On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:51:21 GMT, Charles Cagle
wrote:

In article , Robert J. Kolker
wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
There is no "electrostatic force." Electromagnetic forces propagated
by spin-1 vector bosons do not unify with gravitation which, if it is
quantized at all, propagates via a spin-2 tensor boson.

I am having a bit of trouble with this. What is the Coulomb force
between two charges, then? Why isn't that electrostatic? The mutual
force between two charged particles does not depend on their motion, as
is the case of the Lorentz force of a mag field on a moving charge.

Regardless of the means of intermediation, be it virtual photons or
action at distance, the instanteneous force each charge feels from the
other depends on the distance (1/distance^2) and the magnitude and sign
of the charges (charge 1 * charge 2).

Bob Kolker

In reality the force between elementary charged particles does depend
upon their relative motion. If two particles have a common de Broglie
wavelength equal to or greater than their interparticle distance
[measured from their center of momentum frame] then their interactive
behavior will be just opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law.

This interesting fact can be directly deduced from two simple axioms
and Maxwell's equations.

Axiom 1: Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other
quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived
coordinate system.

so what?

Axiom 2: Quantum particles always move to the lowest energy state
situation available.

quantum particles can be in any state. atomic and electronic states
tend to the lowest level. this is not the same thing

It should be interesting to any true aficianado of physics that
Coulomb's law is invalid when it comes to elementary charged particles
which are overlapping in momentum space. That's right, using the
principle of the relativity of motion and Maxwell's equation:
Del*X*H=*permeability*dE/dt one can show that if elementary charged
particles are in the same momentum space (that they have a common de
Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is
equal to or greater than the interparticle distance) that they will
behave in a manner which is just opposite to the expectations of
Coulomb's law. This is a matter of straight forward deduction and is
substantiated by quite a lot of data.

?

Of course, the data, which is
pointed to as substantiation already has a well accepted explanation or
set of arguments designed to explain the existence of said data along
other lines. In other words, when the existence of said data first
became known then physicists were in a terrible quandary because they
saw that the data was contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
What was this data? It was the discovery, circa 1910, that the nuclei
of elements that are not isotopes of hydrogen can have multiple protons
in close proximity without displaying the repulsive interaction
predicted by Coulomb's law.

strong force

Now, I know that most of those who post on this n.g. are going to get
their hackles up because when I attack the pseudoscientific arguments
that were 'invented' to 'explain away' the obvious deviation from
Coulombic behavior they basically understand that I am attacking what
they believe in. Since most people have trouble separating what they
believe in from the basic definition of who they are then when someone
attacks their belief they immediately become defensive. There's no
nice way to separate the attack of an irrational belief from an attack
on the person since they ultimately must bear responsibility for
associating what they believe with who they are. However, there's a
loophole for those of you who want to escape this sinking ship of
modern pseudoscience. Don't attach yourself to false beliefs, sell
your stock in falsehood. Oops! Many cannot sell their stock in trade
because it is what they make their living with. They can't sell all
that they treasure and take the proceeds and buy the truth. For those
who cannot divorce themselves from the pseudophysics it is almost like
they are galley slaves chained into the subcompartments of their
particular subdisciplines in modern physics. Unfortunately for them
their ship has been rammed and is sinking.

oh? really? many recriminations. no proof.

My claim relates to nuclear fusion, to the operation of stars and even
to the denial of the existence of things that General Relativity
predicts like black holes and is as I stated above that pairs of
elementary charged particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength
[calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or
greater than the interparticle distance will interact in a manner that
is opposite to such behavior as would be predicted by Coulomb's law.
Simply: 1) If two like charged particles obtain to a condition where
they are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum
space as above) then they will be strongly attractively interactive.

proof? something like a BEC? that'd only be at the atomic level, tho

2) If two unlike charged particles obtain to a condition where they
are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum space
as above) then they will be strongly repulsively interactive.

You can arrive at this conclusion from Maxwell's equations and the
axiomatic physical principle that all motion is relative.

I had a conversation with Ephraim Fischbach of Purdue several years
back. Ephraim is an internationally recognized expert in particle
physics.

I presented the challenge to him that I had never found any
experimental data that proved that Coulomb's law held true for
elementary charged particles which were at rest with respect to one
another.

negative evidence is not proof

In fact, I stated that there had never been an experiment in
the history of physics which showed that elementary charged particles
which are at rest with respect to one another behaved according to the
expectations of Coulomb's Law. After a moment or two of consideration,
Dr. Fischbach confessed that he had to agree with me, that he likewise
knew of no experiment which conclusively proved this. First, it is a
tremendously difficult experiment to undertake and would be exceedingly
technically challenging.

agreed

Second, since virtually all physicists are
predisposed to agree in advance that the particles would behave
according to Coulomb's law, no one would be particularly surprised at
the results of an experiment concerning which they are already sure of
the outcome so on that basis alone the experiment is not considered
sufficiently interesting to undertake as a project.

if you could dream up an experiment that'd disprove a fundamental
understanding in any science, scientists would be climbing all over
it.
what you say doesn't defy sense, it defies reality.

What I'm proposing, however, is that we can logically deduce, using
Maxwell's equations together with principle of the relativity of
motion, that elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect
to one another will, in fact, behave precisely opposite to the
expectations provided by Coulomb's Law.

Bear with me please, while I lay out my reasoning. When we write
Maxwell's equations in terms of E and H only then we have:

1) Del X H = permittivity dE/dt
2) Del X E = -permeability dH/dt
3) Del dot E = 0
4) Del dot H = 0

Equation 1) as applied to a charged particle suggests that if that
charged particle should have motion so that there would be a variation
in E so that a vector field with rotation (Del X H) should arise around
the translational axis of that motion.

Considering the principle that all motion is relative one must reflect
that a charged particle cannot move with respect to itself and hence in
the rest frame of such particle this predicted vector field could not
exist. Instead, such a field could only exist in the rest frame of the
particle or observer which had relative motion with respect to the
particle.

So, if we had two protons, A and B which had relative motion then
emanating from B's location but not local to B (not existing in B's
rest frame) would be a vector field as predicted by equation 1) above.
Such vector field would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the
translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

Likewise, because of the relative motion of the two particles then
emanating from A's location but not local to A would also arise a
vector field which also would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to
the translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

The vector field emanating from A's location would exist in B's rest
frame (momentum space) and the vector field emanating from B's location
would exist in A's rest frame (momentum space).

Now, for two same charged particles that don't have relative motion
with respect to each other one might presume that there would be an
electrostatic repulsion between them. But as I pointed out above,
there's actually no experimental data that has shown this to be the
case. Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that two same charged
particles that have relative motion will not repel one another but only
that elementary charged particles which don't have relative motion will
not. So, let's consider two protons, A and B, which are overlapping
in momentum space and which are separated by distance d.

In the rest frame of third particle C which has motion with respect to
A and B will arise a pair of vector fields (Del X H)^AC and
(Del*X*H)^BC where AC and BC are superscripts (not exponents) to
indicate the vector fields generated by the relative motion of A with
respect to C and B with respect to C, respectively. This pair of
vector fields will emanate from A and B respectively but will be
nonlocal to both A and B because neither A nor B can move with respect
to themselves (as noted above).

What I'm proposing here is that for any perpendicular component of the
relative velocity of C with respect to a plane coincident with a
straight line joining A and B that the two vector fields (Del X H)^AC
and (Del X H)^BC will produce magnetic H loops that will interact in
such a manner as to produce what appears to be an attractive
interaction between A and B.

where did this magnetism arise, assuming these are subatomic
particles? photon mediated? instigated by motion relative to the 3
particles?

Consider that there are very many other particles in the universe which
will have relative motion with respect to A and B and that for any
component of velocity which each and every other particle may have
which is perpendicular to a plane coincident with the line A-B that
emerging from the locations of A and B will be generated such vector
fields that will also produce an attractive interaction between A and
B. Every one of those vector fields will be nonlocal to the particles
A and B and nonlocal to each other so that the total force calculated
will be related to the sum of the individual forces produced in each
frame and each individual force will be related to the magnitude of the
relative motion (velocity) of each and every other particle in the
universe because it is by that velocity that is determined the magnitude
of dE/dt in each and every case.

If two nearby particles of the same charge are in the same rest frame
(overlapping in momentum space) and if they both entered that momentum
space at the same time then the maximum time that will pass before they
can interact is T(max)=Dp/2c but if they did not come into the same
momentum space at the same instant then T(max)=(Dp-c(t2-t1))/2c where
Dp is the interparticle distance, t1 is the time that the first
particle enters a given momentum space and t2 is time that the second
particle enters that same momentum space and t2=t1, c(t2-t1)=Dp, and
c is the speed of light. If the two particles obtain to a common
momentum space at the same instant so that t2=t1 then T(max)=Dp/2c. If
c(t2-t1)=Dp then T(max)=0 and the particles will immediately begin to
interact.

not a chance. as D gets very large, the time gets very large too
would this constitute spooky action at a distance?

here's where i get off. sorry.


Two particles that obtain to a common momentum space at the same
instant in time that are on the order of 10 nuclear diameters apart
(5e-14 meters) will begin to interact in a maximum time of 8.337E-23
seconds. This force, which if between nuclei will be strongly
attractively interactive, is a short time scale force which means that
particles which could interact will have to be on the order of a mean
free path distance apart from one another and that T(max) has to be on
the order of the mean free path flight time. Particles for which Dp
the mean free path will likely be perturbed before the reaction can
begin. So, this force, which is normally interpreted as the nuclear
strong force is not so much a short distance scale or short range force
but rather a short time scale availability force and you can see that
it is entirely electromagnetic in character. Also, this force is
the sum of the forces generated by the number of particles which have
motion with respect to A and B so it is a very strong force as well as
being a short time scale availability force.

I used the terms 'local' and 'nonlocal' in a manner which may be a
little nonstandard so please let me explain how I mean them.

Definition: nonlocal; adjective, A good definition here is a quote from
Nick Herbert's, Quantum Reality, p. 214,Anchor paperback: "A nonlocal
interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate."
Nonlocal interactions do not diminish with distance, "They are as
potent at a million miles as at a millimeter." Nonlocal interactions
are not delayed in time. "Nonlocal influences act instantaneously."
Nonlocal interactions are unmediated. "...no amount of interposed
matter can shield this interaction." He tells us nonlocal interactions
are not limited to light speed.

Consider two particles A and B which suddenly have relative motion
between them.

As stated earlier a vector field will emanate from B's location due to
A's relative motion. Now it doesn't matter how far away B is from A
when they first achieve relative motion. They can be light years apart
but as soon as they begin to have relative motion A causes a field to
emanate from B's location and B causes a field to emanate from A's
location.

this is patently BS

The field emanating from A's location is nonlocally
generated per Herbert's description but it also happens to an
unobservable with respect to A's vantage point or rest frame simply
because A cannot move with respect to itself and hence vary its
electric field with respect to itself. So, in this sense it is also
not present in A's frame and hence in this context is also not local to
A. In the same context it is local to B because it is in B's rest
frame even though it will take an amount of time which is equal to the
distance between A and B divided by the speed of light for it to
physically be present at B's location.

X2

Definition: overlapping in momentum space or occupying common momentum
space - Two particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength
[calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or
greater than the interparticle distance can be said to be overlapping
in momentum space or occupying a common momentum space. This is just a
direct manner which one may quantify what it means for two particles to
be 'at rest' with respect to one another without requiring that there
be no motion at all.

if i can paraphrase, what you are saying is that any two or more
particles that happen to have an overlapping wave function are already
interacting? wouldn't that predicate a pretty nutty existence? or,
could it be as simple as the particles that make up our universe are
interacting at some real size/distance frame.
if your idea constitues some understanding of dark matter or dark
energy, i'm all ears.

My goal was to show that using just Maxwell's equations and the
principle that all motion is relative that one can show that elementary
charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space will, in
fact, act opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law. This means
that if two like charged particles are overlapping in momentum space
then they'll be strongly attractively interactive and if two unlike
charged particles are overlapping in momentum space then they will be
repulsively interactive.

Our whole experimental history with the interactive behavior of
elementary charged particles mainly deals with charges that have lots
of relative motion and which consequently behave according to the
expectations of Coulomb's law. However, we do have instances where
electrons, for example, pair up (as Cooper Pairs) in superconduction
regimes. The effort of the community of plasma physicists involved
with attempts to harness nuclear fusion has been centered almost
totally around concepts and technologies the sole aim of which is to
increase the relative motion (velocity) of fusion fuel nuclei in order
to produce nuclear fusion reactions.

My analysis is that this approach is all wrong and that one can see
that in any confined fusion fuel gas ensemble of n particles that there
is at any given instant exactly ((n^2)-n)/2 pairwise relationships
between the fusion fuel nuclei. One can see that for n particles
where n is 1 that statistically there is a positive probability that
for any given particle at a given instant that there will be at least
one other nucleus which will be overlapping in momentum space with it.

NO! (inf^2-inf)/2 is still infinity
its a soup of interactions

As n increases the probability will reach unity. Continuing to
increase n will then mean that statistically the probability that more
than one particle will be overlapping in momentum space with any given
particle for some small given increment of time is = 1. As n increases
then not just 3 particles, then 4 and so on will be overlapping in the
same momentum space. This implies that n particles will be divided
into j number of momentum spaces each occupied by k number of particles
so that j*k=n.* I suggest that there is a ratio between pairs of
particles that are overlapping in momentum space and pairs of particles
that are not overlapping in momentum space and that raising the
temperature of a confined fusion fuel gas will not alter that ratio.
This is important because I am suggesting that only those nuclei which
are overlapping in momentum space can ever achieve nuclear fusion. This
means that to achieve a successful design of a nuclear fusion reactor
(one that is constantly at over breakeven) that a means must be found
to fundamentally alter the ratio between pairs of fusion fuel nuclei
that are overlapping in momentum space with respect to those pairs that
are not.

I've found the solution to this problem (controlling the momentum
states of large numbers of fusion fuel nuclei) but I first need to
convince the general physics community that if Maxwell's equations are
true then that means that elementary charged particles must behave
opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law if they are overlapping
in momentum space.

Now all of this is really very simple but in its simplicity it has
destroyed the foundational assumptions behind the operations of stars
because it demonstrates that star cannot possibly operate according to
popularly accepted theories, that they cannot collapse into black
holes.

When we apply the fact that a gravitational field is a time gradient
field to this analysis of the behavior of elementary charged particles
then we can prove that a gravitational field must display a charge
separation effect. (It is pretty simple really, because what can be
shown is that elementary particles in a strong time gradient field will
begin to overlap in momentum space and such overlap for oppositely
charged particles means that they will be strongly repulsively
interactive.) If a gravitational field treats electrons differently
from protons (which it must) then the central postulate of General
Relativity which is the Equivalence Principle is shown to be false.

And guess what, folks, all of this came not from the invention of
ficticious forces (like the nuclear strong force and its associated
baggage of intellectual fabrications like quarks and gluons) but rather
from known data, accepted physical principles like the relativity of
motion and Maxwell's equations. And it was derived not from the
pseudoscientific process of 'theory making' but rather emerged directly
from deductive logic applied to foundational axioms together with known
data.

So, my argument is rather simple. If you believe in Maxwell's
equations and in the principle of the relativity of motion then one can
logically deduce that elementary charged particles which are
overlapping in momentum space will behave opposite to the expectations
of Coulomb's Law.

Charles Cagle

Well, some **** for brains idiot has tried to put this stupid thread to
SCI,OPTICS again. I've removed it from the newsgroups listed.
Please leave us out of the header as all of us have already had our fill of
the total stupidity of the whole thread.

--
Bob May
Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
Works evevery time it is tried!

HELLO?!?!?!

Charles? Are you out there?


HELLO?!?!

what no wise guy answers to my idiotic queries?

if you were presenting this stuff for your PhD you'd have to defend it
from people far ruder than i.....

In article , beavith
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:09:50 GMT, Charles Cagle
wrote:

In article , beavith
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:51:21 GMT, Charles Cagle
wrote:

In article , Robert J. Kolker
wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
There is no "electrostatic force." Electromagnetic forces propagated
by spin-1 vector bosons do not unify with gravitation which, if it is
quantized at all, propagates via a spin-2 tensor boson.

I am having a bit of trouble with this. What is the Coulomb force
between two charges, then? Why isn't that electrostatic? The mutual
force between two charged particles does not depend on their motion, as
is the case of the Lorentz force of a mag field on a moving charge.

Regardless of the means of intermediation, be it virtual photons or
action at distance, the instanteneous force each charge feels from the
other depends on the distance (1/distance^2) and the magnitude and sign
of the charges (charge 1 * charge 2).

Bob Kolker

In reality the force between elementary charged particles does depend
upon their relative motion. If two particles have a common de Broglie
wavelength equal to or greater than their interparticle distance
[measured from their center of momentum frame] then their interactive
behavior will be just opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law.

This interesting fact can be directly deduced from two simple axioms
and Maxwell's equations.

Axiom 1: Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other
quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived
coordinate system.

so what?

So you're asleep at the switch, that's what, if you can't grasp the
implications of a background independent physics.

nice. i try to cut to the point of the argument, and a wealth of
condescention descends. i'll try and remain polite. unlike you.

Mentioning it at all while saying 'unlike you' eliminates the potential
for your politeness.




Axiom 2: Quantum particles always move to the lowest energy state
situation available.

quantum particles can be in any state. atomic and electronic states
tend to the lowest level. this is not the same thing

Your tendency to obtusity is evident.

sticks and stones. so, do quantum states move to the lowest energy
state or not? or is that property an atomic or molecular one?

Axiom 2: Quantum particles always move to the lowest energy state
situation available.

I never said anything about quantum states moving to anything.






It should be interesting to any true aficianado of physics that
Coulomb's law is invalid when it comes to elementary charged particles
which are overlapping in momentum space. That's right, using the
principle of the relativity of motion and Maxwell's equation:
Del*X*H=*permeability*dE/dt one can show that if elementary charged
particles are in the same momentum space (that they have a common de
Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is
equal to or greater than the interparticle distance) that they will
behave in a manner which is just opposite to the expectations of
Coulomb's law. This is a matter of straight forward deduction and is
substantiated by quite a lot of data.

?

Cooper pairing is a good example, but then the most blatant evidence is
the existence of nuclei with multiple protons.

i thought Cooper Pairs only applied to electrons, under
superconducting conditions/materials?
am i wrong? where do protons come into it?

Cooper Pairing applies to electrons. And Cooper Pairing is a good
example of Coulomb's law being violated or elementary charged particles
acting opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's law. The protons
mentioned are also violating the expectations of Coulomb's law. And
don't jump up an chime in 'strong force'. Most physicists believe that
the Coulombic repulsion is still happening at the time the so-called
strong force is dominating the interaction. In reality, Coulombic
repulsion for like charged particles overlapping in momentum space is
and always has been a fiction.


Of course, the data, which is
pointed to as substantiation already has a well accepted explanation or
set of arguments designed to explain the existence of said data along
other lines. In other words, when the existence of said data first
became known then physicists were in a terrible quandary because they
saw that the data was contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
What was this data? It was the discovery, circa 1910, that the nuclei
of elements that are not isotopes of hydrogen can have multiple protons
in close proximity without displaying the repulsive interaction
predicted by Coulomb's law.

strong force

knee jerk reaction. The strong force is a cobbled together piece of
pseudoscientific nonsense. It is an intellectual invention which
cannot be differentiated from the work product of a pathological liar.
That so many fools have been taken in by it and its subsequent
extrapolations (gluons, quarks, charm, color, strangeness, etc. etc.)
is only testimony to how complex lies must become as they are
challenged by data and of how many fools occupy the hall of academia
these days.

i don't know about cobbled or pseudoscientific. i will feel better
about it, tho, when its been integrated into the electroweak framework
that Maxwelll's work has been integrated into.
while Occam's razor sure makes the "subsequent extrapolations" not as
elegant as a simple framework, it doesn't defy observed science, your
complaining notwithstanding

Neither quarks or any of their properties have been observed.






Now, I know that most of those who post on this n.g. are going to get
their hackles up because when I attack the pseudoscientific arguments
that were 'invented' to 'explain away' the obvious deviation from
Coulombic behavior they basically understand that I am attacking what
they believe in. Since most people have trouble separating what they
believe in from the basic definition of who they are then when someone
attacks their belief they immediately become defensive. There's no
nice way to separate the attack of an irrational belief from an attack
on the person since they ultimately must bear responsibility for
associating what they believe with who they are. However, there's a
loophole for those of you who want to escape this sinking ship of
modern pseudoscience. Don't attach yourself to false beliefs, sell
your stock in falsehood. Oops! Many cannot sell their stock in trade
because it is what they make their living with. They can't sell all
that they treasure and take the proceeds and buy the truth. For those
who cannot divorce themselves from the pseudophysics it is almost like
they are galley slaves chained into the subcompartments of their
particular subdisciplines in modern physics. Unfortunately for them
their ship has been rammed and is sinking.

oh? really? many recriminations. no proof.

Really. A fool like you can never come to a point where he accepts the
fact that he's a fool. He can accept no 'proof' just because of the
nature of what he calls a 'proof'.

now you made me cry... boo hoo.
proof stands on its own two feet. barking at someone who only wants
to understand what you are saying doesn't strengthen your argument.
however, maybe if you type in caps, that'll help me.

Not much is going to help you unless you wake up and realize that
'proof' is only an arbitrary quantity of 'evidence' and that 'evidence'
is the subjective interpretation of data typically within the framework
of a particular paradigm. Proof in the logical or mathematical sense
is a different matter.





My claim relates to nuclear fusion, to the operation of stars and even
to the denial of the existence of things that General Relativity
predicts like black holes and is as I stated above that pairs of
elementary charged particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength
[calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or
greater than the interparticle distance will interact in a manner that
is opposite to such behavior as would be predicted by Coulomb's law.
Simply: 1) If two like charged particles obtain to a condition where
they are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum
space as above) then they will be strongly attractively interactive.

proof? something like a BEC? that'd only be at the atomic level, tho

You overlook the obvious because it is so obvious and because you've
checked your brain at the hat stand as you came in the doors of
academia.

i've been out of academia for a little while now. understanding this
would be to my sole benefit, your abuse notwithstanding.

Well, it would be to your benefit to stay away from academia.




2) If two unlike charged particles obtain to a condition where they
are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum space
as above) then they will be strongly repulsively interactive.

You can arrive at this conclusion from Maxwell's equations and the
axiomatic physical principle that all motion is relative.

I had a conversation with Ephraim Fischbach of Purdue several years
back. Ephraim is an internationally recognized expert in particle
physics.

I presented the challenge to him that I had never found any
experimental data that proved that Coulomb's law held true for
elementary charged particles which were at rest with respect to one
another.

negative evidence is not proof

Of course, it isn't. And I never stated that it was. Straw man.

let me see what i didn't understand...
"never found any experimental data that Coulomb's law held true"

this would be a fallacy, since no experiment or being able to find any
experimental data shows that nobody knows anything on the subject.

It isn't a fallacy. Its an eye opener. There is no experimental data
that demonstrates that Coulomb's law holds true for elementary
particles which are overlapping in momentum space. I'm saying that
there does exist experimental data to the contrary. Multiple protons
in the nuclei of atoms is an example of protons which are overlapping
in momentum space and they are not repelling one another. Cooper Pairs
are another example of same charged particles overlapping in momentum
space which have become attractively interactive.


of course, this subject regards evidence that violates everything
understood about Coulombs Law. reaching a conclusion counter to that
law without a confirmatory experiment is, as you would say,
pseudoscientific.

Sometimes you have to realize that the experiment has already been done
but that people have been asleep at the switch.



perhaps i shouldn't have said "proof," but there is no reason to
reject Coulomb, or be concerned in the slightest that is a defect in
the supporting theory, other than, perhaps, you want there to be a
defect.

Nonsense. Coulomb's law was formulated without the consideration that
elementary charged particles under most observational conditions have
lots of relative motion and are not generally overlapping in momentum
space.



In fact, I stated that there had never been an experiment in
the history of physics which showed that elementary charged particles
which are at rest with respect to one another behaved according to the
expectations of Coulomb's Law. After a moment or two of consideration,
Dr. Fischbach confessed that he had to agree with me, that he likewise
knew of no experiment which conclusively proved this. First, it is a
tremendously difficult experiment to undertake and would be exceedingly
technically challenging.

agreed

Finally.

don't break your arm patting yourself on your back just yet.



Second, since virtually all physicists are
predisposed to agree in advance that the particles would behave
according to Coulomb's law, no one would be particularly surprised at
the results of an experiment concerning which they are already sure of
the outcome so on that basis alone the experiment is not considered
sufficiently interesting to undertake as a project.

if you could dream up an experiment that'd disprove a fundamental
understanding in any science, scientists would be climbing all over
it. what you say doesn't defy sense, it defies reality.

Nonsense. There's a universe of data which says otherwise and because
a bad explanation of that data has been accepted for so many years then
the very 'proof' that you're looking for is like the 'purloined
letter'; it is right in front of you but you've accepted a
pseudoscientific explanation.

i'm all ears. where is this experimental evidence? rather than be
swindled, maybe i can get a Nobel Prize for proving a more general
theory than Coulomb. it worked for Einstein.

Is that what you want? A Nobel prize? When people like Steven
Weinberg get them then their value becomes quite deluted.



How could you admit to being
intellectually swindled without disclosing that you're a fool?

if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. sue me.

No. You need to sue yourself. Kick your own self in the butt and turn
yourself around and get going in the right direction.



You can't. Your ego is in the way.

not at all. i'm no expert. if there is any truth to this stuff, it
should be evident. so far, nothing is clear.

It is painfully evident - unless you happen to have your head where the
sun doesn't shine. It is a matter of correctly interpreting data that
has been misinterpreted for years.




What I'm proposing, however, is that we can logically deduce, using
Maxwell's equations together with principle of the relativity of
motion, that elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect
to one another will, in fact, behave precisely opposite to the
expectations provided by Coulomb's Law.

Bear with me please, while I lay out my reasoning. When we write
Maxwell's equations in terms of E and H only then we have:

1) Del X H = permittivity dE/dt
2) Del X E = -permeability dH/dt
3) Del dot E = 0
4) Del dot H = 0

Equation 1) as applied to a charged particle suggests that if that
charged particle should have motion so that there would be a variation
in E so that a vector field with rotation (Del X H) should arise around
the translational axis of that motion.

Considering the principle that all motion is relative one must reflect
that a charged particle cannot move with respect to itself and hence in
the rest frame of such particle this predicted vector field could not
exist. Instead, such a field could only exist in the rest frame of the
particle or observer which had relative motion with respect to the
particle.

So, if we had two protons, A and B which had relative motion then
emanating from B's location but not local to B (not existing in B's
rest frame) would be a vector field as predicted by equation 1) above.
Such vector field would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the
translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

Likewise, because of the relative motion of the two particles then
emanating from A's location but not local to A would also arise a
vector field which also would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to
the translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

The vector field emanating from A's location would exist in B's rest
frame (momentum space) and the vector field emanating from B's location
would exist in A's rest frame (momentum space).

Now, for two same charged particles that don't have relative motion
with respect to each other one might presume that there would be an
electrostatic repulsion between them. But as I pointed out above,
there's actually no experimental data that has shown this to be the
case. Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that two same charged
particles that have relative motion will not repel one another but only
that elementary charged particles which don't have relative motion will
not. So, let's consider two protons, A and B, which are overlapping
in momentum space and which are separated by distance d.

In the rest frame of third particle C which has motion with respect to
A and B will arise a pair of vector fields (Del X H)^AC and
(Del*X*H)^BC where AC and BC are superscripts (not exponents) to
indicate the vector fields generated by the relative motion of A with
respect to C and B with respect to C, respectively. This pair of
vector fields will emanate from A and B respectively but will be
nonlocal to both A and B because neither A nor B can move with respect
to themselves (as noted above).

What I'm proposing here is that for any perpendicular component of the
relative velocity of C with respect to a plane coincident with a
straight line joining A and B that the two vector fields (Del X H)^AC
and (Del X H)^BC will produce magnetic H loops that will interact in
such a manner as to produce what appears to be an attractive
interaction between A and B.

where did this magnetism arise, assuming these are subatomic
particles? photon mediated? instigated by motion relative to the 3
particles?

Where do you see me use the word 'magnetism'? H by definition is
magnetic field intensity measured in Ampere/meter. The H arises on a
plane perpendicular to the translational axis of motion of a charged
particle. See: Del X H = permittivity dE/dt, above.

ok.

magnetic field is not the same as magnetism? i suppose at right
angles to that magnetic field, you would find an electric field with a
unit of helmholtz/meter?

Magnetism is an overused word.



Consider that there are very many other particles in the universe which
will have relative motion with respect to A and B and that for any
component of velocity which each and every other particle may have
which is perpendicular to a plane coincident with the line A-B that
emerging from the locations of A and B will be generated such vector
fields that will also produce an attractive interaction between A and
B. Every one of those vector fields will be nonlocal to the particles
A and B and nonlocal to each other so that the total force calculated
will be related to the sum of the individual forces produced in each
frame and each individual force will be related to the magnitude of the
relative motion (velocity) of each and every other particle in the
universe because it is by that velocity that is determined the magnitude
of dE/dt in each and every case.

If two nearby particles of the same charge are in the same rest frame
(overlapping in momentum space) and if they both entered that momentum
space at the same time then the maximum time that will pass before they
can interact is T(max)=Dp/2c but if they did not come into the same
momentum space at the same instant then T(max)=(Dp-c(t2-t1))/2c where
Dp is the interparticle distance, t1 is the time that the first
particle enters a given momentum space and t2 is time that the second
particle enters that same momentum space and t2=t1, c(t2-t1)=Dp, and
c is the speed of light. If the two particles obtain to a common
momentum space at the same instant so that t2=t1 then T(max)=Dp/2c. If
c(t2-t1)=Dp then T(max)=0 and the particles will immediately begin to
interact.

not a chance. as D gets very large, the time gets very large too
would this constitute spooky action at a distance?

here's where i get off. sorry.

Oh looky. You're using catch-phrases linked with knee jerk reactions.
How cute. That's real 'scientific' of you.

well, until i can see someone move things without touching them, i
won't believe in telekinesis either. illusions, notwithstanding.
nothing knee jerk about it. if it doesn't happen in the real world,
its "pseudoscience" to me.

You need to pay attention to the implications of Maxwell's equations.
Particularly 1) Del X H = permittivity dE/dt

If you have a charged particle, A, and some other particle, B, at any
given distance begins to have relative motion with respect to it (with
respect to A, that is) then in that particle's rest frame (B's rest
frame) but perhaps very far from it that Del X H vector field will
begin to emerge. It certainly isn't in A's frame since A cannot move
with respect to itself. This emergence of the Del X H vector field is
an immediate effect of B's motion with respect to A because A
represents the source of an electric field that, by virtue of its
relative motion with respect to B, is changing.



A del X H vector field
(mathematical description of a magnetic field) arises around a charged
particle on a plane normal to the translational axis of motion of that
charged particle. That motion is distinct and related only to the
relative motion of some one other quantum particle (see axiom 1). The
vector field is not detectable from the particle's rest frame but
nevertheless it begins to arise immediately with the relative motion of
some remote particle.

i thought Einstein invented the idea of rest frames with his theory of
relativity.

I don't think he invented the idea of rest frames. He used the notion
but I don't think there's any reason to believe that he's the person
who originally came up with the concept.



If you reject this then you also must reject
Maxwell's equations.

as dull as i am, Maxwell or Einstein don't preclude each other, as far
as I know.

The fact is that there are very many remote
particles in the universe which have relative motion with respect to
any one given elementary charged particle and the relative motion of
each of them produces a unique and distinct vector field emanating from
the subject particle's location. Each of those vector fields are
nonlocal to the particle and to each other. I know that you probably
can't actually put this together in your head so it is likely that you
will reject it.

dumb it down for me.

It already is dumbed down. I take pains to write exactly what I mean.
Because in a universe of n particles any one particle can have n-1
motions then with respect to each particular motion which is a specific
instance of relative motion with respect to some one other quantum
particle (see Axiom 1) a Del X H vector field will be produced.
Therefore n-1 such Del X H vector fields will exist surrounding the
particle but none of them are in the same momentum space (this isn't
strictly true as there would be a finite number of other particles in
the same momentum space). In fact we could suggest that there are j
particles in each momentum space and there are k possible momentum
spaces so that j*k=n. But this only means that there are j*(k-1)
particles each whose relative motion acts as the generator of a del X H
vector field which would emerge from a given elementary charged
particle.



But what you don't realize because of your extreme
intellectual dullness is that to reject this you have to also reject
Maxwell's equations. Go ahead, though. That's your last resort. See,
you're caught like a rat in the trap of logic and there's no way out
except for you to just go into a state of denial.

hold me by the hand and lead me to acceptance. so far you have
nothing but thought experiments and hope. come up with a definitive
exclusive argument and experiment. you already have a hypothesis.
take it to the next level.

I have taken it to many levels beyond but you're not being astute
enough to follow along. Wake up. Pay attention. These aren't just
thought experiments but reflections on how one considers the real
physics of Axiom 1) coupled with Maxwell's equations.





Two particles that obtain to a common momentum space at the same
instant in time that are on the order of 10 nuclear diameters apart
(5e-14 meters) will begin to interact in a maximum time of 8.337E-23
seconds. This force, which if between nuclei will be strongly
attractively interactive, is a short time scale force which means that
particles which could interact will have to be on the order of a mean
free path distance apart from one another and that T(max) has to be on
the order of the mean free path flight time. Particles for which Dp
the mean free path will likely be perturbed before the reaction can
begin. So, this force, which is normally interpreted as the nuclear
strong force is not so much a short distance scale or short range force
but rather a short time scale availability force and you can see that
it is entirely electromagnetic in character. Also, this force is
the sum of the forces generated by the number of particles which have
motion with respect to A and B so it is a very strong force as well as
being a short time scale availability force.

I used the terms 'local' and 'nonlocal' in a manner which may be a
little nonstandard so please let me explain how I mean them.

Definition: nonlocal; adjective, A good definition here is a quote from
Nick Herbert's, Quantum Reality, p. 214,Anchor paperback: "A nonlocal
interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate."
Nonlocal interactions do not diminish with distance, "They are as
potent at a million miles as at a millimeter." Nonlocal interactions
are not delayed in time. "Nonlocal influences act instantaneously."
Nonlocal interactions are unmediated. "...no amount of interposed
matter can shield this interaction." He tells us nonlocal interactions
are not limited to light speed.

Consider two particles A and B which suddenly have relative motion
between them.

As stated earlier a vector field will emanate from B's location due to
A's relative motion. Now it doesn't matter how far away B is from A
when they first achieve relative motion. They can be light years apart
but as soon as they begin to have relative motion A causes a field to
emanate from B's location and B causes a field to emanate from A's
location.

this is patently BS

This is the part where when you say that 'this is patently BS' you are
simultaneously saying that Maxwell's equations are BS. You've just
never had the wit

sense of humor? i'm laughing on the inside.

to actually work out the implications of Axiom 1)
coupled with Maxwell's equations. You're simply not smart enough to
get it.

nothing can travel at the speed of light. there's no exclusion to
travelling faster. do a rapid sketch of the Lorentz equations and
note the available spaces and asymptotic limits. c is one of them.
now, if you are talking tachyons and reaction before action, and can
prove it, then you'd be saying something.
i gotta admire your tenacity, if nothing else.

Pay attention. Relationships and changes to them are immediate.



You've been painted into a corner and you don't like it so
you're knee jerk reaction is rejection. Too bad that you reject
certainty in physics.


hmmm. seems that its not me that rejecting objective reality.
find an experimental flaw in Coulomb's law. bet you can't, thought
experiments aside.

Cooper Pairing is one. The existence of multiple protons in the nuclei
of atoms is another. Right in front of you like the purloined letter
but you've accepted alternative explanations for both of these
examples.






The field emanating from A's location is nonlocally
generated per Herbert's description but it also happens to an
unobservable with respect to A's vantage point or rest frame simply
because A cannot move with respect to itself and hence vary its
electric field with respect to itself. So, in this sense it is also
not present in A's frame and hence in this context is also not local to
A. In the same context it is local to B because it is in B's rest
frame even though it will take an amount of time which is equal to the
distance between A and B divided by the speed of light for it to
physically be present at B's location.

X2

What a loon you are. A charged particle cannot move with respect to
itself and hence the magnetic field generated by its relative motion
which Maxwell's equations depict as Del X H cannot be in the rest frame
fo the particle itself. It cannot be local to the particle from which
it appears to emanate.

true enough. however, the field can only effect another particle
within the light cone included by the time between cause and effect.


Great. I agree. But if A and B are within say 10 nuclear diameters of
each other and suddenly drop into the same momentum space then the
relative motion of some remote particle, C, will bring about the
emergence of a pair of vector fields, one from A and one from B. As
soon as those fields can come in contact with each other which will be
in a length of time equal to half of their interparticle distance
divided by the speed of light then the particles will begin to
interact. Now it doesn't matter how far away C is just so there is
some component of its relative velocity which is normal to the plane
containing A and B. Consider that there are very many other particles
in the universe each of which has some component of its velocity normal
to a plane containing A and B.


Definition: overlapping in momentum space or occupying common momentum
space - Two particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength
[calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or
greater than the interparticle distance can be said to be overlapping
in momentum space or occupying a common momentum space. This is just a
direct manner which one may quantify what it means for two particles to
be 'at rest' with respect to one another without requiring that there
be no motion at all.

if i can paraphrase, what you are saying is that any two or more
particles that happen to have an overlapping wave function are already
interacting?

You not only mis-paraphrased but you did a really bad job of it, too.
I've never hinted that two particles which are overlapping in momentum
space are already in a state of interaction. This can occur in
specific instances as I pointed out earlier but it is not a
generalization.

the paraphrase comes with your contention that spooky action at a
distance is valid. if so, there are no limits to how far this effect
is felt. oh. i get it. if B, then A. ????

No, you don't get it. You're still using a catchphrase which isn't
physically valid. It would be spookier if the motion of a remote
particle did not generate a vector field emerging from a charged
particle. It would mean that Maxwell's equations aren't consistent
with reality.




wouldn't that predicate a pretty nutty existence? or,
could it be as simple as the particles that make up our universe are
interacting at some real size/distance frame.
if your idea constitues some understanding of dark matter or dark
energy, i'm all ears.

Well, if you're all ears then why does it seem that the word "BS" keeps
pouring out of your mouth (or keyboard)?

we are what we eat.

In fact, you're afraid of the notion of 'spooky action at a distance'
because it is a catchphrase used by persons (Einstein and others) who
simply didn't understand the universe.

it depends what universe you are in. my universe prevents things from
happening at a distance without some sort of mediating particle.
i can't speak for yours

You're not even speaking properly for yours.




I've already shown that the
motion of a remote particle can generate a pair of vector fields for
two like charged particles that are near

if you simply said "very close together" i wouldn't argue.

each other and overlapping in
momentum space which will cause those particles to become attractively
interactive. That remote particle can be light years

the problem is this idea that light years apart is meaningful, except
over periods of years, and of course, the influence of that particle
inversely varies as the 4th power.

Wrong. Relative motion is a direct relationship and the relationship
is direct and real no matter how far away other particle might be.


away but the
interaction between the two nearby particles will begin to take place
on a very short timescale. Of course that remote particle is only one
of many in the universe all of which individually contribute to the
magnitude of the reaction between the two particles.

yes. but all these particles are doing their own thing, possibly in a
quantum soup.

That's a null content response.



If you're interested in the nature of dark matter then you should be
interested in the fact that this physics leads right to its nature and
how and why it comes into being.

i agree. dark energy and dark matter are nothing more than book
keeping conventions.
i know that you are going to go wild on me for saying this, as ugly as
DE and DM are, until something better comes along, its the best we've
got.
unless you can find that niche in the current theories where
everything breaks down, or gets violated.
so far, this discussion is discouraging

Because you're not paying attention.



My goal was to show that using just Maxwell's equations and the
principle that all motion is relative that one can show that elementary
charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space will, in
fact, act opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law. This means
that if two like charged particles are overlapping in momentum space
then they'll be strongly attractively interactive and if two unlike
charged particles are overlapping in momentum space then they will be
repulsively interactive.

Our whole experimental history with the interactive behavior of
elementary charged particles mainly deals with charges that have lots
of relative motion and which consequently behave according to the
expectations of Coulomb's law. However, we do have instances where
electrons, for example, pair up (as Cooper Pairs) in superconduction
regimes. The effort of the community of plasma physicists involved
with attempts to harness nuclear fusion has been centered almost
totally around concepts and technologies the sole aim of which is to
increase the relative motion (velocity) of fusion fuel nuclei in order
to produce nuclear fusion reactions.

My analysis is that this approach is all wrong and that one can see
that in any confined fusion fuel gas ensemble of n particles that there
is at any given instant exactly ((n^2)-n)/2 pairwise relationships
between the fusion fuel nuclei. One can see that for n particles
where n is 1 that statistically there is a positive probability that
for any given particle at a given instant that there will be at least
one other nucleus which will be overlapping in momentum space with it.

NO! (inf^2-inf)/2 is still infinity
its a soup of interactions

You're back to being confused.

nope. this is not a normalized equation. for 1000 particles, plug it
in and what do you get? a number of pairs.

(1000^2 - 1000)/2 = 999,000/2 = 499,500 pairs.

big deal. probability is 1 that there will be pairs.

you've "proven" not but the obvious.

(inf^2-inf)/2 is a meaningless expression.

I don't use infinities since they are not meaningful in a universe of n
quanta.






As n increases the probability will reach unity. Continuing to
increase n will then mean that statistically the probability that more
than one particle will be overlapping in momentum space with any given
particle for some small given increment of time is = 1. As n increases
then not just 3 particles, then 4 and so on will be overlapping in the
same momentum space. This implies that n particles will be divided
into j number of momentum spaces each occupied by k number of particles
so that j*k=n.* I suggest that there is a ratio between pairs of
particles that are overlapping in momentum space and pairs of particles
that are not overlapping in momentum space and that raising the
temperature of a confined fusion fuel gas will not alter that ratio.
This is important because I am suggesting that only those nuclei which
are overlapping in momentum space can ever achieve nuclear fusion. This
means that to achieve a successful design of a nuclear fusion reactor
(one that is constantly at over breakeven) that a means must be found
to fundamentally alter the ratio between pairs of fusion fuel nuclei
that are overlapping in momentum space with respect to those pairs that
are not.

I've found the solution to this problem (controlling the momentum
states of large numbers of fusion fuel nuclei) but I first need to
convince the general physics community that if Maxwell's equations are
true then that means that elementary charged particles must behave
opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law if they are overlapping
in momentum space.

Now all of this is really very simple but in its simplicity it has
destroyed the foundational assumptions behind the operations of stars
because it demonstrates that star cannot possibly operate according to
popularly accepted theories, that they cannot collapse into black
holes.

When we apply the fact

fact?

that a gravitational field is a time gradient
field to this analysis of the behavior of elementary charged particles
then we can prove that a gravitational field must display a charge
separation effect.

this is another one that gets me. WTH is a time gradient? dt/dt?
incremental time over incremental time? dt/dd? or worse, incremntal
time over incremental distance? wouldn't this be ln v or something
equally meaningless? can you get a X product? can you multiply it by
a scalar....

A gravitational field can be thought of as a series of concentric
shells like onion layers. Each layer is an gravitational equipotential
quasi surface and the clocks on a given layer all run at the same rate
with respect to any outside observer. Clock on layers closer to the
source run slower than those further from the source. Therefore a
gravitational field has a time rate gradient or is a time rate gradient
field (shortened to time gradient field).




(It is pretty simple really, because what can be
shown is that elementary particles in a strong time gradient field will
begin to overlap in momentum space and such overlap for oppositely
charged particles means that they will be strongly repulsively
interactive.) If a gravitational field treats electrons differently
from protons (which it must) then the central postulate of General
Relativity which is the Equivalence Principle is shown to be false.

And guess what, folks, all of this came not from the invention of
ficticious forces (like the nuclear strong force and its associated
baggage of intellectual fabrications like quarks and gluons) but rather
from known data, accepted physical principles like the relativity of
motion and Maxwell's equations. And it was derived not from the
pseudoscientific process of 'theory making' but rather emerged directly
from deductive logic applied to foundational axioms together with known
data.

So, my argument is rather simple. If you believe in Maxwell's
equations

belief has nothing to do with it....

It has for you up to now. What's changed? You believe in things not
because they have been rigorously demonstrated to be true but rather
because you have chosen to believe a particular interpretation of the
data which isn't substantiated by the facts (particularly the data
where particles are overlapping in momentum space).

Charles Cagle

In article , beavith
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:09:50 GMT, Charles Cagle
wrote:

In article , beavith
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:51:21 GMT, Charles Cagle
wrote:

In article , Robert J. Kolker
wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
There is no "electrostatic force." Electromagnetic forces propagated
by spin-1 vector bosons do not unify with gravitation which, if it is
quantized at all, propagates via a spin-2 tensor boson.

I am having a bit of trouble with this. What is the Coulomb force
between two charges, then? Why isn't that electrostatic? The mutual
force between two charged particles does not depend on their motion, as
is the case of the Lorentz force of a mag field on a moving charge.

Regardless of the means of intermediation, be it virtual photons or
action at distance, the instanteneous force each charge feels from the
other depends on the distance (1/distance^2) and the magnitude and sign
of the charges (charge 1 * charge 2).

Bob Kolker

In reality the force between elementary charged particles does depend
upon their relative motion. If two particles have a common de Broglie
wavelength equal to or greater than their interparticle distance
[measured from their center of momentum frame] then their interactive
behavior will be just opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law.

This interesting fact can be directly deduced from two simple axioms
and Maxwell's equations.

Axiom 1: Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other
quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived
coordinate system.

so what?

So you're asleep at the switch, that's what, if you can't grasp the
implications of a background independent physics.

nice. i try to cut to the point of the argument, and a wealth of
condescention descends. i'll try and remain polite. unlike you.

Mentioning it at all while saying 'unlike you' eliminates the potential
for your politeness.




Axiom 2: Quantum particles always move to the lowest energy state
situation available.

quantum particles can be in any state. atomic and electronic states
tend to the lowest level. this is not the same thing

Your tendency to obtusity is evident.

sticks and stones. so, do quantum states move to the lowest energy
state or not? or is that property an atomic or molecular one?

Axiom 2: Quantum particles always move to the lowest energy state
situation available.

I never said anything about quantum states moving to anything.






It should be interesting to any true aficianado of physics that
Coulomb's law is invalid when it comes to elementary charged particles
which are overlapping in momentum space. That's right, using the
principle of the relativity of motion and Maxwell's equation:
Del*X*H=*permeability*dE/dt one can show that if elementary charged
particles are in the same momentum space (that they have a common de
Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is
equal to or greater than the interparticle distance) that they will
behave in a manner which is just opposite to the expectations of
Coulomb's law. This is a matter of straight forward deduction and is
substantiated by quite a lot of data.

?

Cooper pairing is a good example, but then the most blatant evidence is
the existence of nuclei with multiple protons.

i thought Cooper Pairs only applied to electrons, under
superconducting conditions/materials?
am i wrong? where do protons come into it?

Cooper Pairing applies to electrons. And Cooper Pairing is a good
example of Coulomb's law being violated or elementary charged particles
acting opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's law. The protons
mentioned are also violating the expectations of Coulomb's law. And
don't jump up an chime in 'strong force'. Most physicists believe that
the Coulombic repulsion is still happening at the time the so-called
strong force is dominating the interaction. In reality, Coulombic
repulsion for like charged particles overlapping in momentum space is
and always has been a fiction.


Of course, the data, which is
pointed to as substantiation already has a well accepted explanation or
set of arguments designed to explain the existence of said data along
other lines. In other words, when the existence of said data first
became known then physicists were in a terrible quandary because they
saw that the data was contrary to the expectations of Coulomb's law.
What was this data? It was the discovery, circa 1910, that the nuclei
of elements that are not isotopes of hydrogen can have multiple protons
in close proximity without displaying the repulsive interaction
predicted by Coulomb's law.

strong force

knee jerk reaction. The strong force is a cobbled together piece of
pseudoscientific nonsense. It is an intellectual invention which
cannot be differentiated from the work product of a pathological liar.
That so many fools have been taken in by it and its subsequent
extrapolations (gluons, quarks, charm, color, strangeness, etc. etc.)
is only testimony to how complex lies must become as they are
challenged by data and of how many fools occupy the hall of academia
these days.

i don't know about cobbled or pseudoscientific. i will feel better
about it, tho, when its been integrated into the electroweak framework
that Maxwelll's work has been integrated into.
while Occam's razor sure makes the "subsequent extrapolations" not as
elegant as a simple framework, it doesn't defy observed science, your
complaining notwithstanding

Neither quarks or any of their properties have been observed.






Now, I know that most of those who post on this n.g. are going to get
their hackles up because when I attack the pseudoscientific arguments
that were 'invented' to 'explain away' the obvious deviation from
Coulombic behavior they basically understand that I am attacking what
they believe in. Since most people have trouble separating what they
believe in from the basic definition of who they are then when someone
attacks their belief they immediately become defensive. There's no
nice way to separate the attack of an irrational belief from an attack
on the person since they ultimately must bear responsibility for
associating what they believe with who they are. However, there's a
loophole for those of you who want to escape this sinking ship of
modern pseudoscience. Don't attach yourself to false beliefs, sell
your stock in falsehood. Oops! Many cannot sell their stock in trade
because it is what they make their living with. They can't sell all
that they treasure and take the proceeds and buy the truth. For those
who cannot divorce themselves from the pseudophysics it is almost like
they are galley slaves chained into the subcompartments of their
particular subdisciplines in modern physics. Unfortunately for them
their ship has been rammed and is sinking.

oh? really? many recriminations. no proof.

Really. A fool like you can never come to a point where he accepts the
fact that he's a fool. He can accept no 'proof' just because of the
nature of what he calls a 'proof'.

now you made me cry... boo hoo.
proof stands on its own two feet. barking at someone who only wants
to understand what you are saying doesn't strengthen your argument.
however, maybe if you type in caps, that'll help me.

Not much is going to help you unless you wake up and realize that
'proof' is only an arbitrary quantity of 'evidence' and that 'evidence'
is the subjective interpretation of data typically within the framework
of a particular paradigm. Proof in the logical or mathematical sense
is a different matter.





My claim relates to nuclear fusion, to the operation of stars and even
to the denial of the existence of things that General Relativity
predicts like black holes and is as I stated above that pairs of
elementary charged particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength
[calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is equal to or
greater than the interparticle distance will interact in a manner that
is opposite to such behavior as would be predicted by Coulomb's law.
Simply: 1) If two like charged particles obtain to a condition where
they are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum
space as above) then they will be strongly attractively interactive.

proof? something like a BEC? that'd only be at the atomic level, tho

You overlook the obvious because it is so obvious and because you've
checked your brain at the hat stand as you came in the doors of
academia.

i've been out of academia for a little while now. understanding this
would be to my sole benefit, your abuse notwithstanding.

Well, it would be to your benefit to stay away from academia.




2) If two unlike charged particles obtain to a condition where they
are at rest with respect to one another (overlapping in momentum space
as above) then they will be strongly repulsively interactive.

You can arrive at this conclusion from Maxwell's equations and the
axiomatic physical principle that all motion is relative.

I had a conversation with Ephraim Fischbach of Purdue several years
back. Ephraim is an internationally recognized expert in particle
physics.

I presented the challenge to him that I had never found any
experimental data that proved that Coulomb's law held true for
elementary charged particles which were at rest with respect to one
another.

negative evidence is not proof

Of course, it isn't. And I never stated that it was. Straw man.

let me see what i didn't understand...
"never found any experimental data that Coulomb's law held true"

this would be a fallacy, since no experiment or being able to find any
experimental data shows that nobody knows anything on the subject.

It isn't a fallacy. Its an eye opener. There is no experimental data
that demonstrates that Coulomb's law holds true for elementary
particles which are overlapping in momentum space. I'm saying that
there does exist experimental data to the contrary. Multiple protons
in the nuclei of atoms is an example of protons which are overlapping
in momentum space and they are not repelling one another. Cooper Pairs
are another example of same charged particles overlapping in momentum
space which have become attractively interactive.


of course, this subject regards evidence that violates everything
understood about Coulombs Law. reaching a conclusion counter to that
law without a confirmatory experiment is, as you would say,
pseudoscientific.

Sometimes you have to realize that the experiment has already been done
but that people have been asleep at the switch.



perhaps i shouldn't have said "proof," but there is no reason to
reject Coulomb, or be concerned in the slightest that is a defect in
the supporting theory, other than, perhaps, you want there to be a
defect.

Nonsense. Coulomb's law was formulated without the consideration that
elementary charged particles under most observational conditions have
lots of relative motion and are not generally overlapping in momentum
space.



In fact, I stated that there had never been an experiment in
the history of physics which showed that elementary charged particles
which are at rest with respect to one another behaved according to the
expectations of Coulomb's Law. After a moment or two of consideration,
Dr. Fischbach confessed that he had to agree with me, that he likewise
knew of no experiment which conclusively proved this. First, it is a
tremendously difficult experiment to undertake and would be exceedingly
technically challenging.

agreed

Finally.

don't break your arm patting yourself on your back just yet.



Second, since virtually all physicists are
predisposed to agree in advance that the particles would behave
according to Coulomb's law, no one would be particularly surprised at
the results of an experiment concerning which they are already sure of
the outcome so on that basis alone the experiment is not considered
sufficiently interesting to undertake as a project.

if you could dream up an experiment that'd disprove a fundamental
understanding in any science, scientists would be climbing all over
it. what you say doesn't defy sense, it defies reality.

Nonsense. There's a universe of data which says otherwise and because
a bad explanation of that data has been accepted for so many years then
the very 'proof' that you're looking for is like the 'purloined
letter'; it is right in front of you but you've accepted a
pseudoscientific explanation.

i'm all ears. where is this experimental evidence? rather than be
swindled, maybe i can get a Nobel Prize for proving a more general
theory than Coulomb. it worked for Einstein.

Is that what you want? A Nobel prize? When people like Steven
Weinberg get them then their value becomes quite deluted.



How could you admit to being
intellectually swindled without disclosing that you're a fool?

if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. sue me.

No. You need to sue yourself. Kick your own self in the butt and turn
yourself around and get going in the right direction.



You can't. Your ego is in the way.

not at all. i'm no expert. if there is any truth to this stuff, it
should be evident. so far, nothing is clear.

It is painfully evident - unless you happen to have your head where the
sun doesn't shine. It is a matter of correctly interpreting data that
has been misinterpreted for years.




What I'm proposing, however, is that we can logically deduce, using
Maxwell's equations together with principle of the relativity of
motion, that elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect
to one another will, in fact, behave precisely opposite to the
expectations provided by Coulomb's Law.

Bear with me please, while I lay out my reasoning. When we write
Maxwell's equations in terms of E and H only then we have:

1) Del X H = permittivity dE/dt
2) Del X E = -permeability dH/dt
3) Del dot E = 0
4) Del dot H = 0

Equation 1) as applied to a charged particle suggests that if that
charged particle should have motion so that there would be a variation
in E so that a vector field with rotation (Del X H) should arise around
the translational axis of that motion.

Considering the principle that all motion is relative one must reflect
that a charged particle cannot move with respect to itself and hence in
the rest frame of such particle this predicted vector field could not
exist. Instead, such a field could only exist in the rest frame of the
particle or observer which had relative motion with respect to the
particle.

So, if we had two protons, A and B which had relative motion then
emanating from B's location but not local to B (not existing in B's
rest frame) would be a vector field as predicted by equation 1) above.
Such vector field would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the
translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

Likewise, because of the relative motion of the two particles then
emanating from A's location but not local to A would also arise a
vector field which also would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to
the translational axis of relative motion between A and B.

The vector field emanating from A's location would exist in B's rest
frame (momentum space) and the vector field emanating from B's location
would exist in A's rest frame (momentum space).

Now, for two same charged particles that don't have relative motion
with respect to each other one might presume that there would be an
electrostatic repulsion between them. But as I pointed out above,
there's actually no experimental data that has shown this to be the
case. Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that two same charged
particles that have relative motion will not repel one another but only
that elementary charged particles which don't have relative motion will
not. So, let's consider two protons, A and B, which are overlapping
in momentum space and which are separated by distance d.

In the rest frame of third particle C which has motion with respect to
A and B will arise a pair of vector fields (Del X H)^AC and
(Del*X*H)^BC where AC and BC are superscripts (not exponents) to
indicate the vector fields generated by the relative motion of A with
respect to C and B with respect to C, respectively. This pair of
vector fields will emanate from A and B respectively but will be
nonlocal to both A and B because neither A nor B can move with respect
to themselves (as noted above).

What I'm proposing here is that for any perpendicular component of the
relative velocity of C with respect to a plane coincident with a
straight line joining A and B that the two vector fields (Del X H)^AC
and (Del X H)^BC will produce magnetic H loops that will interact in
such a manner as to produce what appears to be an attractive
interaction between A and B.

where did this magnetism arise, assuming these are subatomic
particles? photon mediated? instigated by motion relative to the 3
particles?

Where do you see me use the word 'magnetism'? H by definition is
magnetic field intensity measured in Ampere/meter. The H arises on a
plane perpendicular to the translational axis of motion of a charged
particle. See: Del X H = permittivity dE/dt, above.

ok.

magnetic field is not the same as magnetism? i suppose at right
angles to that magnetic field, you would find an electric field with a
unit of helmholtz/meter?

Magnetism is an overused word.



Consider that there are very many other particles in the universe which
will have relative motion with respect to A and B and that for any
component of velocity which each and every other particle may have
which is perpendicular to a plane coincident with the line A-B that
emerging from the locations of A and B will be generated such vector
fields that will also produce an attractive interaction between A and
B. Every one of those vector fields will be nonlocal to the particles
A and B and nonlocal to each other so that the total force calculated
will be related to the sum of the individual forces produced in each
frame and each individual force will be related to the magnitude of the
relative motion (velocity) of each and every other particle in the
universe because it is by that velocity that is determined the magnitude
of dE/dt in each and every case.

If two nearby particles of the same charge are in the same rest frame
(overlapping in momentum space) and if they both entered that momentum
space at the same time then the maximum time that will pass before they
can interact is T(max)=Dp/2c but if they did not come into the same
momentum space at the same instant then T(max)=(Dp-c(t2-t1))/2c where
Dp is the interparticle distance, t1 is the time that the first
particle enters a given momentum space and t2 is time that the second
particle enters that same momentum space and t2=t1, c(t2-t1)=Dp, and
c is the speed of light. If the two particles obtain to a common
momentum space at the same instant so that t2=t1 then T(max)=Dp/2c. If
c(t2-t1)=Dp then T(max)=0 and the particles will immediately begin to
interact.

not a chance. as D gets very large, the time gets very large too
would this constitute spooky action at a distance?

here's where i get off. sorry.

Oh looky. You're using catch-phrases linked with knee jerk reactions.
How cute. That's real 'scientific' of you.

well, until i can see someone move things without touching them, i
won't believe