Using the Newtonian Constant G to Explain an Origin of the Poincare Stress

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by ChessMaster, Aug 2, 2013.

  1. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    Some physicists take it that the idea of Poincare stresses must exist because if they didn't a single electron would blow apart because of the electrostatic forces. A solution can exist to quell this by saying there is a fine tuning inside of electrically -charged particles like an electron where the gravitational force inside of them becomes extremely large.

    An electro-gravito-magnetic contribution of energy inside a particle of a radius smaller than the classical radius can be found as:

    \(E_{GEM} = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}{r_s} + \frac{e^2}{r_s})\)

    Where \(r_s\) is assumed smaller than the classical radius \((r_s < R)\) where \(R\) is equiv to \(\frac{e^2}{Mc^2}\) (but still a sphere, and \(e^2\) plays the role of the electric charge).

    The inertial mass of a system can be thought of as a charge: In all respects of the math which describes these systems, mass pretty much is a charge \(\sqrt{GM^2}\).

    The charge I once found can be described using some fundamental relationships, important relationships which are believed to be of importance when describing systems under CGM-physics... (CGM-physics is the idea that the universe somehow can be described by the fundamental constants of nature) - in this equation, we have permitivitty and permeability as a part of the structure of the charge itself.

    \(\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\pm \alpha \hbar n}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}\)

    The problem of internal stresses gave rise to what was called the 4/3 mass problem. (You can read more on the the Poincare Stresses in electromagnetic theories of mass which is a very good article by wiki) > Some physicists still talk about mass in such ways.

    The way you can solve the \(\frac{4}{3}\) mass problem - is by saying there is a contribution \(\frac{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}{r_s}\) of the gravitational charge which will play the role of the Poincare Stresses - In essence, we must assume that \(G\) takes on extremely large values inside of the sphere which help cancel the electrostatic forces believed to rip a particle apart. We can assume \(G\) takes on an extremely large value by going back to Motz paper where he once admitted it having a large value through

    \(G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^2}\)

    In which he states that the gravitational constant is taken to be very large inside the sphere of a particle. Adopting this equation then allows us to ignore Poincare Stresses. but does raise an important question of fine tuning since the gravitational constant must be large enough to cancel out the electrostatic (repulsive force).

    [some extra equations]

    In parallel to the electromagnetic theories which where taken seriously by physicists many years ago and some still today, we can rewrite it as gravitational charge analogues.

    The gravitostatic equation of contribution of energy to mass would be

    \(E = \frac{1}{2} \frac{GM^2}{r_s}\)

    This keeps as the gravitational analogue of

    \(E_{EM} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon R_{classical}}\)

    The contribution of mass in my equation is found then as

    \(M = \frac{1}{2} \frac{GM^2}{r_s c^2}\)

    where \(GM^2\) is the squared gravitational charge (Usually with coefficients \(4 \pi \epsilon\).

    Now going back to a similar process to Wein (1900), the attraction of the gravitational field can be understood as

    \(G \frac{\frac{1}{2} \frac{GM^2}{r_s c^2} M}{R}\)


    If Lloyd Motz is correct, how much stronger does the gravitational constant require to be to exactly cancel out the electostatic force inside of an electron?

    It comes at a value of:

    \(10^{40} \cdot G(Newton)\)

    Therefore, the right hand side of the equation by Motz

    \(G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^2}\)

    Needs to satifsy a number which is around this order, if not, exactly this order. If it is exactly this order, we are inducing the idea that there is a fine tuning of particles relative to their internal structures when the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are taken into consideration.

    Why do we think particles are pointlike exactly?

    I just want to write a very simple definition of the Poincare stress from an online source

    ''Non-electric forces postulated to give stability to a model of the electron. Because of the difficulties in regarding an electron as a point charge it is possible to postulate that the electron is a charge distribution with a nonzero radius. However, an electric charge distribution alone is unstable. In 1906 Henri Poincaré postulated unknown non-electric forces, now called Poincaré stresses, to give stability to the electron. Considerations such as these are now thought to be irrelevant(?), as it is accepted that an electron should be described by quantum electrodynamics rather than classical field theory.

    First of all, the distribution of a charge within a non-zero radius is not invalidated. It has been validated with great success but at the expense of ignoring that particles may actually behave pointlike at a certain threshold. Below this threshold, sphere-like particles which have a radius smaller than your normal classical radius could very well always behave like pointlike particles by those who measure it. A similar rule exists for the 1 dimensionally extended objects of strings (in string theory, these strings are the particles just like an electron). It's sort of not fair to think that a rule exists for string theory particles which clearly are not treated as 1-dimensional objects and that in the more accepted standard model, particles are pointlike and that is the end of the story.

    I also bolded a misconception in the article quote.

    ''As it is accepted that an electron should be described by quantum electrodynamics rather than classical field theory''

    Yet there is an overseen problem - that is in physics, we also have semi-classical models. Parts of these models can be described very successfully in non-classical theories, while the same theory can still have elements of it which retain totally classical. So the ''consensus'' that particles in quantum electrodynamics should be described by non-classical means might not be totally the right way to describe nature since you can have very successful theories which mingle classical and non-classical aspects... rather well.

    And if you are still not convinced

    ...The biggest problem believing that the electron truly is pointlike is that the equations describing them with a radius going to zero would actually yield an infinite energy when no one is watching the pot boil.

    The equation which describes this is

    \(U = \int_{|r| \leq R} \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \mathbb{E}^2 d \vec{r} = \int_{R}^{\infty} \frac{e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} dr = \frac{e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 R}\)

    The equation basically says, if \(R = 0\) then the energy of the electron \(U\) goes to infinity.

    Infinities are strange things, none have ever been observed in nature, so you may take this to mean that the equation is wrong. But that requires on to be biased that non-classical electrodynamics completely runs the show and that renormalization techniques can solve this problem. Or one can argue, that it is actually indicating particles are not truly pointlike and that is the stance I take in this work.


    I am curious at the comments this might receive. I don't proclaim this is the answer to problem of anything here but I am offerring it out there to find some intelligible comments to see whether there is anything wrong with my analysis of the equations and my understanding of the Poincare Problem.

    Thanks for hearing me out!

    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    I feel compelled to talk about the meaning behind

    \(\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\pm \alpha \hbar n}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}\)

    this relationship, because it holds an important similarity to the electromagnetic radius.

    \(r_e = \frac{\alpha \hbar}{Mc}\)

    The similarity arises in the numerator \(\alpha \hbar\). By simply rearranging the equations we have

    \(4 \epsilon \mu c \cdot GM^2 = \alpha \hbar\)

    \(Mc \cdot r_e = \alpha \hbar\)

    In much the same way that the electron classical radius is built from the electron mass, the speed of light and the electric charge, the gravitational charge is really built up from \(Mc \cdot r\) * which appears also in the definition of the electromagnetic radius. In other words, one can see the source of the gravitational field (which is the gravitational charge)

    *except the electromagnetic radius involves the electromagnetic fine structure constant and logically one might assume the gravitational charge being related to the gravitational fine structure constant.

    \(\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \hbar}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}\)


    \(GM^2 = \frac{Mc \cdot r_s}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c} = \frac{Mr_s}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0}\)

    Where we have set \(r_s = r_e\), so that the electron radius can be considered it's schwarzschild radius. You can something similar when you describe say, it's compton wavelength being set equal to it's S. radius.

    (Note, ''\(\cdot\)'' is not the dot product, but is the multiplication symbol.) This wouldn't have been terribly obvious to see these relationships without realizing that the fine structure with a coefficient of the angular momentum component seemed to be important factors in the definition of the gravitational and electric charges inside of the particles.

    If one took the equations seriously above, it means that in some kind of way, the energy \(E\), the radius \(r\), the gravitational charge \(GM^2\) (squared) and the coulomb constant \(k\) where all interelated in some fashion. Since,

    \(GM^2 = E \cdot r_s\)

    (which I found a long time ago)

    and that

    \(r_e = \frac{k e^2}{Mc^2}\)

    implies similarly

    \(Mc^2 \cdot r_e = k e^2\)

    where \(k = (4 \pi \epsilon)^{-1}\)
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ChessMaster Banned Banned


    \(\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\pm \alpha \hbar n}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}\)

    isn't too difficult.

    The charge due to fundamental relationships is given as (and known as the CODATA charge relationship)

    \(e = \sqrt{\frac{2\alpha \pi \hbar}{\mu_0 c}}\)

    Therefore, because of the relationship we have already covered:

    \(e^2 = 4\pi \epsilon_0 GM^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c\)

    by plugging in this definition of the elementary charge for the gravitational charge expression, and solving for the gravitational charge/source of the gravitational field we end up at a relationship

    \(\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\pm \alpha \hbar n}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}\)

    From here I asked

    ''is it possible the constants on the right somehow determine the source of the gravitational field?''

    This is a totally separate question to the origin of gravity at the fundamental level without a mediator particle ie. a graviton. But an interesting one.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    Let's go back to the equations

    \(4 \epsilon \mu c \cdot GM^2 = \alpha \hbar\)

    \(Mc \cdot r_e = \alpha \hbar\)

    What is the meaning of \( \alpha \hbar\) ?

    In this work we will interpret it to mean that the angular momentum component is in fact conserved through the fine structure constant. The elementary charge can be seen/found related to this conservation because

    \(4 \pi \epsilon e^2 = \alpha \hbar c\)

    reducing this to cgs units, we have

    \(e^2 = \alpha \hbar c\)


    \(\frac{e^2}{c} = \pm \alpha \hbar n\)

    The charge over the speed of light, is somehow dynamic in understanding that the angular momentum is conserved through the fine structure constant.

    Where \(n\) is an integer and the plus minus allows us to take into consideration an increase or decrease of the quantum number (which is why it appears in the equation) gravitational charge expression which is solved for the gravitational charge.

    Going back to the equation

    \(GM^2 = \frac{Mc \cdot r_s}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c} = \frac{Mr_s}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0}\)

    On the RHS \(Mr\) is also an important product. This product is seen a lot of equations dealing with the structure of particles i.e the Bohr Radius. The Bohr radius is

    \(r = \frac{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar^2}{Me^2}\)

    solving for the quantity \(Mr\) we have the expression

    \(\frac{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar^2}{e^2}\)

    Where we have the elementary charge in the denominator.

    Pluggin in our definition \(4 \pi \epsilon GM^2\) for the elementary charge and cancelling out like terms one ends up with

    \(r_{g} = \frac{\hbar^2}{GMm^2}\)

    This gives a gravitational radius for the electron system.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2013
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    This all seems eerily familiar. I think I am having a bit of a reiku flashback...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. ChessMaster Banned Banned


    Reiku had it right. Though he once said, that the Higgs Boson didn't exist, he was still right saying that mass is a charge and that the fundamental constants of nature can prove that mass is part of a dynamical system - part of the vacuum even considering the permittivity and permeability.
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I don't recall him getting anything right. He generally just misapplied first year algebra to physical situations resulting in nonsensical results; which is analogous to what you are doing in this thread.

    But by all means continue, I am sure you feel what you are writing is quite impressive...
  11. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    Why that's quite funny you say that, because all I saw from his threads was imagination, constructive essays on complicated issues which set physicists talking about and generally a misunderstood person because of the cliques that ran the place. I believe he was also accused of having ''mental issues'' which one of the moderators here said ''wasn't fair'' and I also recall James saying to Reiku ''well at least you can talk about physics better than some of the cranks that attend this site.''

    ps. Besides, when I saw his most recent equations, there wasn't anything wrong with them. Just an attack on a daily basis that he had nothing to support to his assertions, which doesn't exactly mean he misapplied anything. I think Reiku made a few mistakes many many years back, but you know, haters will be haters and some people continuously hold grudges. It's not that every post he ever made was utter rubbish.
  12. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    So forgive me, when you say you don't recall him getting anything right, you just seem to be one of those haters I was just talking about. Reiku clearly could talk about physics when he wanted to and knew a great deal more than many people who attended the site. Though of course, fair play to other posters like alphanumeric who on occasions spotted errors in his essays, but at the time, he went about it totally the wrong way. He was more a bully than a teacher in my opinion.
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I doubt anybody hated reiku, we mostly pitied him for what he was; an uneducate, dim-witted clown. He fancied himself as clever but that is simply because he was not smart enough to realize his limitations, just sad really.
  14. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    Oh now you see, these were those bullying tactics I was talking about before.... sure Reiku was never the ''best'' here amongst those who had degrees in physics, but he was hardly dim and the fact of the matter is, that propaganda of this sort of thing was the kind of hate mongering I was referring to in my previous post. Unlike some, Reiku could hold down a conversation on physics, unlike others, as James had once said himself. I wonder what drives people like you to be nasty in your comments? He fancied himself clever.... yes he probably did. I think there was possibly was some elements in his life he excelled in.

    So what is really sad is that you and others want to kick a dog when it is down. You wish to continue to slander his name and all because there is an element of stigma surrounding his name here. In my opinion Reiku is a very smart person, the difference is however is that he never went around saying this. One of the things I noticed, take alphanumeric for instance, would often proclaim to people ''well I have a PhD, what have you done?'' That sort of attitude is intended to bring people down and if someone was very thin-skinned, may even effect their confidence in life in general. Thankfully I do not believe Reiku is like that. He was talented in a number of area's.

    ps. And why do you say he was uneducated? Did you know he was a professional piano player? He was also a talented artist... and I know he had interest in many other things.
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    He should of stuck with music then cause he sure sucked at science. He should have gone to music forums and then maybe he wouldn't have embarssed himself and made such a baffoon out of himself.
  16. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    I think he showed an interest in it, which should be commended whether you didn't like his theories or not. But to rehash some statements, he was better talking about science than most here. So I guess, using your logic, probably more than half the members here should have stuck at what they did best.

    But what is interesting is that people in general, not specifically Reiku, is that places like this should encourage people to learn about science, especially in deprived area's like america where religion rules over the populace in great amounts. If someone is interested in science, they shouldn't be ridiculed or bullied especially from members who have degrees in the subject. Like I said, Alphanumeric was absolutely horrible towards him, bullied him and was hardly a teacher of his own art.

    And I think Reiku probably did make a buffoon of himself on a few occasions, but a lot of that was induced by people here who couldn't stand his presence, so they obviously went out there way to make him as such. It's a type of internet propaganda.
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    He had no theories. All of his stuff was just cutting and pasting pieces of real physics that he found and then misapplying some simply algebraic operations to the equations ending up with gibberish. He was clearly pretending to have an understanding of physics that he did not have and it was embarrasingly obvious. It was really quite odd behaviour.

    He was a parodoy of someone discussing physics.

    Absolutely not! This is a great place to ask questions and learn about physics. This is, however, a tough place pretend to have knowledge and start pontificating when you do not know what you are talking about.

    That is what this site is all about, which is why when someone like reiku shows up spewing stupid crap it is pointed out. It would be terrible is someone accidentally thought his garbage had any merit!

    Of course they aren't they are encouraged!

    You are really missing the point. Reiku was an idiotic loser. He had no knowledge of physics yet pretended he did. This type of warped personality puts out misinformation which is the exact opposite of the goal of this site.

    Reiku is a baffoon, true but that is OK, the problem he can mislead people with his completely stupid ideas wrapped in sciency sounding termonology. You have even said some of his theories make sense, which means he has tricked you into thinking some of his crap doesn't stink. Look closely and you will see a turd.
  18. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    ''he had no theories''

    one sentence riddled with another lie, with a lie riddled within a sentence.

    I haven't got any more patience with someone who doesn't take the truth but instead takes fabrications and wind them as fact. You have a personal hate against reiku. that is enough for me and possibly others to see clear enough you are more than willing to twist your interpretation of him to propagate your propaganda against him

    But best bit is, you look at your own posts and none of them contain even half the required scientific requirements for a site like this....

    ..................... hey I understand it now. There is an element of jealousy involved here. Where are your mathematical arts? If not even that, as alphanumeric once said to Reiku, what have you achieved in life than rather wasting your time here?

    Not nice is it, when you know you have done things not many here can comprehend.
  19. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    I kind of found it interesting, and I think some aspects of theories where lost transitioning from classical theories(i.e. the electric field). I don't see why you wouldn't think that the gravitational forces on particles is just not much larger on smaller scales. Are you trying to make this point or is it totally focused on just saying that point-like particles just have to be bigger? I never really believed electrons where truly point-like anyways, but I have been thinking about the possibility of quantum gravity actually being an interaction of virtual particles that make up other particles. It would make it seem like the gravitational field would have to be stronger at this scale if quantum gravity was to be described in this fashion.

    Most of the mass of the protons is from the space between the quarks themselves, and most of the mass of the galaxy is between the stars themselves.
  20. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    I am glad you don't think that pointlike... that ''dimensionless'' objects make the world up. Causes a contradiction, how can something with no dimensions make something solid like a dice which clearly has three dimensions?

    Above that, a particle cannot be pointlike because crazy amounts of energy reside when you reduce the radius of an electron to zero.

    More to the point i suppose, I should answer your main question...

    '' Are you trying to make this point or is it totally focused on just saying that point-like particles just have to be bigger? ''

    the answer is, not that they need to be bigger, but rather the gravitational forces become exceedingly large when considering the small radius of a particle. There are actually some mathematical theories which says that gravity is weak on large scales, but very large when you reduce to confined spaces... such as inside an electron or any fundamental particle at that. Since gravity is a positive (not negative) force, it could theoretically cancel out the electrostatic repulsive force which would normally rip apart an electron. The latter here has been well known for years and somewhat a mystery.
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Correct it was all nonsense.

    Nah, simple self evident fact. Maybe you do not understand what a theory is.

    The truth is there for all to see in the post by reiku. They contain nothing but a nonsense. No one is going to look back at them again however, because it is simply not worth the time. They are gone never to be seen again.:shrug:

    Think so? Hmmm.

    jealous of reiku, uh no, my mathematical background goes a bit beyond the first semester of algebra.

    I have accomplished enough that I feel I can waste a bit of time here. I have added nothing to the scientific knowledge of this planet. I simply struggle to understand and continue to learn what the real scientist have discovered

    I am an expert on a very specific type Chemical Vapor Deposition process that only a couple people understand, but it is kind of nice actually. I really enjoy trying to teach others about the process and the reactions - kind of cool really.
  22. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    I think the photon could be point-like, what do you think about that? I don't think the photon has any charge although it does come mostly from charged particles. I kind of think this tendency to believe that all particles could be point-like would be due to the idea that the force we feel that makes matter solid is created by fields. But even if this idea is true or not, I don't think that it would mean that they have to be point-like. I think even the phrase point-like comes from physicist not even knowing for sure if they are points or not.
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Well ChessMaster/Reiku I am terribly board with this so it time to bid adieu and you can post your nonsense until your eventual rebanning without my comments (probably). Maybe you will be able to impress layman, undefined and motor daddy with you "physics knowledge".


Share This Page