Here we see the tool kit of Merlin, the Magician. It includes his magicians hat, and his two magically charged wands which Merlin uses to project his magical forces onto objects. One is called ‘positive charge’ and the other is called ‘negative charge’.

Here we see Merlin using his wand, ‘positive charge’, to throw his magical forces across space so as to repel one object, which also has the positive charge, and to attract another object, which has the negative charge.

Here we see Merlin’s hat and his two wands, ‘positive charge’ and ‘negative charge’, being chucked into a garbage can.

Both positive and negative ‘charges’ seem to me to be another one of those ill defined, obscure mystifications, much like ‘momentum’, which everyone refers to, but no one can ever explain. Because I am seeking a ‘unified field theory’ which includes the atom, it seems correct to me to seek a ‘spatial’ explanation for the concept of ‘charge’, since such an explanation does help to define ‘momentum’ and therefore, to achieve unity, one would hope that such an explanation might help to explain ‘charges’ as well.

In the image above we see two atoms. One is ‘to dense’ and is rising in the gravitational field and expanding as space dilates. The second is ‘not dense enough’ and is falling in the gravitational field and contracting as space becomes more narrower and more restrictive. The momentum of the rising object decreases as its density decreases, so that it decelerates as it rises in the gravitational field, while the momentum of the falling object increases as its density increases, so that it accelerates as it falls in the gravitational field and the rate of spatial displacement increases. By applying Archimedes principle, and observing the behavior of atoms in a gravitational field we can see that the amount of energy in a space cannot exceed ‘E-Maximum’ and when it does, displacement occurs in the direction of decreasing density, and similarly we can see that the amount of allowable energy in a given space cannot be less than equality (the density of the atom is equal to the density of the energy field at that point) and when this value is less than E-Equality, displacement also occurs, this time in the direction of increasing density. So therefore you cannot have either to much energy in a given space nor can you have to little energy in a given space in an energy field (with the field density described by the Inverse Square Law, and denser closer to the center of the field and less dense as the distance from field center increases). In both cases spatial displacement occurs, with the rate of displacement (the velocity) related to the density differential (the momentum).

The illustration above demonstrates the effects of ‘static electricity’. When a positively charged conductor is brought near to an uncharged conductor, the ‘positive charge’ is pushed to the far side of the uncharged conductor while the ‘negative charge’ is pulled towards the side of the originally uncharged conductor nearest to the charged body. The energy is only ‘static’ in the sense that it is ‘trapped field energy’ and cannot escape the local field (no ‘circuit’ exists that would allow the field energy to leave the field, and thus the energy in the field can only move locally).

When an object is ‘positively charged’ we will consider that energy of that object to have increased in density, which would then imply that such an object is displacing ‘more space’. The displacement of the ‘space’ (the energy field surrounding the object) is greatest closest to the displacing object and then the displacement decreases with distance.

We will consider this displacement of space to be the ‘charge carrier’. When the positively charged conductor is brought close to the uncharged conductor, the space around the uncharged conductor is distorted (pushed in) and because only so much energy can occupy so much space, and since the positively charged conductor is already occupying ‘too much space’ (it is ‘positively charged’ and thus its energy level is more dense), this then causes an expulsion of energy in the uncharged conductor and as a result the far side of this conductor becomes ‘positively charged’, for this is the most optimal solution of the distribution of the unbalanced energy density in that space.

What happens to the atoms?

Let’s imagine that a nano-tube that was three atoms in diameter was slid inside a hollow nano-tube that was five atoms in diameter.

An atom expands (becomes less energetically dense) as it rises in a gravitational field, and an atom contracts (becomes more energetically dense) when it falls in a gravitational field. Thus an expanded atom is less ‘energetic’ (has a lower relative temperature) than a contracted atom. Now if we assume that an atom becomes ‘positively charged’ (its density increases) then this would imply a change in the three dimensional space occupied by that atom. An atom displaces no external three dimensional space when the density of the atom is equivalent to the density of the surrounding energy field (the atom will stop rising or falling when equality exists between the energetic density of the atom and the density of the surrounding spatial-energy field.

Let’s assume that the insertion tube was positively charged (denser) and that therefore its atoms expanded so that it would no longer fit into the receiving tube.

There is a second scenario which seems counter-intuitive, in which the atoms which become positively charged occupy less three dimensional space because of the increased field strength within that atom. This models corresponds to the behavior of atoms in a gravitational field (less dense, increased atomic size, more dense, decreased atomic size). Here we see that the receiving nano-tube has become positively charged, and thus its atoms have actually decreased in radii, and now the insertion tube can no longer slide into the receiver, because the three dimensional gap has become to narrow.

The model of atomic radii does not give us much help here, because the results of an increased energy level of an atom do not result in a consistent picture of the three dimensional space occupied by an atom.

Here we see the radii of atoms decreasing in size as the energy density of the atom increases.

Here we see the radii of atoms actually increasing in size as the energy density of the atom increases.

Here see no change in the radii of atoms as the energy density of the atoms increases.

It would seem that the radii of an atom is independent relative to the surrounding three dimensional space that an atom displaces.

Charge as Spatial Displacement

My conclusion is that ‘charge’ is similar to ‘momentum’ in that both charge and momentum are density functions and create spatial displacement in the surrounding energy field. One of the differences between charge and momentum, is that momentum is a relative property (the rate of deceleration or acceleration increases or decreases relative to the density of the surrounding spatial-energy field). Charge, however, is relative only to the density of the two ‘charged’ bodies, and this relative difference in density would remain constant even if the two ‘charged’ bodies were to be moved to a different space with a different density. Charge is only relative in that it is a measure of the difference in energetic density between two bodies, such that an object which is ‘negatively charged’ (less energetically dense) relative to another object which is ‘positively charged’ (more energetically dense) would become the object which is ‘positively charged’ relative to a third object which was even less energetically dense. So then a negative charge could become a positive charge and the charge is relative to the charge (density) of the object being compared.