ENERGY and the eV under the auspices of G-theory (a simplified assertation)


ENERGY : The ability to do work or work done -solely by the motion of particles, objects and bodies- being ' as classical energy ' used or stored, and work done.

At ground state or in the cosmea this is ground state or possibly rest mass potential energy respectively. Ground state energy is the potential energy existing in a motionless object at zero degrees Kelvin, which cannot occur in the universe by a pure application of the third law of thermodynamics. That can only be the status of the cosmea. Rest state potential energy is the energy of a vibrating object above ground state which is not exhibiting URF relative spatial motion. It contains a proportion of kinetic energy because of its internal vibration.

Every bound system contains a particulate number value pertinent to that system. Any changes to the system require a change in the particulate values of the system proportional to the symptomatic change occurring in any other systems. Such change requires the application of a force whether virtual, perturbative or physical*. Lower generational systems often require a lower particulate value for their existence so upon the event of such an occurrence the surplus particles are ejected as energy. The ' zeroeth ' law of TD requires particles to be moved by universal energy divergence for parity purposes. This is seen as a transfer of energy. A severe and currently recognized enigma exists on this point which is resolved in the thesis. See asterisked note that follows.

*The strive for parity must be by action of an unrecognized quantum level force. This force is provided in the thesis. Laws don ' t just act by themselves. That ' s entertaining magic.


The act of amalgamating systems together, also requires force to cause the motion, by/and/or the addition of particles, however in peculiar cases the specificity of the new larger system once formed paradoxically requires fewer particles than the sum of the particles of the lower level systems from which it is formed, and once again the surplus particles are ejected as energy. The reason is given in the thesis.

Science and the military have made good and not so good use of this phenomenon which I have only described at this juncture in a simplistic fashion.

 Kinetic energy is a subjectivism and it is notionally the energy which has been inserted by (usually) an external force into real world objects that are exhibiting velocity, which is the ability to do work as per classical physics and thus the ability to expend energy at a rate. energy is a parameter of fundamental particles which contain force sub-particles or bosons. energy always gets the accolades for the actions which occur in the universe. The silent and unsung hero whenever energy is released or bound is; force and motion or not. This little oversight can lead to a serious misunderstanding of the processes which formed and control our world.

In the interest of understanding; the meaning of energy will be according to classical physics unless otherwise explained and where necessary.

energy in eV is considered to be the substance and term derived from a false assumption, and in fact eV is actually a term relatable to a charge force and not energy. Herein lays a circular mind gamer argument that I intend to circumvent by G-theory and I will then no longer have to engage in such spurious arguments about whether any particular phenomenon is a force or energy per se.

Many times you will notice attempted conversions of joules to mass by E=mc2, undertaken by people who forget all about the coulomb/volt/second conversion relationship from Joules to eV. Even from there the eV relationship is very murky indeed. In fact I don ' t see any reliable science behind the eV to give it any valid relationship with the energy of classical physics; only perhaps electrical and I intend to show that even that produces problems. There is however a definite connection and the problem actually lies in the misconceptions regarding quantum energy, force, work, power and mass as well as at the sub fundamental level. I will be addressing these problems at length. Great length!

For now I have to make something very clear. Question: Where did the ' second ' disappear to when moving one electron through a potential of one volt in order to rationally evaluate the eV as calculable energy? Is that real science or relativistic perhaps! That ' s the only possible way you can compute apples and oranges and end up with a bogus quantity of ' appenges or orples ' .

ELECTRICAL energy : A Joule is the amount of energy used in an electrical circuit which is NOT rate specific. No matter what the Emf or the current is, a joule of energy will be used when a joule of either thermal or electromechanical work is done. When the instantaneous product of the volts and amps is unity then one watt of power is the instantaneous quality. When one second has transpired in that state, a watt second of power will have been measured and a joule of energy will have been used to perform one joule of work. That ' s all folks.


A Joule is actually a measure of the energy used by an Emf of one volt to move a coulomb quantity of electrons (I) moving through a conductor in one second. (By ohms law the resistance (work area) will be one ohm.) Whilst by contrast an eV under some typical considerations is a quality of supposedly instantaneous potential energy supposedly relatable to E=mc2. The energy of an electron at ' c ' is far greater than an eV.

It is just not cricket (science) to conduct mathematical operations between a quantitative energy usage per time (rate) and an instantaneous potential energy quality as though they were one and the same thing. (OK instantaneous quantity if you like); but the question still stands. Where is the second? OK it ' s not there: So because it doesn ' t exist; an eV must for that reason then be an instantaneous voltage which would have to be one (-e) which is one volt divided by the number of electrons in one coulomb.

OK if that ' s the case then an eV would simply be evaluated as a coulomb number of (-e) charges which is 6.24---e-18 but now termed in electron volts. Hang on a minute! That can ' t be correct because we were just informed that the eV is the amount of kinetic energy an electron gains while accelerating thorough a charge of one volt. However by some stroke of magic or sleight of hand; we are also told that one JOULE is somehow 6.24---e-18eV and so being a charge as well. THAT ' S PATENTLY UNTRUE. Someone is definitely ' gaming ' the folks! They are even encouraged to convert from one to the other at a whim. Duh!

A charge is a static voltage, whereas a coulomb is a flow of electrons which is a current. So now we have the quaint idea that an eV is not only the charge it is also the current as well as the energy per second in watts. Why not keep going and call it mass as well. Oh! You already do. Is there anything else we could apply an eV as?

What a lovely formula we weave. P in (eV) = E in (eV) x I in (eV) duh!

The argument is often made that because a Joule is a coulomb number of electrons passing a certain point per sec and a watt is a Joule per second or a Joules number of electrons as one amp passing through a certain point in a second then it is erroneously thought somehow, that a Watt is therefore a Joule per s2. I must contest that idea, and I can ' t even figure out how it is even possible to arrive at that conclusion, because whether you have the individual number (Coulomb) or package (Joule, which is only conditionally an ampere) you are only observing the same thing -I.e. a coulomb number of electrons- albeit by a conditionally different name, and we all know that--- ' A rose by any other name is just the same ' , but squared? What the? Straight note: One Joule is only conditionally one watt-second. I.e. when E is one volt and I is one ampere. Either that or we must alternatively tie it to the resistance of the conductor. If I is one ampere then you will have a Joule after one second but if I remains at one ampere and E isn ' t one volt then you won ' t have a watt second because P=E.I. becomes different than E= I (or Cn) x 1 second so you just can ' t up and call a Kwhr a KJhr. Note: Refer to ' fundamental conclusions ' below.

I must also address the specious argument that a Joule and a Watt are synonymous and one is the measure of energy while the other is the measure of work! -or that the Joule always equals a watt/second. It is work and energy which are the truly synonymous, and a Watt is an instantaneous fictional value of potential energy which only becomes equatable with a Joule in a sense i.e. if the watt remains in place for one second. The current is just the instantaneously evaluated rate of the flow of electrons if a Joule of energy will be used in one second at a given voltage. Note: Refer to fundamental conclusions below.

In any case, if an eV is a measure of energy then please tell us how many eVs there are in a watt second? That ' s impossible; because the eV isn ' t relatable to the second at all!

If the coulomb of electrons is given an attractive charge with the application of an emf of one volt then an eV may speciously be considered to be the measure of the instantaneous charge in just one of those electrons with the one volt also being applied. However I always thought that in comparing one energy (eV) with another such as the joule, the operation would similarly have to be by a measure of the count of a coulomb of electrons moving past a given point which would have to be relative to a value of time and distance (velocity) if the motion of the electrons was declared to cause the eV; which it is.

So both emf and eV are therefore similarly charges of different flavors; with the eV supposedly being an unknown share of the overall charge which can ' t be possible because an electron ONLY EVER HAS ONE (-e) CHARGE, being a quantum -1 charge. That can NEVER change. It is the signature charge of an electron. There goes your eV out the window!

Having stated that; I now seem to have a problem: This is because the eV energy could be assumed to be made up of both a motion and charge component by reason that a motion relative component is only current and a single charge component is only voltage, so one would then be forced to declare that the electron must carry both components. However if you present this argument it may be a little premature because you must be forgetting the conventional positive to negative flow. Both flows are active with -ve current in one direction and +ve charge in the other and the individual electron charges don ' t move at the same speed as the +ve charge, and because motion involves the second; then the eV isn ' t relatable to that and there is no further argument. I will be analyzing this further and providing a satisfactory answer to this whole problem in the thesis.

We will also discover through this analysis that in quantum physics the eV can never be legally taken to relate to binding energy, it could only ever be reasonably related to binding force, and in any case the binding energy can only be termed in Joules but not however by linear motion statistics per electron but by vibrational statistics according to E=hf.





What ' s more, the conclusion is: THEIR CAN BE NO CONVERTIBILITY BETWEEN THE eV AND THE eJ!

You may consider this to be a moot point but I assure you that for the purpose of analyzing G-theory this is a necessary divorce.





Some other curly problems in physics can really make your head spin as well, and the following is one of them. I.e. the expanded relationship between a Joule and a Watt.

Most of the explanations on this subject leave you with the idea that a Joule is actually a watt or at least very much married wherein those terms are considered to be energy used and power exhibited over one second respectively.

We have just determined that to not be the case and because all of the previous might have been a TAD CONFUSING! I will attempt to give a more reasonable explanation from a different angle:

An electron has a unit electrical negative charge (-e) and it therefore has a force of attraction towards a positive charge source. If the source holds at a sufficient potential difference relative to the electron then the electron will appear to move at ' c ' along the conductor.

Now a Joule is the energy used to send a Coulomb of electrons notionally past any point anywhere in space over any time period (assuming no other impedance than the Z of space). So an eV is then able to be defined as the charge required to send one electron 300,000 kms and this will take one second. A volt is the (intimate and not field) charge required to notionally send a coulomb of electrons that distance in a conductor and that takes one second for all the electrons to arrive. From this we can recognize that now the eV is relatable to one volt (only) if the exact electron velocity is ' c ' and the eV becomes calculable by 1/Cn. Note: I intend to conclusively show, by my own reasoning that it definitely does take a Joule of energy to send a coulomb of electrons at the speed of light for one second in space even though only notionally at   c ' in a conductor*.

The electrons don't pass a point in space at the one second mark  just because they travel at a declared rate. They could be abreast in some fashion. This means that they all don ' t travel at ' c ' or we would have to specify that they all arrive at once exactly after one seconds duration. This is what we actually notice in the real world because our conductors have resistance. So if we send the coulomb of electrons along a conductor which has a resistance of one ohm; this will restrict the passage of that coulomb of electrons so that when the one volt is applied to the conductor only one coulomb of electrons can possibly move along the conductor (notionally) at ' c ' for one second- while the resistance remains at one ohm and the emf at one volt. The current (motion of the one coulomb per second) is then called one ampere (amp).

Because the notional (combined) velocity is held at ' c ' any increase in the voltage will cause more electrons to flow past a point rather than having a notionally stupid situation whereby the existing coulomb is considered to go faster without the first point being recognized.

This explanation just provided a second way for understanding the same thing, which is furthermore succinctly stated as follows.





P=EI  (J=V x J per sec)    I=P/E    E=P/I

(I) is the appreciation of the rate per second of doing the work and using the energy required as moving one coulomb of electrical charge particles past a point with an applied potential difference (E) of one volt.

The Joule is defined as being related to one coulomb of electrons moved past a point over any length of time. Once the Coulomb number of electrons has passed then one joule of work has been done and one Joule of energy has been used or stored.

In order to tie the Joule to time we need to bring it to terms of Joules per second which is Amps (I) and in order to tie it to power we also bring it to terms of one volt and only then can we end up with One Joule = one watt second; because power equals volts times amps (orC/s).






So the work energy unit of a Joule over any time duration is equivalent to one watt of power being delivered over one second. So the Joule and the watt second are only tentatively similar.



The Joule and the watt second are not synonymous with each other because the former is dimensionally timeless while the latter must be related to the volt and the amp by--- the duration of the application of that charge difference (E) times the rate of a coulombs-(J) over one second (I).


CONCLUSION 3: The ampere is dimensionless in the work, energy or power sense because it is just a rate and for any energy/power connection to be achieved it needs to be tied to the force producing the rate. Got it!!!? LOL



The Ampere and the Joule are not the same. The former is a rate and the latter is a value.

 The mechanical equation for the Joule E=m x d2/t2 is necessary in order to relate the Joule to gravitational work in a similar way to its necessary attachment to the second (t), in determining the relationship with power in the electrical sense.



In actual fact the definition in the mechanical sense also requires no defined time duration for the action that derives the idea of a Joule of work having been done or energy used or stored. It is a quantity value like the volume of water in a tank.



The Joule can only loosely be equated to the watt-second but we ' re not able to be ' loose ' in this thesis.






 The measure of a watt-second of work is the multiplication of the force times the energy such that power P = electromotive force times the current; in short P=EI. So we can be assured that the time related value of a (timeless coulomb being counted past a point in one second) as being a Joule is one amp in one second without any force being indicated for the voltage or time for the current although from that term it can be derived as having to always be one volt at one ohm with the current flow rate causing the joule to occur. This would deem the value of a Joule in that situation to be one amp/volt/second ---being one watt second.

Another problem with the conceptualization of a Joule is that because it has been arbitrarily given a defined time component, actual motion of electrons (or particles in other situations) is now incumbent upon it for any recognition of its existence to be arrived at. That should not be the case. A Joule of energy can be stored somewhere or ready to be transferred somewhere! There appears to be some ampere and watt second confusion.

*This is another place where contemporary quantum physics has come unglued, because it has been incorrectly assumed that the energy used is fleetingly instantaneous accelerative energy. I will be showing that this is not the case at all even in space, but for now if we take pause to reconsider the conductor: The moment we remove the emf the Joule component will cease to be increased (even though the partial component is still evaluable) and electrons will stop flowing. This means that they require a constant motive force to keep them moving and for work to be done and energy etc; ostensibly in quantum theory by E=mc2, and that motion is a component of the energy. Is that component actually Ek=mv perhaps? We shall see.


According to Coulombs law of ' charge attraction and repulsion ' then an eV by the contemporary definition of--- "the energy of an electron moving through a potential of one volt"- is only actually the measure of a charge force and not energy TBE. So the true formula therefore would seem to be F=mc2. That ' s not the case; and E=mc2 is also 'excused from the table' because otherwise ' c ' becomes conceivable as an instantaneous acceleration rate which is thought to be able to replace ' a ' in F=ma and after that we could stupidly square or cube such instantaneous rate and then assume a velocity in its place if we like. Don ' t worry, that ' s rubbish; but you will need to understand the common usage of such lines of unstated reasoning to comprehend many paradigm refuting contentions of G-theory.

If however it were to be stated that--- "An electron volt is the energy used to move one electron at ' c ' under the potential of one volt in a conductor with a resistance of 6.24...e-18 of an ohm, for one second"- that would be correct. The answer should then however be correctly labeled in terms of energy as an electron Joule (eJ).

" But that ' s not fair!" you remonstrate. "Then we couldn ' t have any specious proof of static M-E equivalence, or confuse nuclear binding force with binding energy out of the same side of our mouth could we? How can we possibly explain the mass defect if we aren ' t allowed to do this tinsy winsy bit of physics fudging? Oh no please don ' t refute E=mc2 ---we ' d have to remove it from the university lawn. This will not do! "

As it currently stands then; an electron volt is not a measure of energy and under mathematical considerations it cannot legally be converted to Joules in the manner currently undertaken. Where are you all?

A likely objection to this is: But quantum physics doesn ' t obey the laws of classical physics! If that ' s the case; what on earth is anyone doing converting eV to Joules at all then? I will counter that excuse with: ' If classical physics applies to the six trillion trillion odd electrons in a coulomb, then it must by reason also apply to just ONE ' !

Another objection would be* that a joule is kinetic energy while the eV is potential energy. As we have already seen, that ' s not correct. I will explain it another way: A Joule is seemingly a measure of kinetic energy used as power or work done over any time period (multiplied by the specified quantity of electrons being moved), being related to the force the eV applies to a single electron with an overall applied motive force of one volt which will cause it to accelerate by a=F/m. It does not just remain motionless or accelerating at an unknown rate with the volt somehow ' magically ' filling it with potential energy. That just won ' t happen or Coulomb ' s a liar!

*It may be of some interest to know that the prior objection can be shown to be specious science because of a different reason as well. I.e. If all the electrons arrived back at the emf source WITH THE SAME CHARGE AND THE SAME VELOCITY then how can they be considered to have done any work or used any energy? ' I guess their spin moments could have slowed ' . Nice try: That still dooms any idea of the eV as energy. I promise to present the true phenomenology.


If you still object by declaring that eV is just instantaneous potential energy, then I suggest that you refer back to the preceding argument. So I guess by now many of you might be opining: “If you ' re going to blow holes in our pet theories like that then you ' d better have really really good ones to replace them with”. I guarantee not to disappoint when I address this further in a later chapter. Note: Kinetic energy is actually kinetic potential energy or kinetic force. All energy is actually potential. It is force that motivates, not energy. Except for the need to apply energy to applications in chemistry in particular I could wish that the term kinetic energy would be stricken from physics because it ' s all just potential force being ' stored force ready to do some work ' which will of course be rate measurable as power by the timed motion caused by the force. Unfortunately the chemists like the idea of energy storage and release. If we truly understand the concepts I have just laid out then I guess we can live with that.

Sorry for being so facetious at times, but the sums haven ' t added up for a long time and either a lot of quantum scientists are in cahoots and perpetrating a massive fraud, or they just haven ' t seen the need to look too closely. I ' m hoping the latter is the case but I ' m just trying to wake some of y'all up. Note: I ' m not undermining the work of Faraday, Avogadro or Coulomb et al at all.

Ask yourself this. Is the amp/hr capacity of a  battery a measure of energy or power? Answer: Power, because it is time related to a rate and not time related to a quantity and that is the crux of the matter.

This subject has been debated by the best ad nauseam, and it usually ends up in circular arguments which prove themselves by themselves. Although many are of the opinion that quantum physics departs from classical physics at the eV. I hope to end that by presenting a plausible substantive mechanics that answers to the problems that have required so much fudging in the first place and then the problem goes away along with the need to fudge.





Finally we must address the idea that in 'G-theory multiplicity' energy is both matter and motion or both (but never mass) and matter-energy is notionally convertible to motion relative energy as in the case of the photon collision event resulting in the emission of gravitons at stupendous velocities. This does not violate any laws of energy because of the overriding law which states ' ---energy is able to be changed from one form to another ' and I would add ' including changes in motion ' .

The takeaway here is that in reality all observed energy is contained as the motion of particles (In the fundamental sense, specifically trions and their lowest order universal construct the gluon). The energy transformation in this case is really photon ' spin ' amplitude energy to graviton linear motion relative energy. Any suspected losses would be due to the lack of instantaneity in the graviton ' s velocity and this would only have resulted because of the loss of trions to the eos (vacuum).