Redefining Electrons

[Jzz]

Our concept of electrons and their use in theories of physics is outdated, inaccurate and inadequate to explain in terms of our present knowledge and technology. It needs to be revamped. Even the most modern interpretation of quantum mechanics namely the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics decided on at the 5th Solvay Conference held in 1927 is almost a hundred years old today. Our whole concept of the electron is in need of a sea change. I have therefore written a paper entitled : Redefining Electrons : A modern Theory of Aether in which a mathematical basis is put forward for this new theory. I would appreciate any comments.

 

[COLGeek]

Has this document been peer reviewed in any way (other than sharing with this community)?

Will give it a read soon.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Jzz
I found your real name, and also looked at your paper.
YES - You are close to understanding the tight connection between photon and electron, and thereby only partly the electromagnetic interaction.

In my soon to be published paper I describe both photon (of two types) and electrons (of two spins) as composite particles and evolve from same process.
More when the paper is published.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Jzz]

Has this document been peer reviewed in any way (other than sharing with this community)?

Will give it a read soon.

COLGeek, flattered at your interest and thanks. However, there are two points I would like to emphasise. The first point is with regard to my criticism of quantum mechanics where I mention that according to quantum mechanics light as it travels from point A to point B does not exist as something real but travels as an abstract wave-function. There might be a tendency to dismiss this statement as being false or erroneous. However, according to the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics as decided at the 5th Solvay Conference held in 1927, a decision was made that light travelling from A to B did not exist as something real but as an abstract wave-function: Look at this video from 12.18 on. Also see Max Born’s quote: We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions,..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.? Yet one has to wonder how something that can be ethically unacceptable in the ′real′ world can be perfectly justifiable in the abstract ′mathematical′ world. . " ] Max Born.

The second point I would like to raise is that we live in an atmosphere of air, of which we are hardly aware, yet without that air we could not exist. Apart from air, there is a second ‘substance’ that surrounds us of which we are hardly aware, emanating from the refrigerator, the lights in our houses, the power cables, the TV, the washing machine, the air-conditioning system, computers, laptops and mobile phones. I refer of course to electromagnetic radiation. It is strange that while we are perfectly willing to accept the existence of this electromagnetic radiation and the signs that accompany it in our homes, we are unable to admit that the same type of phenomena must also accompany electromagnetic radiation travelling in space and through the Universe. The explanation of fields that permeate the entire Universe, one for each type of phenomena is a bit clumsy. I have put forward the proposition for a single type of classical field. Where every point in space is occupied by a particle (virtual photon or electric dipole). This single medium accounts for both electricity and magnetism and also gravity as envisioned by Lorentz and Poincare, but that is another subject altogether. Is it so difficult to envision a Universe occupied by a medium? If commons sense prevails, it is surely a preferable solution than to imagine the existence of a dozen or more fields, one for gravity, one for electricity, one for magnetism etc.,

 

[Jzz]

Jzz
I found your real name, and also looked at your paper.
YES - You are close to understanding the tight connection between photon and electron, and thereby only partly the electromagnetic interaction.

In my soon to be published paper I describe both photon (of two types) and electrons (of two spins) as composite particles and evolve from same process.
More when the paper is published.
Thanks.

I greatly appreciated your comments Dr Sharma, my mentor is Dr M R Srinivas, who is a very distinguished scientist, and former Chairman of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre and a close associate of both Nobel laureate Dr. Homi Bhaba and Dr Vikram Sarabhai, founder of ISRO. My theory explains not only electric and magnetic effects but also accounts for gravity. I think the present ontology of photon-electron interaction within the atom is highly stilted, i.e., electron absorbs photon is raised to a higher level orbital, then drops down and emits a photon is too stilted apart from the fact that one wave that is a hundred million times larger than the electron (i.e., the incoming photon) is reflecting of another wave the electron cloud, leaves no explanation. Where are the forces of recoil? How does such a massive incoming wave interact solely with the electron? In other words present theories leave a lot to be desired. The theory outlined in brief in my paper "Redefining electrons: A Modern Theory of the Aether" offers an alternate solution to these aberrations.

 

[Classical Motion]

An electron(and a proton) has two EM rotations. And they have the same structure. One rotation is internal and one rotation is external. The external field rotation is always perpendicular to the outside world. This external rotation is always the slower rotation. It has a set of relative c speeds.

The internal EM field rotation is much different. It rotates much faster than the external field, it is just a bit slower than c. This rotation modulates the slower rotation with a high frequency wobble. These are all DC fields. One direction fields.

And with this high speed internal rotation.....the M field lies down beside the E field. Along side of it.

Handedness. Fundamental handedness is the alignment of the M to the E. Normally the M is perpendicular to the E.

If we shine a positive E field north, the M's north will be on the east side of the field and the M's south will be on the west side.

If we shine a negative E field north, the M poles switch. This is fundamental handedness. And sets the way atoms and molecules fit together. Handedness provides one way fit for this universe.

Inside with the very fast EM internal field.......the M field will lie down next to the E field.

With a right handed charge(positive E field) the M field will lay down parallel to the E field. AND the M and the E fields are in parallel and gong in the same direction.

This gives the positive charge......inertia. A high speed, high charge rate.

In the left handed internal field, the M field lies down in the opposite direction. The E and the M are counter rotating........giving the charge an anti-inertia property. A slow speed, slow charge rate. Anti parallel rotation.

The proton stays very small, very hard and very high RPM. The electron is very large, very soft and a slow RPM.

The mass you think you are measuring with an electron, is only a small portion of one of those counter rotations. You can not measure both rotations at the same time........and you think it has mass.

If you stand beside a particle, every rotation is the movement(flow) of one e. The electron will have about 18 amps. The proton will have about 30,000 amps.

Big difference. The electron occupies the slow spectrum and the proton occupies the fast spectrum.Both particles have the same structure and the same amount of charge material. BUT handedness gives them asymmetric properties.

Not only does this structure explain the periodic table, it shows the structure and forces that hold a nucleus together.

Both structures can be charged/discharged to the same size. If you accelerate an electron backwards, it will charge up like a proton. If you accelerate a proton backwards it will discharge like an electron.

Anti-matter. The L and the R charges can only touch when they are the same size. Otherwise, one flies thru the center of the other. But if same size and touch.......they will unwrap each other and dissolve into EM propagation.

That was matter. Now if I could only get you to listen about light, you would have no need for space-time or expanding space......to explain your star light measurements.

This structure not only explains inertia and the periodic table.......but the true dynamic of light.

Duty cycle light. Discreet light.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

I greatly appreciated your comments Dr Sharma, my mentor is Dr M R Srinivas, who is a very distinguished scientist, and former Chairman of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre and a close associate of both Nobel laureate Dr. Homi Bhaba and Dr Vikram Sarabhai, founder of ISRO. My theory explains not only electric and magnetic effects but also accounts for gravity. I think the present ontology of photon-electron interaction within the atom is highly stilted, i.e., electron absorbs photon is raised to a higher level orbital, then drops down and emits a photon is too stilted apart from the fact that one wave that is a hundred million times larger than the electron (i.e., the incoming photon) is reflecting of another wave the electron cloud, leaves no explanation. Where are the forces of recoil? How does such a massive incoming wave interact solely with the electron? In other words present theories leave a lot to be desired. The theory outlined in brief in my paper "Redefining electrons: A Modern Theory of the Aether" offers an alternate solution to these aberrations.

Hi Jzz:

You mean Dr. M. R. Srinivasan who is 94 this year?
Great accomplishments and great practical engineering experience. On the off topic comment, still India is not optimally using its abundant thorium for power, China again is ahead here and in many science and engineering benefits, such as power generation, like France did when Bhabha was alive.

Coming back to nature of electron and electron photon scattering, my theory is that interactions include totality, namely scattering, absorption reemission, Raman and Mie and Rayleigh depending on quantum, statistical, topological and classical description.
As we are in BSM era and other group members here have commented (including Classical Motion), we can see multiple viewpoints.
Then there are morphs, as particles transform. My thesis 55 years ago and upcoming papers exemplify it.

Invite all to weigh and comment on the relative descriptions and which one is correct or suits the purpose?
Is one suitable description applicable to all particles of SM and BSM and or different descriptions are needed, for example Electroweak for neutrino, and strong for n, p etc.?
If there are different descriptions, does reality appear differently and how do we get total description, hoping - understanding!

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Jzz]

You mean Dr. M. R. Srinivasan who is 94 this year?
Great accomplishments and great practical engineering experience. On the off topic comment, still India is not optimally using its abundant thorium for power, China again is ahead here and in many science and engineering benefits, such as power generation, like France did when Bhabha was alive.

Thank you, Dr Sharma. It is apparent that you are well acquainted with Dr M R Srinivasan, and in all probability are old acquaintances. I believe there is now talk of developing fast breeder reactors to take advantage of the thorium content.

Coming back to nature of electron and electron photon scattering, my theory is that interactions include totality, namely scattering, absorption reemission, Raman and Mie and Rayleigh depending on quantum, statistical, topological and classical description.
As we are in BSM era and other group members here have commented (including Classical Motion), we can see multiple viewpoints.
Then there are morphs, as particles transform. My thesis 55 years ago and upcoming papers exemplify it.

IMHO, Dr Sharma, your views of electron and electron photon scattering and Raman, Mie and Rayleigh scattering are just not fundamental enough to achieve the kind of breakthrough needed. It should be realised that both quantum mechanics and relativity are dated theories that have had their day. Hence my view of ‘Redefining the electron’ itself. For instance, the view has long been held that electrons are the fundamental charge carriers. Yet, in every other possible scenario, the electron mediates its energy through the absorption and emission of photons. Look at the theory as far as a current carrying wire is concerned. The theory is absolutely flawed. Consider that before a current is applied, electrons in the wire are moving at the rate of 10^6 m/s . How is it possible to believe that the moment a current is induced in the wire that the electrons start to move in the direction of the applied current but that their speed slows to 10^-3 m/s? What is the reason for this? How are electrons able to move at these amazing speeds without encountering any of the obstacles that, according to present theory, immediately become apparent when a current is applied to the wire? Why are these same obstacles not present when a current is not present? Surely, the explanation that free electrons in a wire where a current is absent, move in a zig-zag manner and thus avoid obstacles is quite obtuse? The mean free path of the electron is reduced to about 4 x 10^-8 m when a current is applied. This is a ridiculous estimate, although it might be factually true. The only possible explanation for such a situation, is that the explanation that is given for the change of speed of an electron when a current is applied, is due to some other factor, than those attributed. What could be the reason? According to my theory which is also known as Gestalt Aether Theory, the size (wave length) of the largest photon that an electron can emit is limited to a size of 1.25 x 10^-6 m, a frequency of 2.4 x 10^14 and an energy of 1.6 x 10^-19 J. Consider if such a limitation is not imposed on photon size, how would it be possible to explain radio-waves that can have a wavelength of a size of 5 x 10^6 m . These radio waves have exactly identical properties to photons, except that their energy is very low and their wave-lengths very large. Limiting the maximum wave-length that an electron can emit means that ALL radio-waves are ‘composite’ waves made up of photons that are linked together in parallel and have a shared energy.

Returning to the on topic, content. Namely the speed at which electrons in a wire carrying conductor move. GAT holds that the charge is carried not by electrons as has been believed for the past hundred years and more, but by the ‘largest’ photon that an electron can emit, that have been named ‘conduction’ photons. How is this possible? Traditionally, the idea that a photon can be the charge carrier has been rejected because the free electron that emits a photon has no means by which to recoil. Thereby, violating the conservation of energy and momentum laws. This is absolutely not allowed. UNLESS, using the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as it applies to energy and time, the electron is able to absorb a photon of the same energy that it has emitted in a specified interval of time. This process is what results in the lines of force forming around a conductor. Therefore, when an electron emits a ‘conduction’ photon, the situation within the conductor is hectic, therefore before the electron can absorb the photon it has emitted it absorbs another ‘conduction’ photon and so on. Therefore, photons, which also need resolution in the form of an electron needing their specific energy, leave the conductor and circle back again entering the conductor to be absorbed by another electron and so on. This explains Flemings right hand rule, and also the corkscrew formation of the lines of force.

But why do electrons move so slowly and travel less than 4 x 10^-8 m, the answer is that the electron is absorbing the force of recoil, the time can be calculated using HUP Delta E Delta T geq h. Pi is not involved. This time interval turns out to be about 10^-15 s.

Proof that this is indeed the case can be found by examining, using the same Hall effect, the speed of electrons in an AC carrying wire. It is found that the electrons do not move at all, they appear to be frozen in place. This raises the question if the electrons are not moving at all, how do they convey the current?

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Hello Jzz
Thanks for response.
Your work is deep and requires considerable study.
While I will attempt, I only meant to draw your attention to various interaction types as macro level interactions. Intention was not to say they were all applicable for electron, as this is a particle to be dealt with at least by QFT and QCD if not beyond SM.

Your paper covers DM and acknowledges its existence and you also relate it to "Aether" type!

Please wait for my paper soon to be published where I describe the nature of DM. In that theory electron is a composite particle and so are two types of photons.

Description of Single electron and Planck limits etc., and particle theory are one way to understand its nature.

Relating it to QED and Electromagnetic interaction such as Maxwell type are its collective aspects, in classical EM we have to understand not only E and M parts and if parallel photons are intermediary to Electron self interaction of wire flow of electricity I have no objection nor endorsement as I have not studied this topic deeply.

But for particles there could be a continuum of many types of QFD QCD BSM BEC aspects. some of these you address and this field of study is dynamic.

So my interest is in learning more about electron photon interactions and your description of wavelengths and energies seem to be dual, both macro level and also in terms of wave wave interactions?

Certainly there a lot to learn about Photon electron relationship!

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Jzz]

But for particles there could be a continuum of many types of QFD QCD BSM BEC aspects. some of these you address and this field of study is dynamic.

So my interest is in learning more about electron photon interactions and your description of wavelengths and energies seem to be dual, both macro level and also in terms of wave wave interactions?

Certainly there a lot to learn about Photon electron relationship!

Dear Dr. Sharma, The theory I have outlined in my article “Redefining Electrons: A Modern theory oof the Aether” challenges conventional explanations of photon-electron interactions and offers an alternative perspective. Addressing the points I’ve raised in this paper against conventional explanations:

It is argued that the conventional explanation of photon-electron interaction within the atom faces challenges in terms of the size disparity between photons and electrons, a 500 nm photon being 168 million times the size of the classical electron (3 x 10^-15 m) as well as the wave nature of electrons (electron cloud). This raises the question of the mechanism of electron transition and photon emission within atoms, and suggests that it may not fully account for observations such as atomic clocks and high-frequency data processing in modern devices.

The theory described in the paper offers a specific mechanism for photon emission and absorption by electrons, whereby electrons have the capability of manufacturing photons internally as the need arises as a means of regulating their energy at a constant level. In order to do this they emit (or absorb) pulses of electric energy that undergo polarisation resulting in a stable configuration that we know of as quanta or photons. Look at the following picture.

The next figure shows how polarisation results in a stable configuration and the forming of a photon.

The photon might look like this :

Therefore, the old conception of photons as excitations of the field, with all of the difficulties inherent in explaining where the energy comes from to produce the photons, how are they available so instantly, how their exact energy is determined and so on, is challenged and replaced by a new theory that resolves all of these questions and more.

For instance take the question of size of incoming photons, according to this new theory ALL photons, whether ‘real’ or ‘virtual’ have the same physical dimensions; namely a cross section of about 10^-16 m and a length of 10^-6 m. Therefore, there is no question of how photon absorption and emission takes place, it is a one on one process, i.e., one electron absorbs or emits one photon. Of course, this emission and absorption process can take place at the rate of hundreds of trillions of times per second, the electron is easily up to it.

 

[Jzz]

I spent some time pondering whether it would be better to just edit my previous post or to write a new one. In the end I decided that what had to be said was important enough to merit a new post. The truly extraordinary aspect of this new theory is that it allows for the rectilinear propagation of light while at the same time explaining how light is able to spread out according to the inverse square law, while still maintaining the initial energies of all the photons on the spreading wave-front intact. This is something that Standard Theory (quantum mechanics) was never able to do. Even the attempts that were made resulted in forages into a labyrinthine world of esoterica. Hardly a science, but with such a dedicated, zealous and devoted following! The rectilinear propagation of light is not only explained but accounted for in unpretentious terms. At the same time, these changes represent a whole new paradigm shift in physics, completely overturning long established concepts.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Jzz

What worries me is the mix of classical concepts in the Quantum domain and vice Versa.
The electron and its components which will make sense in the BSM world of tomorrow but which my to be published theory clearly indicates, similarly photons are of two kinds and each type is made of multiple entities thus both of these are composite particles.
I will send a link once the whole paper is published.
Regards.


Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma
.

 

[Jzz]

Jzz

What worries me is the mix of classical concepts in the Quantum domain and vice Versa.
The electron and its components which will make sense in the BSM world of tomorrow but which my to be published theory clearly indicates, similarly photons are of two kinds and each type is made of multiple entities thus both of these are composite particles.
I will send a link once the whole paper is published.
Regards.


Thanks.
Ravi

Respected Dr Sharma,

In a way, this is precisely my point. Quantum Mechanics at every stage freely uses classical physics concepts. As for instance conservation of energy and momentum laws and the wholesale adoption of Maxwell’s equation on which attempts are made to impose quantisation. In fact, QM relies quite heavily on classical concepts. The very concept of electrons and atoms comes directly from classical physics. The only difference between classical physics and quantum mechanics is the highly debataable claim that: “at the level of the very, very small, things behave differently”, from which statement arise all the very esoteric concepts behind quantum mechanics such as disambiguation, superposition, quantum entanglement and wave-particle duality.

The crucial point that no-one can seem to accept is that none of these concepts work,! They are more faith based than reality based. They are founded on abstract ideas rather on empirical science. If one examines just a few points, this becomes apparent. I will list them numerically in case anyone wishes to refute them:

1) The question of size. An incoming 600 THz light source has a wave-length of 500 nm. This is 168 million times the classical size of the electron and 5000 time the size of the average atom. How is Einstein’s theory of one electron one photon, rationalized given these circumstances. Does the whole of the substance react with the incoming light, or in some subtle way are excitation of the numerous fields responsible? What actually happens is shrouded in mystery. Acceptance of this supposition is an act of faith rather than a valid science.

2) The present quantum mechanics explanation for photon frequency and the emission and absorption of photons is totally inadequate in the face of the reality. Namely, that modern technology processeses data at the rate of thousands of millions of bits of data per second. And even atomic clocks work on electron oscillation in the Gighertz range. Yet, quantum mechanics explains this as: an electron absorbs a photon and transitions to a higher energy orbital level, after some time it drops back down to its original level, and in the process emits a photon equal to the difference in the energy levels. This theory is just not dynamic enough! It lacks any connection with the reality of what takes place. It totally ignores reflection and refraction.

3) In the absorption and emission of photons by bound electrons, the process of recoil, something vitally important to the laws of conservation of energy and momentum is totally ignored. We are told one wave recoils of another wave, or undergoes fantastical transformations from one state to another. Again, such a theory is totally dissociated with reality. It requires a substantial faith based belief on the part of a ‘believer’ that such amazing contortions can exist. AND even after all this, does not explain, the rectilinear property of light, the laws of reflection and refraction or any other very basic facts about light.

4) Lastly ( a term used figuratively) , of course is the fantastic theory put forward by Standard Theory (quantum mechanics) for the propagation of light. When an antenna radiates EMR, a photon in its vicinity undergoes spontaneous self-annihilation, this self-annihilation of the photon, results in the creation of an electron – positron pair. Since the electron positron pair represent matter and anti-matter, they undergo instant mutual annihilation resulting in the creation of a photon of the same values as the one that originally underwent self-annihilation. This theory, in of itself, might sound weird enough but consider that each of these transformations requires a minimum energy of 0.5 MeV , since the number of photons in any EMR is almost infinite, where does this unthinkable energy come from? Why aren’t we blown away or annihilated every time an EMR signal passes near us. OR, is this what actually happens? Are we created destroyed and preserved every time an EMR signal passes by our vicinity?

Kindly answer any one or all of the above questions?

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dear Jzz
You seem to believe only in classical description, evident from 2 and even 3 in your reply. but why do you not suggest as to what happens, perhaps you did in earlier posts.
I hope I can save this thread and study it when there is a moment and see if you are giving solutions or describing this by deriving or explaining observed constants of physics.
Thanks, I will reflect and respond.
Thanks.
Ravi

 

[Jzz]

Dear Jzz
You seem to believe only in classical description, evident from 2 and even 3 in your reply. but why do you not suggest as to what happens, perhaps you did in earlier posts.
I hope I can save this thread and study it when there is a moment and see if you are giving solutions or describing this by deriving or explaining observed constants of physics.
Thanks, I will reflect and respond.
Thanks.
Ravi

Dear Dr Sharma,

You are right it is a question of belief; should one take a faith based approach as seems to be required for a proper understanding of quantum mechanics and Standard Theory OR should one stick to the tried and tested norms of an empirical science. A frequently used palliative by Quantum Mechanics is : "But it works!" It should be remembered that the Egyptians were as satisfied in their belief that the Goddess Nut swallowed up the sun every evening and gave birth to it again every morning. Because it worked!

Coming back to the content of the post. I should remind you that this thread itself is exactly about what you say I have not done, namely offer alternate explanations for all the phenomena which I have criticised so severely. It should be pointed out that the initial post in this thread contains a LINK to my paper "Redefining the electron: A modern theory of Aether" .

However, since the original link I had posted does not seem to be accessible , I am posting a new link to my paper that should be accessible to everyone: https://fdrive.cloud/drive/s/I0SVk1PXkFZbuJpglGL4YcNEpDJ0SN

Looking forward to your comments and criticisms.

 

[Jzz]

I hope I can save this thread and study it when there is a moment and see if you are giving solutions or describing this by deriving or explaining observed constants of physics.
Thanks, I will reflect and respond.
Thanks.
Ravi

Dear Dr Sharma,

Admittedly the concept needs to be studied. However, as regards the points that were raised viz-a-viz quantum mechanics, namely:

1) The question of the size of the incoming photons. Is the present explanation good enough?

2) Is the present explanation of emission and absorption of photons adequate enough to explain the rates at which even machines work. Further, this point is not really up for discussion, since the working of atomic clocks has demonstrated that this is indeed the way in which electrons oscillate. Namely at rates in excess of hundreds of trillions of times per second. Given the miniscule interatomic distances that electrons have to travel during the emission and absorption process, this point is also more or less proven in the modern context.

3) Would it be possible to calculate, without cheating (i.e., working back from the answer) to calculate using the quantum mechanics theory of propagation of electromagnetic radiation , a simple problem.

4) How is the lack of recoil accounted for when an interatomic electron absorbs or emits a photon.



Hopefully, answers to these questions will be forthcoming? Thanks James

 

[maglioned]

I read the introduction of your book, I noticed some significant, non-negligible errors:

1. Confusion between electric charge and energy : You confused charge (Coulomb) with energy, which should be expressed in Joules or electronvolts.

2. Incorrect energy unit: The unit of energy for an electron was incorrectly stated as Coulombs (C), which is actually the unit of charge. Energy should be measured in Joules or electronvolts.

3. Electron oscillation frequencies: Atomic clocks do not demonstrate frequencies as high as indicated in the book. The maximum frequency of electronic transitions is in the Terahertz ( 10^12 herts) range, not hundreds of trillions of Terahertz.

4. Photon emission and absorption: Quantum mechanics does not regard photon emission and absorption as random processes but as well-defined and quantized.

5. Smartphone processor speed: Smartphone processors operate at speeds of 3-4 GHz, not "GHz per second." GHz already measures cycles per second, so your statement is conceptually incorrect.

Based on these errors, your theory collapses miserably. And these are all substantial errors just in the presentation of the book—imagine what might be found in the book itself. This is what happens when things are published without a serious peer review.

 

[Jzz]

I read the introduction of your book, I noticed some significant, non-negligible errors:

1. Confusion between electric charge and energy : You confused charge (Coulomb) with energy, which should be expressed in Joules or electronvolts.

2. Incorrect energy unit: The unit of energy for an electron was incorrectly stated as Coulombs (C), which is actually the unit of charge. Energy should be measured in Joules or electronvolts.

3. Electron oscillation frequencies: Atomic clocks do not demonstrate frequencies as high as indicated in the book. The maximum frequency of electronic transitions is in the Terahertz ( 10^12 herts) range, not hundreds of trillions of Terahertz.

4. Photon emission and absorption: Quantum mechanics does not regard photon emission and absorption as random processes but as well-defined and quantized.

5. Smartphone processor speed: Smartphone processors operate at speeds of 3-4 GHz, not "GHz per second." GHz already measures cycles per second, so your statement is conceptually incorrect.

Based on these errors, your theory collapses miserably. And these are all substantial errors just in the presentation of the book—imagine what might be found in the book itself. This is what happens when things are published without a serious peer review.

Hi Maglioned, Your comments are greatly appreciated. These comments do however, very much bring to mind the old saying :
"Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
I am not aware of the exact connotations but I think it might be a religious quote. Nevertheless it does seem apposite in this instance. OK, you are correct sometimes, the terms charge and energy might have been interchanged as they should not be. But let us look clearly at the problems that are being highlighted with present day physics and this includes both quantum mechanics and relativity. The whole of quantum mechanics in the present day is based on Schrodinger's equation from which the idea of wave function is derived and reinforced by wave-particle duality. Both of these theories are based on the adoption at the fifth Solvay Conference held in 1927 which brought about what is known as the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Prior to the 5th Solvay Conference, what is termed as the weak interpretation of quantum mechanics existed where there was a heavy dependence on mathematics and it was thought that the mathematical basis was more important than the means adopted.

Therefore, according to the weak interpretation of quantum mechanics the Schrodinger wave function which was an abstract mathematical description of an electron as a standing wave. The weak interpretation of quantum mechanics did not take the wave function as something real but treated it as a mathematical artifice. During the 5th Solvay Conference a debate was held and it was decided by majority vote that the wave function was real. It was also decided that wave-particle duality was real. This is known as the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics where the wave function is thought of as being something real as was wave particle duality. The whole of quantum mechanics as it stands today is built on these two premises and it just doesn't hold water. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was also a result of the decisions taken at the 5th Solvay conference, since if more waves were added to the standing wave there would be greater clarity about the energy involved and less clarity about the locality of these waves comprising the wave packet. Similarly if fewer waves were included in the wave packet there would be uncertainty about its energy and more certainty about its location.


The irony lies in the fact that even after adopting such extreme theories, the logic behind the quantum mechanics theory is at heart absolutely flawed and rotten. The electron in the atom exists as an electron cloud. The electron is a particle with measurable mass, where does that mass go during this transformation into a cloud? Also how does this cloud, (electron as wave function) absorb a photon and then emit that photon at the rate of hundreds of trillions of photons per second merely by changing shape. By changing for instance from an elliptically shaped electron cloud to a dumb bell shaped electron cloud.


Again you are bit behind in your knowledge of atomic clocks. True the old Caesium atomic clocks worked on the transition frequency of the Caeisum atom which was in the microwave range. This is the reason that the electron and atoms involved in such reactions did not emit photons at the same frequency, their energy was too low instead the atoms involved entered a metastable state which could be counted. In the newer rubidium optical atomic clocks, lasers are used for excitation and the rubidium atoms diircetly oscillate at the laser excitation frequency amplifying the signal. Which incidentally is in the optical of Terahertz range.

The reason I had posted my book 'Redefining the Electron' here at space.com forums, (Deleted on the grounds of self-promotion) is that I not only describe these problems but also offer clear solutions to them.

 

[maglioned]

Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your perspective, I believe the core scientific issues I raised remain unaddressed. Accurate use of terminology and understanding of established principles are crucial in any scientific discussion. I encourage further review and consideration of these points.

 

[Jzz]

Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your perspective, I believe the core scientific issues I raised remain unaddressed. Accurate use of terminology and understanding of established principles are crucial in any scientific discussion. I encourage further review and consideration of these points.

Your comments are appreciated, although it would be useful if you could point out exactly in which context you saw the confusion over coulomb and joules. A coulomb is made up of a charge equivalent to 6.34 x 10^18 electrons (or protons although protons are not normally found outside the nucleus), it now becomes a question of semantics, for instance if the charge of a single electron is taken and the electron is undergoing a change in charge (energy?), how does it happen? The change in charge is due to a change in energy of the electron that has taken place. Also, yes I was aware that the use of per second in conjunction with Hertz was superfluous this was done deliberately for the non-scientific reader, although a more elaborate explanation might be justified, as for instance the term Hertz refers to cycles per second. This is a book about the electron and obviously charge and energy are fundamental properties of the electron.