This blog is based on my efforts toward defining a 3-Dimensional Electron that exists in real space that I hope will replace the theoretical "point particle", that has been in existence since the 1920's and, very unfortunately, is still widely accepted and used for nearly all theoretical work. 

At this stage of my proposal, I would like the reader to remember that theoreticians define the electron as a "point particle", which, by definition, can not exist in real space because a "point particle", by mathematical and physics-based definitions, does not have any real size in real space.  By correlation, the same must be true for the term "point charge".  Therefore, a Point Charge is a mathematical construct that, by definition, can not and does not exist in real space.  

What this means is:  If we accept the theoretician's definition of the electron, then the electrons that I am using to write this blog should, by definition, not exist and therefore this blob should not exist.  Taking this thinking to the extreme, their definition means that all the atoms in the universe should not exist, so I must not exist.  Hmmm, makes me feel kinda like a ghost.......

In my efforts to define a 3-Dimensional Electron that exists in real space and can be used to re-define much of atomic physics, I ended up going back to Coulomb's experiment which is to some extent the very foundation for modern day atomic physics and the theories derived from it.

Before we can make progress towards defining a 3-Dimensional Electron, I need to point out that Coulomb's equation, either inadvertently or deliberately, defines electrical charges are point charges (which, by today's definitions, do not exist in real 3D space). 

As a next step, it is important to recognize that Coulomb's final experimental equipment was designed, accidentally or deliberately, such that the "masses" of the two pith (cork) balls would be effectively equal, thereby causing those two "mass" values to disappear from the equation since they were equal, and, in effect, were absorbed into the constant.  For this reason, I propose that the mass term "m" does not appear in and is missing from the Coulomb equation.

An equation that is very similar to Coulomb's equation is Newton's law of gravitation.  Since Newton died before Coulomb was born, it is very likely that Coulomb was familiar with Newton's work.  For whatever reason, Coulomb explored the applicability of Newton's law to explain his experimental results and found it to be useful, albeit in need of a different constant with different units. 

Now that we have Coulomb's law and Newton's law of gravitation open for discussion, I suggest that Newton's law of gravitation is also missing a term.  That term is the "charge" term that is found in Coulomb's law.  In correspondence, Coulomb's law lacks a term, which in this case is a "mass" term. Once the respective "missing" terms are added to each equation, the two equations become, in effect, identical.

To lend credence to this proposal, I will discuss the "charge" term that I say should be added to Newton's law.  

Newton's law deals with heavenly bodies that are floating freely in space with vacuum between them causing them to be, for the most part, electrically insulated from each other.  In other words, each planet and our Sun retains an overall electrical charge.  

Scientists who study the Sun know that the Sun, and all stars, continuously spew out electrically charged particles that are captured by each nearby bodies (eg the planets in our solar system).  This is one of the reasons why each of the planets must have an overall electrical charge.  

The intensity of these charges might have been estimated by one or more astro-physicists, but I've not searched for that information as yet. Nevertheless, these charges should have an effect on the orbital behavior of the planets.  The intensity of that effect is difficult for me to estimate.  (Any volunteers?)  

These planet-based electric charges could easily have played a significant role in the formation of our solar system.  Such charges could play a role on an inter-galactic level, but the distance factors should greatly diminish inter-galactic interaction.  

The charges on other nearby planets and our moon could or rather should have an effect on the satellites and the "charged" probes that we send out from planet earth.  Each probe or satellite should have an electrical charge that is similar to the region of the earth where the satellite was built.  (note:  different regions of the earth's surface should have different charges that depend on season, weather and soil chemistry)  

The story about the accelerated speed of one space probe, as far as I know, has not yet been explained.  Perhaps the charged nature of the probe versus the planets it passed caused this, as yet, unexplained acceleration.

But let me get back to the point I want to make.  My point is:  It seems that Newton's law of gravitation needs to have a charge term added to it.  Such a charge term, is, most likely, already buried inside the constant used in Newton's equation.

That said, the equation I propose is:

Force = new constant (mq(1) * mq(2))/r^2

where m=mass and q=charge and r=distance

If this proposal is true, then many theories, ideas and concepts need to be refined.

(note:  this is a small part of our effort to define a 3-Dimensional Electron, so hang in there.)