On Nov 25, 2:00 pm, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Faraday law also derives speed. The Ampere law gives the speed of > the light wave or photon. The Faraday law gives the speed of the > electron and proton. > > In this textbook, the speed of light has to be a double transverse > wave in order for the various wavelengths of light to all have one and > the same speed of light. A single-transverse wave does not allow a > constant speed but a varying speed from radio waves to gamma rays. > > But this textbook should show how the electron rest mass is about 2000 > times less than the proton. And the answer should be that the proton > is 2000 times less of space occupying than the electron occupies > space. The Faraday law of the bar magnet in motion inside a closed > loop wire should provide that 2000 times larger space differential for > electron over the proton. > > You see, when physics is done correctly, it all comes out of the axiom > set, the Maxwell Equations. When physics is done falsely, then you get > a group of men sitting around in ivory towers dreaming up mechanisms > like the Higgs mechanism which is sheer crankery nonsense. > > When physics or mathematics is done properly, the axiom set of that > science derives all the science. The science is never dependent on > some crank crackpot in an ivory tower with his latest nonsense. >
Now with the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of physics, those axioms derives all of physics, and so it should not be surprising to find that the Strong Nuclear Force is just merely a EM force of a chemical bonding between protons and neutrons. The distance spacing of chemical bonds is about a million times further apart than the distance of protons with neutrons and the binding energy of a chemical bond is a million times less than the strong-nuclear-force. So we see that distance x force strength of a chemical bond is equal to distance x force strength of strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force is just a chemical bond that is 10^6 closer.
With my success on the strong-nuclear force, I have the suspicion that rest-mass of electron versus proton is duplicated in chemistry, and electrochemistry to be more clear. Now I am researching electrochemistry to see if I can wiggle out a number of 1836 rather than for strong-nuclear force the number was 10^6.
One of my favorite chemistry textbooks is this one:
--- quoting from Electrochemistry from Oxtoby Nachtrieb "Principles of Modern Chemistry" 1990 page 360
1. In any cell, the mass of a given substance that is produced or consumed at an electrode is proportional to the quantity of electric charge passed through the cell. 2. Equivalent masses^1 of different substances are produced or consumed at an electrode by the passage of a given quantity of electric charge through the cell.
--- end quoting from Oxtoby Nachtrieb ---
Now one must realize the Faraday law of Maxwell Equations is something else than what Oxtoby and Nachtrieb describe as the Faraday law. Perhaps they should have been more diplomatic and called it the Faraday Chemistry law, not to confuse with Maxwell Equations.
So what I am going to explore in the next few days is whether I can squeeze out of electrochemistry a number of 1836, for I believe the rest-mass of the electron and proton are not innate properties but are acquired properties and that in future experiments we can get a different rest-mass depending on the experimental set-up. But the experimental set-up that gave us 0.5 and 938 MeV for electron and proton, in the future, I suspect we can get a 0.4 and 734 MeV in some new experimental set-up, because I suspect rest-mass is dependent on the experimental arrangement and not on the actual characteristics of the electron or proton.
Just as the spin of electron and proton are borne out of the action of the Ampere law on a group of electrons and a group of protons and not due to some property innate to a proton or electron.
Since the speed of light is created from the Maxwell Equations, the Ampere law, then speed is not a fundamental property but acquired and so should the rest-mass.
So the only truly fundamental property in physics is charge. With charge alone, the Maxwell Equations then produce the features of rest- mass, spin, speed.
So physics would have what mathematicians call "primitive notions", physics would have just a few primitive notions-- atom, electron, proton, photon, neutrino and charge and all the other properties are begot from the Maxwell Equations.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper archiving ?of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts in ?archive ?form is seen here: