this hypothesis let us assume one of the continuous creation of mass-energy scenarios for the universe. If both are equally likely we should be able to find zones in space where the opposite exist since they should be very stable. I have never heard that 49% of the universe is the opposite. Either that universe scenario is not valid or protons and electrons are the most stable state. The nearly equal charge-mass assumption narrows down to BB since only that scenario allows whatever happen once, to set the stage to prevent the spontaneous other that should be just as likely.

 

I prefer the idea of positive charge having something innate in it that prefers higher mass, where the higher mass allows positive charge to reinforce it innate difference from negative charge, apart from just its charge. If we look at some of the steady state affects the higher mass lowers its magnetic to charge ratio relative to negative charge, due to being heavier and slower. We can still achieve the same ratio but it requires extra energy to do. If, for the sake of argument, the preference for higher mass reflects its innate nature, positive charge may not prefer to generate extra magnetic at steady state. The association with higher mass creates more connection to GR. The sacrifice of magnetic, at steady state, allows more gravity connection.

 

The negative charge by preferring smaller mass allows for a higher magnetic to charge ratio. The smaller mass allows it to occupy more space. It connection is less to GR but much more to SR. It is through an association with positive charge the negative charge get pulled into GR. While it own innate nature adds an SR affect to the positive charge allowing it to occupy more space. This last seems to imply a space enhancing tug on positive charge that allows it to share within the nucleus of atoms. It can leave it mass and share with other mass binding the nucleus.

 

The net affect I am trying to describe is the association of larger mass is an extremely stable state for the positive charge. As such, it makes sense that this arrangement reinforces the innate difference of positive charge. One way to test this is to compare the proton and electron, to the positron and electron. The positron positive charge has a higher magnetic to charge ratio. What this implies it should be harder for the positron and electron to cancel since their motion toward each other will generate a higher magnetic repulsion using two things with a much higher uncertainty in position or momentum. It should be easier to cancel out proton-electron due to lower magnetic repulsion and the higher certainty of proton position.

 

One way to explain the opposite affect, relative to what one may expect from simple charge considerations is the positive charge has an affinity for higher mass. The positron is trying to achieve this piecemeal regardless of the charge and uncertainty, since it is its prime directive. The result is poof. In the case of proton and electron, their prime directives are settled. The impact of just the charge aspects, although easier to close the deal, violate the mass directive so they forever find their balance of affects.

 

Higher atoms reflect each charges innate nature rubbing off. The electrons are reduced in space and have to achieve a lower magnetic. This done by canceling the magnetic via orbitals. While the positive charge in the nucleus needs to occupy more space allowing the positive charge to circulate and share between the nucleons. Under certain conditions high mass leaves the positive charge causing a high energy neutron which has lost its innate ability to occupy less space, unless it can finds another positive charge to help settle the mass down into the normal smaller space.

 

These are old time 20th century observations. But it may be an upgrade since the current version of charge comes from the 19th century. What the 21st century brings may require first upgrading temporarily to the 20th. A direct jump from 19th to 21st may be causing lingering 19th century bias that attributes some aspects innate to charge to other phenomena.

[swansont]

Positive and negative charge are often viewed as equal and opposite entities but there are observations that indicates wider differences. One observation has to do with the positive charge's preference for higher mass to form a proton and the negative charges preference for smaller mass, i.e., electron.

 

Although it is possible to form a negative proton and positive electrons these are unstable or exist at a higher energy state than the proton and electron, with the latter always the final default state. One may argue that because of the current proton-electron univers, this is the reason for instability.

 

No, the positron is at the same energy as an electron, and the antiproton is at the same energy as the proton. They are not unstable. The current proton/electron universe shows CP violation, though the observed extent of this is currently not sufficient to explain the prevalence of matter vs antimatter. There is no demonstrated affinity for positive charge to be with higher mass.

[Klaynos]

Positive and negative charge are often viewed as equal and opposite entities but there are observations that indicates wider differences. One observation has to do with the positive charge's preference for higher mass to form a proton and the negative charges preference for smaller mass, i.e., electron.

 

Although it is possible to form a negative proton and positive electrons these are unstable or exist at a higher energy state than the proton and electron

 

I'm pretty sure a positron has the same energy, and is as stable as an electron.

 

, with the latter always the final default state. One may argue that because of the current proton-electron univers, this is the reason for instability.

 

To test this hypothesis let us assume one of the continuous creation of mass-energy scenarios for the universe. If both are equally likely we should be able to find zones in space where the opposite exist since they should be very stable. I have never heard that 49% of the universe is the opposite. Either that universe scenario is not valid or protons and electrons are the most stable state. The nearly equal charge-mass assumption narrows down to BB since only that scenario allows whatever happen once, to set the stage to prevent the spontaneous other that should be just as likely.

 

What you say here doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

Although we don't know why there was more matter than anti-matter created at the big bang, our current theories tell us they should be equal.

 

I prefer the idea of positive charge having something innate in it that prefers higher mass, where the higher mass allows positive charge to reinforce it innate difference from negative charge, apart from just its charge.

 

What about quarks, they're pretty light and both +vely and -vely charged...

 

If we look at some of the steady state affects the higher mass lowers its magnetic to charge ratio relative to negative charge

 

Care to explain this mathematically? What is this, magnetic to charge ratio?

 

, due to being heavier and slower. We can still achieve the same ratio but it requires extra energy to do. If, for the sake of argument, the preference for higher mass reflects its innate nature, positive charge may not prefer to generate extra magnetic

 

This does not make sense.

 

at steady state. The association with higher mass creates more connection to GR. The sacrifice of magnetic, at steady state, allows more gravity connection.

 

The gravitational difference is TINY many many many orders of magnitude smaller than the EM force at the scales being discussed.

 

The negative charge by preferring smaller mass allows for a higher magnetic to charge ratio. The smaller mass allows it to occupy more space. It connection is less to GR but much more to SR.

 

SR is a simplification of GR for a specific case.

 

It is through an association with positive charge the negative charge get pulled into GR. While it own innate nature adds an SR affect to the positive charge allowing it to occupy more space. This last seems to imply a space enhancing tug on positive charge that allows it to share within the nucleus of atoms. It can leave it mass and share with other mass binding the nucleus.

 

Again, you're going to have to explain this with maths as what you've said here means nothing.

 

The net affect I am trying to describe is the association of larger mass is an extremely stable state for the positive charge. As such, it makes sense that this arrangement reinforces the innate difference of positive charge.

 

I don't get what you're going for here, but will say that electrons are REALLY stable...

 

One way to test this is to compare the proton and electron, to the positron and electron. The positron positive charge has a higher magnetic to charge ratio.

 

Again, what is this?

 

What this implies it should be harder for the positron and electron to cancel since their motion toward each other will generate a higher magnetic repulsion

 

Harder than what? And I don't think if they're heading towards each otehr as they would be if they where free, then neither feels a magnetic repulsion from the other. Also IIRC in most cases accerlating charges have B fields much much smaller than their E fiends.

 

using two things with a much higher uncertainty in position or momentum. It should be easier to cancel out proton-electron due to lower magnetic repulsion and the higher certainty of proton position.

 

Cancel out?

 

One way to explain the opposite affect, relative to what one may expect from simple charge considerations is the positive charge has an affinity for higher mass. The positron is trying to achieve this piecemeal regardless of the charge and uncertainty, since it is its prime directive.

 

Sorry what? It's prime directive? If we had an anti-matter universe it would be just as stable as the matter universe...

 

The result is poof. In the case of proton and electron, their prime directives are settled. The impact of just the charge aspects, although easier to close the deal, violate the mass directive so they forever find their balance of affects.

 

I don't think you quite understand particle physics, I'll let someone better versed in it than I to cover the areas you seem to be missing.... But if this where true wouldn't all larger atoms be more stable? And why don't we have super particles made up of hundreds of quarks?

 

Higher atoms reflect each charges innate nature rubbing off. The electrons are reduced in space and have to achieve a lower magnetic.

 

Lower magnetic?

 

This done by canceling the magnetic via orbitals

 

Urmmm?

 

. While the positive charge in the nucleus needs to occupy more space allowing the positive charge to circulate and share between the nucleons. Under certain conditions high mass leaves the positive charge causing a high energy neutron which has lost its innate ability to occupy less space, unless it can finds another positive charge to help settle the mass down into the normal smaller space.

 

This doesn't seem to be compatible with what we know of quarks.

 

These are old time 20th century observations. But it may be an upgrade since the current version of charge comes from the 19th century. What the 21st century brings may require first upgrading temporarily to the 20th. A direct jump from 19th to 21st may be causing lingering 19th century bias that attributes some aspects innate to charge to other phenomena.

 

Science is a continuous process of refining ideas, very little of what we now use has not changed in the last 100 years, and none of it has gone untested in that time.