Post by Richard HachelPost by Thomas HegerPost by bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor)Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.
I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.
Actually I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.
in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).
If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is
'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.
A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain
aspect of a standing 'rotation wave'.
The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'.
If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.
And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.
Therefore: charge is not conserved.
TH
C'est intéressant.
Sauf que j'ai toujours dit que "the photon doesn't exist".
Je veux dire par là qu'il n'existe pas "entre ça et là".
Le photon est un quantum d'énergie qui se déplace instantanément, et de
façon quantique, de là à là, parfois sur des espaces gigantesques.
C'est la nature anisochrone de l'espace qui lui donne l'aspect d'une
entité voyageuse, soit sous forme d'onde, soit sous forme de particule.
Tout cela n'est qu'un leurre.
On ne pourra jamais lancer un photon sur un autre photon, puisqu'ils
n'ont ni trajectoire physique réelle, ni durée de vie réelle (pas plus
que la durée de vie d'une licorne bleue).
Par contre, on peut lancer un électron sur un autre électron, et cela
donne des photons.
Les deux électrons qui se percutent disparaissent de l'univers et
ressurgissent instantanément ailleurs en tant qu'énergie. Ce phénomène
devrait être mieux expliqué.
A noter qu'on ne sait pas ce que pourraient devenir deux électrons qui
se percuteraient dans un univers cosmique totalement vide, c'est à dire
sans récepteur photonique possible, et donc où la notion de récepteur
photonique serait retirée.
Beaucoup de questions se posent encore.
R.H.
Some have that the particle model overall is well-explained
in particle/wave duality as by being the crests as it were,
moments, while at the same time that the idea of the atomic
particle is a conceit, a concession to the notion that the
particle as atomic is an idea, that is also well-supported
by things like that CODATA finds particles smaller over time
and that there's Techni-colour theory or "quarks all the way
down" helping express why Superstring Theory as a grainy
Continuum Mechanics, is a thing.
Charge and mass are generally considered "invariant", in
terms of the field-occupation-number of field-number-formalism,
Pauli principle, is not so much Born law, along with something
like light speed and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there's sort of a quartet of conserved quantities.
These days of course "particle/wave duality" has a lot
going on in "resonance theory" as above waves, about
things like "molecular chemistry" instead of "atomic
chemistry", and so on, resonance mechanics in a continuum
mechanics above a particle model above a superstring model
a continuum mechanics, for basically electon physics and
the ultraviolet catastrophe, and neutrino physics and
the infrared perestroika.
The unified field theory and general relativity go together
just great with a super-classical fall gravity in the middle.