On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: > Harry wrote: > "On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and > negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference > between the charges is related to mass and size/shape." > > Your suggestion that it could be simply a difference in the amount of each > type of a binary fluid is certainly interesting, but then charge would not > be quantized, would it? Or more accurately, we would see fractional charge > all over the place. >
The quantization of charge may reflect a stable vibration of the fluid. The fuild at rest isn't charged. > I will agree with the idea that charge has more to do with the underlying > medium... > > If one considers the idea of a polarizable (quantum) vacuum, then I think > the likelihood of coming up with a physical explanation for charge is very > likely. > How would you polarize the quantum vacuum without charges already existing? > Why did we even come to think of requiring positive and negative charge as > being part of atomic structure? In order to explain basic chemistry; how and > why various elements combine to form molecules; why electrons 'hang around' > the nucleus to form atoms... > > Another possibility is that charge is neither positive nor negative. In my > physical model of subatomic elements, electrons are coupled to protons > because there is a harmonic relationship between their oscillation > frequencies, thus, it is independent of mass and size. Proton-proton and > electron-electron Cooper pairs is a natural... the E-field and B-field are > natural, macroscopic manifestations of the polarized vacuum... In a sense we are both talking about some sort of luminiferous aether but without the silly 19th century desire to have the aether governed by mechanical laws. Harry
