Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Physics - Electromagnetic Forum  »  #5 dimensions of gravity versus Coulomb force; new...
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
...
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:43 am
Guest
Subject: #4 talking about something more fundamental than "units" new
monograph-book: Connecting Coulomb force with Force of Gravity equal
to E = m c c

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped and sic(ed))

Quote:
These numbers are:

(1) Dirac calculated the number of protons in the Universe is 10^80
and that would
further conclude that the Universe has 10^80 electrons

(2) The number of Coulomb Interactions in a atom of plutonium is
10^160 to hold
together the plutonium atom in the Schrodinger Equation or Dirac
Equation.

(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2

(3) The coupling strength of the Coulomb force versus Gravity is 10^40
in favor of
Coulomb.

Now, (1) and (2) above are independent of one another, yet it is
simple to see
that 10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160

And it is easy to see that Gravity force strength at 10^40 where
Coulomb force
strength at 10^80 that we have

Coulomb Force squared is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb Interactions
whilst
Gravity force to the 4th power is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb
Interactions.

Now I want to shift the conversation from algebra to that of geometry.

E = mc^2 is telling of geometry.

It says that energy is mass multiplied through 2nd dimensional cross
section of space.
Overall energy is 3rd dimensional space where mass is one dimension
and c^2 is
two dimensional.

Now that raises an interesting geometrical question of what
geometrical dimensions
belie Coulomb force versus Gravity force?

F = (q x q)/r x r

F = (m x m) / r x r

In the Coulomb force of (q x q), is that not a energy term, the
quantity of charge energy?
So does that make the Coulomb force a 2nd dimensional force?

But in the Gravity force the term (m x m) is a 2nd dimensional
geometry and overall in
the gravity force with the (r x r) we have 4th dimensional geometry?

So do we have Energy as 3rd dimensional geometry and Coulomb as 2nd
dimensional
geometry and Gravity as 4th dimensional geometry?

I am not sure, just asking questions at this moment. I believe the
problem lies with the
concept of "charge" in that physics never really had a deep
understanding of charge.

Perhaps the Atom Totality theory can clarify what charge is compared
to mass.

Now many scientists who read the above are going to fall into a trap
of
wrongness.

I am not talking in the above, about Units of measure in Physics
where:

Force is (kg) x (m/s^2)
Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2)
Pressure is (kg)/(mxs^2)
Momentum kg x (m/s)

I am not talking about Units but something more fundamental than
units.
I am talking about the geometry of measure.

The units of Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2) but what is the geometry of
energy?
Is Energy 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional? Distance is 1 dimensional
but
when you have distance squared you have 2 dimensional. When you
multiply
mass by c^2 you have 3 dimensional but what about momentum would it be
2 dimensional? And what about Force, does it remain 2 dimensional.


Alright, I have the preliminaries in place so let me get to the heart
of the matter.

A chemist in a research could compute the number of Coulomb
Interactions of a
single plutonium atom that holds it together. Halliday and Resnick on
pages 1190-1191
of PHYSICS part 2 extended version 1986
--- quoting Halliday and Resnick ---
"In neon, for example, it can be shown that,
including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are no fewer than
about
2 x 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb interactions must
be taken
into account if the Schroedinger equation is to be solved rigorously."
--- end quoting ---

In like fashion the Coulomb Interactions solved rigorously for
plutonium, instead of neon
is this number:

(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2 which equal 10^160

So the chemist arrives at 10^160 Coulomb Interactions that hold
together a plutonium
atom.

Dirac computed the number of Protons in the Cosmos as 10^80 and thus
10^80 electrons
So the number of Coulomb Interactions of a Cosmos filled with 10^80
protons and
10^80 electrons is again, indeed, the same number of 10^160.

So the chemist using the Schroedinger Equation arrives at the same
number of Coulomb
Interactions as the physicist and astronomer who calculate the number
of protons that
exist empirically in the Cosmos.

The force of gravity is 10^40 weaker than Coulomb.

In Mathematics of Geometry when we have a distance of 2 meters we have
that. But in
geometry when we multiply 2 meters by 2 meters we end up with 2nd
dimension of a square
and if we further multiply 2 meters by 2 meters by 3 meters we end up
in 3rd dimension
of a rectangular box 12 cubic meters.

In Physics we have:

Schroedinger Equation gives us 10^160 Coulomb Interactions inside a
plutonium atom

From observations and experiments we calculate the Cosmos has 10^80
Protons and
10^80 electrons

10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160

That is an agreement if ever there was an agreement of numbers. But
what is incredible
about that agreement is that they are independent of one another. One
was derived
from Schroedinger Equation while the other was derived from
observation and experiment!

But the goodness does not stop there. We still have gravity and it is
10^40 weaker.

So we have this:

10^40 x 10^40 x 10^40 x 10^40 = 10^160

So, is the Coulomb force two-dimensional whereas the force of gravity
is four-dimensional?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:53 am