Electrostatic attraction, How and why

This thread dried up some months ago as a result of my failure to understand/accept Good_Elf's explanation and the absence of any alternative.

I'd welcome any new input .. failing this.. if Good_Elf is willing.. maybe I have to go back to trying to understand his proposal.

After spending some time looking at Wheeler-Feynman:-

"The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics".

The title is extremely attractive. The content (apart from Feynman's delightful style in ref 2) I find rather daunting. It clearly covers the required ground but unfortunately that is about as clear as it gets. In ref 2/ Feynman notes that that the Schrodinger Equation is derivable from his his starting hypothesis. My experience of the Schrodinger Equation is that I stare at it and it stares back at me and unless lead by the hand to a solution I stand little chance. In general the solutions offerred come in terms of e^jwt .. sinewaves.. I don't have the maths to attack it with an impulse function but I suspect there is a whole new family of solutions lurking there.. does anyone know if I would I be wasting my time? (That was an aside .. cry from the heart.. but still an aside)

Absolutely yes, maybe (Help!). We are looking at a static problem.. there is something and nothing going on here (Heeeeeelp?).

Can anyone wave me/us through F-W or any other spacetime explanation of electrostatic attraction?

Refs (Wheeler-Feynman)
1/ http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html

2/ http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/19...an-lecture.html


-C2 .

Looking at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/ricci.weyl.html
there are a few remarks about the way charge DOES affect the curvature of space. Looking at the original charged spheres .. at each charge there is a discontinuity in space. I am happy to accept that the force can be explained by considering the distribution of the charges, the curvature of space .. and general relativity.

-C2 .

Hi Confused2,

I am sorry I have not been on to this one quickly. I have had a couple of domestic issues to handle. The issue of electrostatic attraction is tightly wound up with the emergence of charge itself. I think you are familiar with Williamson and Van der Mark's paper on the nature of the electron. Not everyone is going to agree with this concept of topologically wrapping EM waves inside of a dimensional packet to create all the particles in the Universe.

There is a classic chart in A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach that I could display here if you like that indicates how it is possible to construct all the sub-atomic particles in the Universe from just photons and spin and boosts. This is "impractical" but "instructive".

Now most string theories are "hybrid" theories where this aspect is buried within a particle theory. I have taken the view that it "could be" a geometrodynamic theory. In such a circumstance then charge is no longer "fundamental" and is seen as part of this process where charge "emerges" from a wave in these higher dimensional D6 Branes. I have discussed this at length but we could discuss this a little more if you like.

Presuming that charge arises not from curvature in spacetime but curvature in compact additional dimensional spaces of sub-atomic particle branes, then the electron itself is simply the most degenerate particle that contains fundamental charge and is stable simply because it can't reduce potential energy by further decay. I have mentioned before that this is strongly related to relativity and SU(2) symmetry and to the Symmetry of CPT (C= charge conjugation, P = Parity or mirror symmetry, T= temporal (time) symmetry).

While CPT (Parity or mirror symmetry in particular) is weakly broken by the weak nuclear force during nuclear alpha particle disintegrations this can be restored by a widening of the symmetry arrangements more generally. Standard texts indicate these paths. There is a well known property of Bosons to condense into a single state under certain conditions. Photons are Bosons and they too share this property. This is the basis of photon to photon entanglement but should have been suspected long ago in our rush toward a Particle Theory of a TOE. The billiard ball universe made up of hard particles is a great oversimplification and ignores the staggering fact that you are able to create "matter" from a pair of photons.

The attempt to explain the LASER by some kind of "impact" theory is not consistent. What is apparent is the Boson "Wave" moving as one through the vicinity of atoms with appropriately bound electrons are "induced" to allow their photons to "escape" by the single Boson wave passing by. This is similar to the same phenomenon of Second Sound in Helium 3 or the behavior of a Bose Einstein Condensate. You have a single quantum state where all nearby bosons are induced to take part in a similar fashion to the way a "Mexican Wave" propagates around the Soccer Stadium. There is a "force" associated with this influence where bosons as a separate entities partake in this "wave" as if it was a soliton.

Getting back to electrostatic attraction... two electrons also partake in a "Bosonic Wave" when they take up states in orbitals. As individuals the electrons are "Fermions" having 1/2 integer spin but as "cooper pairs" they form "Bosons" having zero or integer spins (1/2 + 1/2 = 1 etc.). In an atom shell which is a special dimensional geometry the electron and photons are both bosons and are drawn together in mutual attraction. The photons will all move as part of a "Mexican Wave" in a shell and the electrons are also "paired" as bosons inside curved compact dimensions as "photons" after Williamson and Van der Mark. We now see the mutual repulsion of electrons "disappear" and replaced by the lower energy bosonic field that is now within that shell.

This explains why electrons do not repel each other in shells so why do they repel each other at all? The reason why is bound up in the concept of a fermion and Pauli Exclusion Principle. No two (or more) fermions can occupy the same state simultaneously. Electrons in different orbitals are existing in different dimensional volumes so they do not share a common space. Similarly electrons in different atoms also do not share a common dimensional space. They can "hybridize" though.

If the Bosons in separate dimensional spaces "approach" they may not share properties in different dimensional environments and they exhibit the charge on the surfaces of the branes. Why is this a force? Topologically the "electrons" are "inflated" by spin quanta energy of the trapped photon which is confined to a circulating standing wave on the brane surface. This "spin" imposes a kind of helicity and phase to the matter wave. This is all part of standard theory of the Spherical Harmonic Matter Wave Components on the surface of the associated "Riemann Sphere" of the semi-compact D6 aspect of the particle embedded in 10 or 11 dimensional spacetime. A similar electron nearby has exactly the same helicity and phase and without the right common "space" in which to share the spin energy of their branes, these two particles behave like two children's battling tops, both spinning in the same direction. If they "interact" they will not stop or unwind each other but will bounce off with force. Clearly this "particle" view is wrong and the problem is more like "entanglement" according to proximity of the two electron matter waves and their opposing phases which result in a gradually increasing repulsion due to proximity.
Cheers

Hi Good_Elf,

So much happening!

I'm on the verge of convincing myself there must be an extra degree of freedom in spacetime to account for electrostatic attraction. I'm reluctant to do it the hard way (mathematically) because I see myself coming up with voice of God type answers.. most of which will be wrong. If you really really felt like it I suppose you could call these exra degrees of freedom 'dimensions' .. um.. er.. ok? Instinct (and Gadfly) suggests to bung them in at 90 degrees to x,y,z (electrical engineers can do that) and see what happens.

Possibly with new/better/different insight into charge and spacetime a few things might fall into place. The Williamson electron looks like an excellent testbed for ideas - thanks for bringing it up here - did you guess?

Even I am having to reject a lot of my own ideas. Many thanks for your patience .. it is greatly appreciated.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jun 5 2006, 06:42 PM

Maybe this is an elementary question, and I'm not sure it will lead anywhere useful, but I was just curious... When we see matter convert to photons, or vice versa, are the energies/momentums of the photons always equal and opposite? The illustration I usually (always?) see involves photons of equal energies shooting off in opposite directions or, conversely, colliding head-on.

By Aether Wave theory the charge is formed by helicity of vacuum vibrations (the animation bellow corresponds the negative, neutral and positive lepton charge of neutrino):



The torsions of EM charge of electron is even by one level deeper than neutrino (see the picture on the right), but the principle remains the same. The charged particle is behaving like tiny gyroscope. The important thing is, the effect of antisymmetric torsions is additive and vice-versa, the vibrations of the same symmetry cancels out each of other.



The charge force is the tendency to level the vibration energy density (sort of diffusion). As the result, the particles are forced to compensate the effect of charge mixing, repelling or repulsing each of other. btw The charge changes are propagating by the same way, i.e. by torsion manner described previously (see the AVI video EMG field propagation from dipole). It means, no absorbers, no retarded potentials and other strangely named concepts - just the well familiar geometry of vortex rings.

Hi Confused2, zephir, Gadfly et al,

I am not sure just how to entirely incorporate these dimensions but I know that just "bunging them in" is not going to work for very good reasons unless we take care to preserve certain principles. I am certain that we need to connect them "harmonically", others insist on connecting them as teeny little coiled up linear dimensions (I disagree for strong experimental reasons). I am sure Gadfly did not really mean that this process is taken lightly. The other point I would like to make here is the idea of parametric dimensional spaces... Physics as we know it exist in our three dimensional space plus time. It is not conceivable to me that "parametric" variables can replace the real dimensional spaces and still result in the kind of Physics we all know and love. The conjugate 3D spaces are not just a whim, they are "places" where physics as we know it can operate. I realize this operation is superficially different to the way physics works here, but it will still be physics and obey certain laws such as conservation of various "non-parametric" quantities and to confined systems that have a physics like our own. Without getting into a slanging match I respect those with the different views but I am not in agreement that the extra dimensions are simple parameters. I respect the works of B. Heim and so on but you must remember that the work of B. Heim is not a TOE and never will be, it is an operational concept that does not explain the nature of our Universe... it is simply a model that works only within the realm in which it was designed to operate. What was in B. Heim's mind when he formulated his concepts is a specialized system of calculation and not meant to explain "physics".

Do these dimensional spaces take on "Complex" notations or are these dealt with in some other fashion such as independent entities? In engineering these quantities such as the square root of minus one are more real than any other quantities we can possibly envision and our culture is built on this technology. They are as "hard" and "real" as anything we are able to touch. These concepts are also taken into the world of the quantum and if you have an open mind on these matters you will see that the concept is the same in that realm... the only extension is that there are obviously more than three dimensions there and they are not part of our normal three dimensional space. It is easier to deal with (ix,iy,iz) as orthogonal directions to the normal (x,y,z). It is also clear that these topologies are not in 3D space as we know it. It is almost impossible to deform spacetime in the required way without breaking many existing laws in physics. I prefer to work in another fashion that is consistent with existing quantum theory ... but extends it.

As to behaving in a "voice of God"" fashion, it really depends on what "god" you choose to worship doesn't it? To me this attitude gets in the way of common sense and clouds the mind with religious nonsense. It is nonsense since it is usually only human philosophy. We live in times that want to point accusing fingers at everyone when they disagree with accepted ideology. Once you start to listen to this nonsense then we all become lost having two different "masters" we must obey. This is not an ego thing when we call on experimental science to support our claims and I always have some experimental science to support all my claims. If people had an open mind they may be freer to make those informed decisions independent of our superstitious past.

It was once said that 100 miles per hour would be the limit to which man was able to travel in a vehicle since at that speed the Bernoullian pressure difference would suck the air from our lungs and we would die. It was simply "gods" will. Another one was in the mid 1950's the British Astronomer Royal stated categorically that a rocket could never carry sufficient propellant to allow it to escape the earth's atmosphere, the maths employed supported this conclusion and he then went on to say that space travel should stay where it belongs on the back of cereal packets. Three years later the Russians orbited sputnik. If you listen to all the "experts" then you will get nowhere since there are many vested interests.

Cheers

Hi Good_Elf,Waterbreath, Zephir et al,

There is more information in the last few posts than I can deal with in parallel .. I have to go at this in a linear fashion.

I was earlier suggesting with some lack of clarity that I (we?) probably ought to attempt to follow GR from start to finish including all the maths. There is a view presented on this forum that this would potentially make me/us into little Einstein gods.. my 'voice of god' reference was a failed joke about this, nothing more. Sorry, I knew what I meant. Good_Elf may also have detected an element of - just how lucky do have to get before you start to suspect the presence of a 'lurker'.. having only seen bits of one universe it is difficult to know whether this one is exceptionally beautiful or whether they're all like this.

Extra dimensions..

I have to agree with Good_Elf's point about not just bunging them in .. even though it's tempting (and fun). I'll try to work out how GR manages to squeeze so much information into spacetime, this seems like a good starting point .. and report.. or appeal for help (highly likely) if I can't see how it's done.

Photon/Electron/positron production .. if we believe Feynman et al and the derivation of the electron rest mass .. switching between states is 'normal' .. this tells us something .. but what?

(Zephir)
The charge force is the tendency to level the vibration energy density (sort of diffusion). I like the sound of that. Yquantum suggested replacing the word Aether with something else .. I have to admit Aether kinda raises the deflector shields.. perhaps too soon.

Overload .. many thanks.. I need to get these dimensions sorted out.

I also have to some work to do.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Extract from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz3.5.html

I am following Oz's footsteps .. has anyone else done this? Where does it lead? Madness ?
-C2.

Edit..
Should I report how it ends?
Noooo .. I don't think so.

Edit .. just bits and bobs of no significance at present..

Stationary charge in gravitational field (good question!)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00705.htm

Charged particles - difficult .. can't do the maths
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406077.pdf

EM superimposed into GR ??
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap7.htm

There are problems with charge !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham-Lorentz_force

Hideous large script ..
http://www.unl.edu/amop/pdf_files/Principl..._Self-Force.pdf



This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jun 7 2006, 12:25 AM

Hi confused2,

That is quite a reference collection there.... you have "slowed me down" quite considerably... he he he!

Cheers