Electrostatic attraction and repulsion from a push-gravity mechanism

[Francois-Zinserling]

Hey ACG
By now you all know I am an unapologetic supporter of push-gravity. Several preliminary solutions for push-gravity are available, but apart from getting to understand the mechanics of gravity, for me the most profound conclusion of these studies was:

• an aether must exist

Based on the similarity with gravity, I wondered if Coulomb forces can be achieved with a push-gravity / aether solution. In the work below, I have tried a naive Coulomb model based on Arto Annila's photon pairs. If it checks out, it will provide a solution to the 2 most significant objections to Fatio - transparancy and energy. IMO other objections have already been overcome with current science.

Please let me have your comments on the work linked below, and if someone deems it worthy of publication, let me know which journals would consider such a risky piece.

It has been suggested to me to remove the section discussing the Coulomb equation, as it does not add value. Here's the whole thing anyway. Section 4 is where the attract/repel model appears.

The mechanics of electrostatic attraction and repulsion

[LifeIsStrange]

let me know which journals would consider such a risky piece.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=115246
this journal seems free from the orthodoxy
btw not a journal but vixra if arxiv refuse

[ExpEarth]

The Scirp journals are not a bad choice (this one, Journal of Modern Physics, and a few more). They have page charges for authors. On one hand this is okay, since they are free access, but it also means they lean towards publishing. There is at least some peer review (I have reviewed a few articles for JMP). I agree they publish a lot of interesting articles.

[HanDeBruijn]

In thread 162 width of photon is discussed. Main reference is Einstein's Photon Concept Quantified by the Bohr Model of the Photon.
According to @sahil5d the paper says that the width of a photon is $\lambda/\pi$ . That is not the whole truth however. We quote: For circularly polarized states the soliton's envelope is a circular ellipsoid whose length is the observed wavelength ($\lambda$), and whose diameter is $\lambda/\pi$ .
The paper by @Francois-Zinserling says something slightly different about the size of a photon, namely: convincingly that a photon length is restricted to a half-wavelength in space and time. Nothing is said about the width of photon. I would like to argue that the latter must be half the value in the thread 162 paper, namely $\lambda/(2\pi)$ .
Is there any further evidence for this? Maybe the following is related: How to construct longitudinal from transversal waves and vice versa?. It is proved that, for a construction of longitudinal from transversal waves to be successful, the amplitude $A$ of the transversal wave must obey the following condition.

$$ A \lt \frac{\lambda}{2\pi} \quad \mbox{= width of photon?} $$

Does this suggest that photons in a (transversal) EM wave might be longitudinal waves? Just a thought ..

[Francois-Zinserling]

In your second link the author claims:

It's obvious from the picture that the slope of the tangent line at any point of the transversal wave must be greater than minus one.

It might seem obvious in that picture, but not at all in e.g. this first one ..

, which means A < λ/2π does not hold for all waves, or else A must get smaller and smaller for high frequency waves, which then seem to belie the equation E = hf.
Not that I think an electromagnetic wave's energy sits in the amplitude, but the author's reasoning seems flawed.

[ExpEarth]

Hi Francois. It looks interesting what you're doing. As I started to read it, I found myself drifting a little. I think it could because your abstract does not really describe your model very well. I would suggest you expand and clarify the abstract to the point where the reader has a good idea of where you're going. The abstract helps give the reader confidence that he is not wasting his time by reading the article.

I know we have different takes on Arto Annila's model. It does not seem that you have the photon pairs arranged as filaments, as in their model. Are there filaments? How do you visualize the photon pairs?

[Francois-Zinserling]

Thanks for the feedback, Matt.

My lack of article writing experience is clearly showing. Others have commented on the abstract too.
I will also remove section3 since it adds no value.

Section4 is the main event with fig16 and fig 18 visualising a push-type mechanism for both attraction and repulsion.

The (my) photons and pairs are visualised throughout from fig5 onward, but the 0E + 0B pair is shown in fig8. This is the one that should penetrate right through matter without any electromagnetic effects.

I did not realise Arto et. al. also proposed filaments. Although I do not think I will be easily swayed, please send a relevant link if you have one available. I am still not convinced by the filaments that could be infintiely long and with ~(10^80)! <- that's a faculty sign - connections between them. I suppose photon pairs, being bosons, can manifest in many ways.
Perhaps if I understand it better.

As for the size of photons, there doesn't seem to be much consensus. Many QM students propose it as a plane wave that collapses at one point at time of measuring. This does not explain how a photon (plane wave) navigates through the cosmos without getting 'measured' upon its very first collision with any object. It would mean we should not see objects if there are other obstructions in the path of the plane, leaving not much to be seen. And if every collision is a measurement, then the wave is not a single entity ... Also, I fail to see how a plane wave can impose a circular momentum RHC or LHC at the point of measure. Sometimes QM make things too complicated even for themselves.

Most studies propose a photon having a 'cylinder-like' spatial form. There are several proponents for a 'wavelength long' photon, but then a photon (with a +/- sine wave) cannot form e.g. a pure (+) electric field around a charged particle. So if the 'fields' are set up by photons (real photons), then there needs to be +E and -E photons. I've read quite a few papers on this, each with their own arguments. Liu's half-wave length photons fit the scene very well for me at least.

[ExpEarth]

Not to worry, if the ideas are good the writing can come after! Your work is quite thought provoking. I'm still trying to get a full grasp of it.

Arto does not use the term filaments, but his meaning is pretty clear. They think the photons have to be in long trains in order to confer structure to the vacuum. In the paper of theirs that you cite, Grahn et al, see Figure 3 in Part D:

I think Arto might agree with you that the filaments do not connect to particles. He just has them constituting the vacuum (or spacetime). It's my work with the Hubble luminosity that convinces me that they must be attached to particles. It's possibly not as improbable as it might seem, if you think of the filaments themselves being organized into bigger filaments and perhaps ultimately in cosmic filaments. I think if you followed that route, your task could possibly be a lot easier, but please don't let me divert you from what you're already doing there.

One small point. I notice you cite Kevin Brown. He was a major nuisance at the time PG came out. He totally degraded the Wikipedia article that some of us worked on. He insisted the theory was of historical interest only. He also had this weird infatuation with Fatio and almost insinuated that Le Sage plagiarized him. In fact Fatio was a minor character who never published on it. He did mention his PG hypothesis to Newton, and Newton had some similar ideas (also mentioned in PG), but it was Le Sage who is really our hero. He's the one who was later rediscovered by Kelvin and others.

[HanDeBruijn]

Sentences from The mechanics of electrostatic attraction and repulsion, a conceptual analysis drawing my attention:

• Further studies may reveal a mechanical model for magnetic effects [ .. ] However currently no magnetic monopoles are known to exist.
• Fatio and Le Sage models of gravity must be revisited since both the transparency- and energy problems now seem resolved.
• A relativistic and detailed quantum solution with tensors is required for this simplified model, which will also lead to further understanding of the mechanics of gravity, including quantum gravity.

François, isn't that last sentence of yours not just lip service to established "science" ??
Tensors are with General Relativity, but not with a quantum solution. And I don't think that quantum gravity is a respectable physical theory.

References:
2. B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff [ .. ]
9. Matthew R. Edwards, (2002), Book: Pushing Gravity: New perspectives on Le Sage's theory of gravitation.

[PatrGT]

@HanDeBruijn I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here ... Sahil's coincidence is not a coincidence if the starting point is my 3 equations. Using my equations, you can just simply reduce Sahil's coincidence to a perfect equality. What Sahil's found by number crunching is in fact just a rearrangement of my equatilons.
I think that you are missing the point here when you say you prefer to start with the equation Rh=2GMu/c^2. If you start with that you will never get to my equations 1,2 and 3 that are linking atomic values to cosmological values. You will just stay with an equation between cosmological values with no real mean to find their exact values. Do you see what I mean ?

[HanDeBruijn]

@PatrGT

Do you see what I mean ?

Yes, I see what you mean. I shall no longer try to "improve" on the subject in this way. Have a good day and thanks for the hint how to do a theoretical calculation for the Gravitational constant.

[PatrGT]

@HanDeBruijn thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read my paper. When I write up about the variation of alpha and e, I will let you know. It is always good to have someone else's feedback.

[HanDeBruijn]

@PatrGT .

about the variation of alpha

Be cautious, Patrick! There is an astonishing thread 205 by @sahil5d , where it is claimed that $\alpha$ is a pure number. This would mean that it is independent of its physical constituents.

[PatrGT]

@HanDeBruijn thank you for the info, I will have a look