What IS charge and WHAT is actually conserved in Nature?
If we don't know what it is, how do we know it's conserved?
You wrote:
Particles can have positive, negative, or zero charge. These particles can move around, be created, or be destroyed, but their charge is always conserved. Imagine a limited region of space-time where we could create or destroy charge. Could we use such a time span to create a net electric charge? Surprisingly, we could not. Charges could be made or destroyed during the period when the laws did not apply, but when the span ends, the charge must end up at zero. If we turn off a conservation law, it is still enforced. The answer how is one of the most remarkable ideas in all of physics.
A field is what physicists call a region of space-time affected by a particular force. A wind map is a useful analogy. The wind may be fast or slow, headed north or south at any given point, but every point on the map has a particular wind speed and direction. At each point in space-time, the electromagnetic field has a direction (push) and a strength (flux). Keep in mind, however, that nothing is actually flowing through the field.
As I have argued, there is something very wrong with our current physics, which can be resolved by returning to an aether theory. One of the things I argue is that the consideration of the concept of "charge" as a property of matter is problematic, because it leads to a recursive problem in the consideration of matter being an electromagnetic phenomenon, along the "wave particle duality" principle. And I've argued that a revision of Maxwell's equation is required in order to resolve this problem, which solution I outlined here briefly.
So, when you state that "nothing is actually flowing through the field", I have to disagree.
For energy, conservation is enforced by gravitational fields.
Let us first note that in current science, gravity is considered to be a "fictitious force" or "pseudo force" as I've shown in my article on aether physics:
"A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force or inertial force, is an apparent force that acts on all masses whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.
The force F does not arise from any physical interaction between two objects, but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself.
[...]
A fictitious force on an object arises when the frame of reference used to describe the object's motion is accelerating compared to a non-accelerating frame.
As a frame can accelerate in any arbitrary way, so can fictitious forces be as arbitrary (but only in direct response to the acceleration of the frame). However, four fictitious forces are defined for frames accelerated in commonly occurring ways: one caused by any relative acceleration of the origin in a straight line (rectilinear acceleration); two involving rotation: centrifugal force and Coriolis force; and a fourth, called the Euler force, caused by a variable rate of rotation, should that occur.
Gravitational force would also be a fictitious force based upon a field model in which particles distort spacetime due to their mass."
So, what you are saying is that energy conservation is being enforced by an apparent force (field) involving the "distortion of spacetime" yet does not involve "any physical interaction between two objects". In other words: you're actually saying that energy conservation is being enfoced by non-physical interactions between an object and the absolute nothingness of empty spacetime itself, which is "equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing", to quote Tesla:
"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
In other words: what you are actually saying is this:
charge is a property of matter, the latter can be created and/or destroyed, yet the former cannot;
energy conservation is enforced by nothing.
What I'm proposing is this:
An actual, physical fluid-like medium called aether exists;
the electric field is a phenomenon associated with longitudinal motions in the aether;
since particles are electromagnetic in nature, particles can indeed be created and/or destroyed, but charge cannot be the fundamental cause for electromagnetism since being considered to be a property of matter;
energy conservation is enforced by the medium, along E = 1/2 m v^2, which includes electric energy conservation when the electric field [E_e] is defined as: [E_e] = grad(Phi) = grad div [v], with [v] representing the flow velocity field of the (fluid like) medium permeating all space, called "aether".
In the end, within our aether model, all that is being conserved is:
- mass m (of the medium);
- momentum m [v] (of the medium);
- energy 1/2 m v^2 (also of/in the medium);
Note that "charge" is not one of these....
Regards,
What is wrong with the current paradigm? Please explain it to me in a few words. I don't want to read a 10 pages essay. There is no such a recursive relation with charge and when you quote that matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon, this is just meaningless to me. Can you please state how you understood the wave-particle duality? Your starting points sound non-understandable to me.
I would also like to recall that energy conservation is connected to Poincare invariance, or the invariance of the physics laws under translations (which are part of the Poincare group). This is not "nothing" as you claim. And creation/annihilation processes are real and observed. Which is what @pjheinz has taught us in his posts. You cannot refute these because you just don't like them.
I will not go further into details of your theories (let us spare my time and yours). I would just like to say that relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, etc... (modern physics) correctly predict most of all observations connected to the microscopic world. Can your setup do as good? I honestly doubt about that.
A scientific theory will not be thrown away because anyone claims it is wrong. It will be replaced if someone propose a new theory that does at least as good as the older theory. And this theory should give back the current paradigm in some limit, otherwise the latter would not work so well.
Simply stated, the wave-particle duality principle says that all known matter as well as all known forms of electromagnetic radiation are basically the same thing. In other words, the wave-particle duality principle says (or should say IMHO) that particles ARE some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon.
So, if particles ARE electromagnetic in nature, and you attach the concept of "charge" as the cause for electromagnetism to "particles", you are actually saying:
And there's your recursive problem, which is wrong IMHO.
This has nothing to do with modern physics. Sorry.
Then modern physics is nothing but pseudoscientific crackpottery.
Well, the "nothing" part is derived logically from @pjheinz statement:
I followed the following logic:
Hence the sort version, completely in line with Tesla' s reasoning:
energy conservation is enforced by nothing
Regards,
@lamare
Of course it can!
Aether theory was the basis for Maxwell's equations. The problem is that he abstracted the connection to the basic hypothesis away, which resulted in inconsistent equations. The major problem with Maxwell's equations is that these allow "gauge freedom", which forms the basis of all kinds of weird theories, fields and what have you. Of course, this "gauge freedom" should NOT be there, considering that Maxwell started out at the aether hypothesis.
Also, because of the same inconsistency, you get a set of wave equations which are not invariant to the galilean transform, which should have indicated that there is something wrong with Maxwell's equations, which, after all, are supposed to describe waves in a fluid-like medium which does NOT have "gauge freedom".
With Einstein's relativity theory, this transformation issue has been "resolved" by the introduction of the Lorentz transform, which in essence introduces the concept of "compressibility" to the model, albeit in a rather weird way. It proposes time to be compressible, instead of the logical candidate: the medium.
When introducing this compressibility aspect at the proper place in the model, both curving space as well as quantum weirdness are gone, while you get a consistent theory which naturally integrates the current theories, which diverged out of the same flaw, which I like to call "Maxwell's hole". And therefore, a theory fixing the error which gave rise to the current misunderstandings, fundamentally re-integrates physics theory right at the point where it all went wrong . It should be no surprise this works all the way from the sub-atomic up to galaxy scale and explains gravity as well: Gravity = grad [E].
Well, this one shares a lot of predictions with the current standard model, yet can do without "virtual particles", "curving space" and all the other quantum weirdness, while predicting a new phenomenon: longitudinal dielectric waves, so it's actually testable as well.. :)
Regards,
@lamare