Hi, It is good to check the following link for this topic:

 

<link removed>

!

Moderator Note

 

Please do not post bare links to other sites; we like members to post information on this site rather than force members to visit another website - please check our rules.

 

 

It is possible to show that electric charge is not a primary intrinsic property of particles.I have shown in a published atricle that elctric charge is related to other physical parameters by the equation : q = root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) * T * (dm/dt); where T is the age of universe and alpha is a constant. Also, with some assumptions this formula can be rewritten as : q = (e/m_e) * T * (dm/dt). So, in all charged particles, mass changes with time(dm/dt is non-zero).

 

It is possible to show that electric charge is not a primary intrinsic property of particles.I have shown in a published atricle that elctric charge is related to other physical parameters by the equation : q = root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) * T * (dm/dt); where T is the age of universe and alpha is a constant. Also, with some assumptions this formula can be rewritten as : q = (e/m_e) * T * (dm/dt). So, in all charged particles, mass changes with time(dm/dt is non-zero).

 

 

Could you tell us which peer-reviewed journal this interesting result has been published in?

 

Could you tell us which peer-reviewed journal this interesting result has been published in?

Here it is; http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-abstract/0AED8AF45295

With all due respect and without impugning the author in any way - academicjournals.org appears on my favourite list of possibly predatory open access journals.

Here it is; http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-abstract/0AED8AF45295

 

That's YOURS, very speculative document..

 

q = root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) * T * dm/dt

q = (e/m_e) * T * (dm/dt)

 

so,

root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) should be equal to (e/m_e),

is that correct?

 

so why I am receiving

root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) = 7.36*10^-12,

and

(e/m_e) = 175850713501.647

 

??

 

I just noticed "In this equation, alpha is a dimensionless parameter and is currently unknown;"

So in other words you are using alpha constant for completely different thing. And it's not commonly known alpha constant used by mainstream physics.. ?

 

ps. You can calculate "your alpha" using e/m_e..

But if you do so, you will see that you need as many "yours alpha constants" as there is particles, as every charged particle (except its antiparticle) has different mass..

Edited March 3, 201411 yr by Sensei

 

That's YOURS, very speculative document..

 

q = root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) * T * dm/dt

q = (e/m_e) * T * (dm/dt)

 

so,

root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) should be equal to (e/m_e),

is that correct?

Yes, You are right.

 

so why I am receiving

root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) = 7.36*10^-12,

with my assumption alpha = 4.165*10⁴² so root(4 * pi * epsilon₀ * alpha * G) = 1.758*10¹¹

and

(e/m_e) = 175850713501.647

 

??

 

I just noticed "In this equation, alpha is a dimensionless parameter and is currently unknown;"

So in other words you are using alpha constant for completely different thing. And it's not commonly known alpha constant used by mainstream physics.. ? Yes, here alpha is just a similar name, and it is not equal to alpha constant used by mainstream physics

 

ps. You can calculate "your alpha" using e/m_e..

But if you do so, you will see that you need as many "yours alpha constants" as there is particles, as every charged particle (except its antiparticle) has different mass. No, q does not depend on mass(amount). In different particles with different q, dm/dt varies and alpha is constant. In different particles with different masses, q may be equal if dm/dt is equal, again alpha is constant. For example, in electron and proton, having the same q, dm/dt is equal to 2.094*10^-48, although they have different masses. And in proton and nuetron, with almost equal mass, dm/dt(proton)= 2.094*10^-48 and dm/dt(nuetron)=0. But in other way, you are right, as I said in article, alpha is only a dimensionless parameter(constant or variable). Then with some assumptions I tried to guess the exact value of alpha, and it seems to be constant and equal to 4.165*10⁴². In fact, q, as infers from proposed equation is equivalent to amount of mass-change of particle, not the amount of its mass.

Edited March 4, 201411 yr by jafari001

!

Moderator Note

 

I've split this off into its own thread; the rules are clear that one should not hijack an existing thread to discuss speculative (i.e. non-mainstream) ideas, which this clearly is.

 

jafari001, though the quote system has its shortfalls, please learn how to use the quote tags.

 

jafari001, do you know how e (1.602*10^-19 C) is calculated/measured?

In oil drop experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

There is attached very high voltage to top and bottom plates (so electrons gather on top plate).

Then oil drop with well known molecular formula and mass is ionized by x-rays passing through it, and becoming positively charged.

Positively charged drop attracts with negative charges of electrons on top plate and oil drop is hovering in air.

 

I=Q/t

1 A = 1 C/1s

1 C / 1.602*10^-19 C = 6.25*10^18

 

If 1 A of current flows through wire, you have 1/1.602e-19 = 6.25*10^18 electrons per second.

 

If you will start making variable Q, then what will happen to I?

 

You second equation

q = (e/m_e) * T * (dm/dt)

is simplifying to q=e for electrons.

But what with ions such as OH-, Cl- and so on?

 

 

I was surprised by resemblance of your formula 18 with the formula of my thread about my alleged “ unique sub-particles’. But I saw that your approach and conclusions were in total opposition with my. If you don’t mind and don’t consider this post as a “high-jack’ I would like to debate with you about intertwined mass, charge, gravity, velocity.
I admit I am only a lay-man.

I was surprised by resemblance of your formula 18 with the formula of my thread about my alleged “ unique sub-particles’. But I saw that your approach and conclusions were in total opposition with my. If you don’t mind and don’t consider this post as a “high-jack’ I would like to debate with you about intertwined mass, charge, gravity, velocity.

I admit I am only a lay-man.

 

!

Moderator Note

No, this would be hijacking. Any discussion of YOUR proposal should take place in YOUR thread, where you have some say about the direction of the discussion.

 

Any discussion needs to be in terms of mainstream physics vs the proposal made by jafari001.