Why do photons disappear going through a semi-conductor, conductor etc.?

[jhixon]

Electrons give off photons, but when do they do this? Photons are given off when the "charge of the electron is different than the current electromagnetic field", and thus photons are given off. As electrons travel to the first stage of the semi-conductor, the electromagnetic field is present and different in charge so photons are given off. As it goes to the second level or middle of the conductor, the field is reduced by the plates and thus there is not enough of a "charge difference" in the field, so no photon is given off. As it progresses to the third plate, the field is now present again at it's strength and a photon is given off. This is why you see the photon until it passes through the middle of the semi-conductor etc., and then it disappears, and then reemerges in the last plate as the field is present again. Looking forward to someone measuring this, as this is how photons work in fields. Why do photons keep being given off and how do electrons keep doing this process? Space is charged by the electromagnetic force/field, so as the electron travels it gains electrical energy so it can keep giving off photons when the "change in charges is present". Electrons, all three types are a fundamental energy carriers and do not decay, as well as positive energy/matter consists of protons and neutrons that's also a fundamental force and do not decay. Yes conversions of a neutron to a proton can take place in certain instances, however it's not caused by decay itself.

 

[billslugg]

"charge of the electron is different than the current electromagnetic field",
This is false.
An EM fiels is created any time a charge moves relative to the observer.
Any time an electron drops a level in an atomic shell, it will also give off a photon.
Any charge moving through an existing EM field will be deviated.

 

[jhixon]

Physics processes determines how electrons and particles behave in an electromagnetic field, and this field or the behavior of electrons/particles has nothing to do with an observer. The same process happens whether it's observed or not, so an observer is not relevant unless you want to talk about who is seeing the photons which doesn't matter. Every particle/matter has a nuclear strong force, weak force and electromagnetic force and it's these forces that determine the field, and how particles behave. Just like a neutrino behaves differently than a neutron does. A neutrino can pass through regular matter of similar composition and a neutron can not. This is determined by the field and not the observer. Yes a neutron can drop a shell to become a proton because the process says it can convert to make a proton since none is available, this is also not decay. Yes a charge can be deviated by gravitational waves, strength of field etc. Yes a charge of an electron is the same as the field when it picks up energy, however photons are given off when there is a "change in charges between the electron and a field", just like lightning is a different charge than the atmosphere, photons are given off when the bolt comes down. This is a real world example of this process happening with photons and a different charge. Did you ever see photons when lightning comes down?

 

[billslugg]

When an observer and a charged particle are at rest relative to each other, the observer cannot detect a magnetic field around the charged particle, only an electric field. Lentz's law says a moving charge creates a magnetic field.

 

[Classical Motion]

I’m convinced emission is a snap, a discharge that happens at a 2 times c rate. I call it an instant dynamic. A chunk, a volume of field, is cut and separated from the source. With a c velocity.

Like spinning spokes released from a hub. The spokes are already at c, emission just changes the direction. This cut field has no inertia and an instant change in direction is the result.

That’s why the velocity of the source is never imprinted on the emission. The velocity of the source and the velocity of the emission…… never had any common time. Or common motion.

One might think of it this way, the source is moving….. but at the instant of emission…… it is like the source is standing still…… during the emission. A freeze frame. A two times c rate.

Of course the source does not do this, but the effect is like it does. It’s that quick.

If we exclude stars, most emissions here on earth are singular emissions. An emission is a single chunk of field. Usually with our earth matter, one emission is all that is needed for stability. We never notice this. It is going on, all around us, all the time. Especially in our bodies. Living bodies.

Heat, fiction, chemistry and other motion(radio)…. Can continuously recharge these emitters and we can get DUTY CYCLES of repeated discreet emissions.

Instant chunk emission and duty cycle propagation result in a constant velocity to all observers. With empty space, and cosmic pillars of length and time.

Simple moving vector interactive mechanics. And a duty cycle shift.

A classical explanation.

The magnetic dipole that comes with every charge, is what keeps the charge from dissolving into space. It holds the charge together. A charge is always in the process of exploding, and the M field holds that process to a certain containment. An energy level of containment.

And why emission is necessary to stay together. As a particle.

The E is expanding, the M is contracting. It’s a rotational containment balance.

Another classical explanation.

 

[jhixon]

When an observer and a charged particle are at rest relative to each other, the observer cannot detect a magnetic field around the charged particle, only an electric field. Lentz's law says a moving charge creates a magnetic field.

So if an observer isn't there, what changes exactly? The charged particle is still going to have motion based on the field whether you can see the field or not. Just like lightning strikes and nobody see it. It still happens from a change in charges. Clearly the lightning is a much stronger charge than the electromagnetic field, and thus gives off photons.
The Lorentz force is the combined effect of electric and magnetic forces acting on a charged particle moving through an electromagnetic field. It is mathematically expressed as F = qE + qv × B, where F is the Lorentz force, q is the charge, E is the electric field, v is the velocity of the particle, and B is the magnetic field. This force is fundamental in electromagnetism and describes how charged particles are influenced by electric and magnetic fields. I don't see an observer in this calculation?

 

[billslugg]

The "v" in the equation is velocity. All velocities are measured by an observer. No relative velocity = no magnetic field detectable by that observer. Another person who is moving relative to both will see a magnetic field, but not the original observer.
Remember, the motion we are talking about is the tiny sideways motion of a charged particle as it drops from one shell to another in an atom. The speed of that is fantastic. Keeping pace with it during that tiny interval would be quite a challenge.

 

[jhixon]

Velocity does NOT have to be measured by the observer. The particle is still moving whether anyone wants to measures it or not, still moving whether anyone observes it or not, still moving whether anyone even knows about it because physics says it was influenced, not by the observer unless they actually measure it and they have stopped it and measured both the electron value and the EM field at the same time since the EM force is pushing on the electron. This is why the measurement shows as a collapsed wave. Again, no one has to observe it or measure it for it's velocity to stay the same. The velocity doesn't change whether there is an observer or not. The only time velocity changes is when you measure it. Then you are becoming part of the influence. That's why there is NO observer in math equations, because the observer is not part of the process.

 

[billslugg]

"The particle is still moving whether anyone wants to measures it or not, "

Moving according to whom? I'm flying next to it and I don't see it moving. I measure zero magnetic field. You see it moving and measure a field in the same spot I can't find one. Who is correct?

 

[Classical Motion]

Matter has an EM field density thru-out it and around it. The real bits of matter are very small and rarefied, compared to the space size of the fields bonding the bits and the space field size around it.

All of these matter fields are angular and in rotation. These fields are much denser than propagated fields are. Unlike linear fields, angular fields interact with they superposition.

These matter fields are frequency sensitive in response to external propagated fields. And external angular fields. Other bits of matter. Matter fields are also handed and have a chunky field size fit, with other matter. Field structure fit.

So some photons flow right thru matter. Long wave, x-ray, gamma. Some are completely absorbed by matter field density and expressed as heat. Tilt and Jiggle. Some can be directly absorbed by the matter and set matter at a higher energy state, not just a jiggle or temp state. Or cause state change.

Some photons are completely rejected and reflected from matter. Some are absorbed, then immediately re-emitted at a lower frequency. Radiant heat. Radio repeater dynamic.

The photons disappear because of superposition(interaction) with angular matter fields.

Particles and atoms are rotational, tuned electrical devices. One right handed, one left handed make a cosmos.

Matter fields react and respond to stimuli such as when making a measurement. This has been ignored and has caused much confusion with our measurements and the modern suppositions that follow.

A classical structural view.

 

[Classical Motion]

Flash a flashlight on your finger. Feel that linear EM LINEAR density. Now tap your finger nail on a marble or piece of glass. Feel that EM ANGULAR density? Both are field density. But one is much harder and denser than the other. Hard to believe?

When a charge is accelerated with an external M field, it isn’t the “charge” that is accelerated, it’s the M dipole of the charge that is accelerated. All electric charge has an M dipole charge with it.

Perpendicular currents do not interact. Perpendicular M fields do not interact. Only aligned M fields interact, one alignment is attractive and one alignment is repulsive. And the cross alignment is ZERO.

It’s easy to miss an M field. It takes another M dipole to detect it. AT the right angle. Angle relativity.

This applies to two separated external fields. Not to fields within other fields. Like our earth M field.

We soon might get a better idea of an electron. We now have new shielding materials and methods from ambient EM noise and static. And we have more sensitive sensors with these quantum sensor methods.

We might get a better “map” of an electron in the future.

We might be able to make a real vacuum too. NOT only a matter vacuum, but a EM vacuum too.

A truly quiet place. Naked space.

Just a few classical suppositions.

The electron field is the rarest, the less dense, angular EM field that there is. And the least inertia, the least of reaction TO measure. Much harder to measure than a proton.

 

[jhixon]

Great, then explain lightning giving off photons in the atmosphere because of superposition (interaction) with angular matter fields? I am looking forward to hearing this?

 

[Classical Motion]

A water/ice molecule gets ionized due to collision friction. Energy was added to an electron and the electron jumped out of it’s atom. This causes the air to expand. The electron flies off and….. the ionized atom shrinks. A contraction of the space-matter ratio….. density.

To re-unite with an atom, the electron must lose energy. This is when a photon is emitted.

And the atom regains it’s normal size. A matter expansion. And another change in density.

Only this change is much quicker, and starts a chain reaction all at one time…… causing thunder.

A quick change in density.

If all the lightening emission was aligned to form a beam, each strike would have a super strong EMP. Much stronger than normal lightening. And a much louder thunder, maybe even a pressure wave.

The thunder would be aligned too.

I am not a scientist. These are my hayseed suppositions.

 

[jhixon]

You are correct about the that an atom can give off an electron and then decide to take it back and in the process give off a photon. You are correct that an electron can gain energy from the field. However the piece that everyone seems to be missing is that the "change in charges" is WHY photons are given off. Just like a light bulb, current runs through it to give off photons, but why exactly? Because the current flowing through the filament is more than the current electromagnetic field, so photons are given off. If you were to measure the current electromagnetic field, and then apply the same current to the light bulb, you would find it would not give off photons and light up. It would do nothing, but increase the current more than the field, and the light lights up. This is a basic principal of photons that has yet to be discovered, but I'm sure someone will test this and find it is correct.