• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

An interaction between electron and photon.

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
An interaction between electron and photon.
“ . . when there is a change of state the electron either releases
or absorbs a photon and its location changes from one discrete
energy pattern to another discrete energy pattern around the nucleus.
. . . . these things,
they are very well explained by the standard model of physics”
/ from an email /
==..
How can an electron ( slower than c ) emit photon at c=1?
==.
Book:
' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that
of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only
about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for
illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm)
and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that
of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’

/ Book: ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. /
==. ..
This is “very well explained by the standard model of physics” !! ??
Opinions, please.
===========,,,,
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:31 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
-->
Location
France
The photon described in the first scenario is not absorbed by just the electron but by the atom. The atom emits or absorbs a photon while changing its energy level.
Indeed, the photon discussed here has a rather definite energy, which means (by the Heisenberg inequalities) that it does not reach the electron at a definite time, but at some undetermined time with an uncertainty much larger than the period of the photon.
The periods of photons involved in changes of orbits of electrons in atoms, are essentially given by some sort of effective period of revolution of the electron around the nucleus, as an electromagnetic wave produced by an oscillating dipole. To describe things in the language of classical mechanics (which is a mere conceptual approximation of the behavior of atoms but rather suggestive and with its range of validity), we can say that the condition for a photon to be emitted or absorbed by an atom and modify its energy state, is that the period of the photon (oscillation of the electromagnetic field) enters in resonance with the orbital movement of an electron around the nucleus.

In the first scenario you have a low-energy photon that changes the orbit of the photon but still keeps it to some orbit. The second scenario is about a gamma photon which is much more energetic and would strongly kick the electron out of the atom (and might even produce electron/positon pairs in the process).
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
The photon described in the first scenario is not absorbed by just the electron but by the atom.
The atom emits or absorbs a photon while changing its energy level.
Indeed, the photon discussed here has a rather definite energy, which means
(by the Heisenberg inequalities) that it does not reach the electron at a definite time,
but at some undetermined time with an uncertainty much larger than the period of the photon.
The periods of photons involved in changes of orbits of electrons in atoms, are essentially given by some sort of effective period of revolution of the electron around the nucleus, as an electromagnetic wave produced by an oscillating dipole. To describe things in the language of classical mechanics (which is a mere conceptual approximation of the behavior of atoms but rather suggestive and with its range of validity), we can say that the condition for a photon to be emitted or absorbed by an atom and modify its energy state, is that the period of the photon (oscillation of the electromagnetic field) enters in resonance with the orbital movement of an electron around the nucleus.

In the first scenario you have a low-energy photon that changes
the orbit of the photon but still keeps it to some orbit.
The second scenario is about a gamma photon which is much more
energetic and would strongly kick the electron out of the atom
(and might even produce electron/positon pairs in the process).

The interaction between electrons is doing by quantum of light .
/ Today’s opinion. /
#
The interaction between quantum of light and atom.
A simple atom is : electron + proton + empty space (!?).
One of four things can be happened:
1
The photon gives up its energy to an electron located in the atom.
Armed with this extra energy, the electron is able to move to
a higher energy level. ( and the photon disappears - where is photon now ? )
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/


2
A gamma photon with much more energetic would strongly kick
the electron out of the atom
(and might even produce electron/positron pairs in the process).
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/


3
The photon gives up its energy to the proton .
Proton is about 2000 times heavier than electron.
Maybe in this situation your scenario is good
(The atom emits or absorbs a photon while changing its energy level.)
but what can happen with the photon in this situation ?
Maybe the poor photon is smashing now . . . .
. . . . and it will be hard to him to emit back.
4 The empty substance (!?) allows the photon to pass through unchanged.
Known as transmission, this happens because the photon doesn't
interact with any electron or proton and continues its journey until
it interacts with another object.
===..
All four scenario are speculative because we don’t know
what photon and electron are and where the proton mass come from.
== ….
P.S.
1900, 1905, 1913
Planck, Einstein and Bohr found the energy of electron as: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
The energy of electron in the simplest atom is:
E= - me^4/ 2h*^2 = -13,6 eV
The negative mark of energy shows that electron is tied in atom.
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
What is interaction between them?
=======..
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
As Richard Feynman wrote in 1985 :
‘ . . .the interaction between light ( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.’
===..
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:31 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
-->
Location
France
The photon gives up its energy to an electron located in the atom.
Armed with this extra energy, the electron is able to move to
a higher energy level. ( and the photon disappears - where is photon now ? )
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/

The description of photons as something strong and heavy, "
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage" only aimed to qualify the case of very energetic gamma photons.

This should not be confused with
the case of the photon that modifies the energy level of an electron, that is something rather low-energetic, light thing. Moreover such a low-energetic photon, should not be imagined as a material particle hitting the electron at a precise time and point, because the Heisenberg inequalities forbid such a view. It should rather be imagined as something light, large and fuzzy like an air stream.
It gives its energy to the orbital movement of the electron. A global view of the orbital movement of the electron around the nucleus is required to understand how it can absorb or emit a photon, rather than any kind of sudden hit between point particles.

A gamma photon with much more energetic would strongly kick
the electron out of the atom
(and might even produce electron/positron pairs in the process).
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/
Yes.

The photon gives up its energy to the proton
Not in what I meant. I meant to the atom, that is the global system made of the electrons and the nucleus.

4 The empty substance (!?) allows the photon to pass through unchanged.
Known as transmission, this happens because the photon doesn't
interact with any electron or proton and continues its journey until
it interacts with another object.
Rather, because its oscillation does not resonate with any orbital movement of an electron (more precisely, with any possible state of quantum superposition between two energy levels, that can operate the transition between them).

All four scenario are speculative because we don’t know
what photon and electron are and where the proton mass come from.
No. These things are well described by quantum electrodynamics, in a way well verified with an amazing degree of accuracy.
The only problem is about popularization of this knowledge.
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
No. These things are well described by quantum electrodynamics,
in a way well verified with an amazing degree of accuracy.
The only problem is about popularization of this knowledge.

The small problem of popularization the knowledge about electron.
1900, 1905, 1913
Planck, Einstein and Bohr found the energy of electron as: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
The energy of electron in the simplest atom is:
E= - me^4/ 2h*^2 = -13,6 eV
The negative mark of energy shows that electron is tied in atom.
Electron
is a particle - corpuscular and it is a wave too.
===…
There is an old Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant.
Every of them touched different parts of elephant and said:
it is like a snake, like a ball, like a tomb . . . etc
Doesn’t their knowledge about elephant is similar to
our knowledge about electron ?
=.
In the highest level we still don’t know what kind of particle (beast) we are dealing.
============….

 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:31 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
-->
Location
France

This is the general definition of energy as described by quantum physics: energy is just another name for frequency. However in the case of the electron, that cannot just annihilate itself because of the conservations of its charge and its fermionic nature, we cannot actually see it vibrate at that frequency. This frequency only intervenes by interference with other frequencies in contexts to be specified.

Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,

This formula converts the value of the elementary electric charge between two units: our conventional unit of charge in the international units system, and the absolute physical unit naturally given by the most fundamental constants of physics (h and c).

+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2
This is the viewpoint of the description of the electron as a wave, through the wave-particle correspondence of quantum physics. However, the true nature of the electron (as well as any other physical substance), is that of a quantized particle, which is mathematically equivalent to a quantized wave. Each of both views as a classical particle or as a classical wave, is insufficient. The formula -E=Mc^2 only appears when studying the classical wave.
It corresponds to the positon, but with reversed sign, as the number of positons should be counted negatively in the correspondence between the classical wave and what is actually there in the full quantum theory.


According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s energy is infinite: E= ∞
There are mathematical problems of divergence when pushing a theory to its limit, analyzing what may happen at infinitely small scales, where in fact we don't know what happens, since it would require to find out the right theory of everything.

The energy of electron in the simplest atom is:
E= - me^4/ 2h*^2 = -13,6 eV
This is the binding energy of the atom, that is the difference of energy between the hydrogen atom and a system of a free electron and a free proton (far from each other, at rest relatively to each other).

 
Last edited:

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->

This is the general definition of energy as described by quantum physics: energy is just another name for frequency. However in the case of the electron, that cannot just annihilate itself because of the conservations of its charge and its fermionic nature, we cannot actually see it vibrate at that frequency. This frequency only intervenes by interference with other frequencies in contexts to be specified.


This formula converts the value of the elementary electric charge between two units: our conventional unit of charge in the international units system, and the absolute physical unit naturally given by the most fundamental constants of physics (h and c).

This is the viewpoint of the description of the electron as a wave, through the wave-particle correspondence of quantum physics. However, the true nature of the electron (as well as any other physical substance), is that of a quantized particle, which is mathematically equivalent to a quantized wave. Each of both views as a classical particle or as a classical wave, is insufficient. The formula -E=Mc^2 only appears when studying the classical wave.
It corresponds to the position, but with reversed sign, as the number of positons should be counted negatively in the correspondence between the classical wave and what is actually there in the full quantum theory.


There are mathematical problems of divergence when pushing a theory to its limit, analyzing what may happen at infinitely small scales, where in fact we don't know what happens, since it would require to find out the right theory of everything.

This is the binding energy of the atom, that is the difference of energy between the hydrogen atom and a system of a free electron and a free proton (far from each other, at rest relatively to each other).


Thank you for the nice explanation.
Conclusion:
We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.
==…
 

spoirier

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:31 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
111
-->
Location
France
Not just electrons. Usually in math and physics there is no sense to ask what something is, as every thing is but an abstract object like any other, but all questions are about what role they play, how they relate to other objects.
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
Not just electrons.
Usually in math and physics there is no sense to ask what something is,
as every thing is but an abstract object like any other,
but all questions are about what role they play,
how they relate to other objects.

Correct.
Nowadays in math and physics all quantum particles
are abstract objects like “ points and strings.”
String can be both closed and open.
A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line; it has ends. . . . . . . . . . .
Ends but not thickness . . . . . . . . . . .
And therefore . . . . .
=====….
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 11:01 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
I don't think that electrons exist at all.

Particles of negative polarity and high spin? Yes. Atomic structure like a mini solar system? No.

Also, where physicists are going wrong is that they don't realize that particles are made of more particles that are spinning in more than one direction.

For example, think of an atom such as hydrogen as being a bit like the proton being the earth and the "electron" being the moon. Then, imagine that the moon has a satellite (the photon). If the atom were to release a photon, the satellite is actually moving faster than both the earth and moon because at it's fastest point, it has the combined speed of the earth moving through space plus the moons orbit around earth plus its own orbit around the moon.

Therefore, not only does it make sense that photons move faster than atoms or atomic particles, it is actually inevitable, since the slowest moving particle must be the heaviest, and must be the relative nucleus.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 11:01 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Correct.
Nowadays in math and physics all quantum particles
are abstract objects like “ points and strings.”
String can be both closed and open.
A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line; it has ends. . . . . . . . . . .
Ends but not thickness . . . . . . . . . . .
And therefore . . . . .
=====….
Absolutely not correct.

While there is benefit to sometimes using models and mathematical descriptions of things, the practice also confounds and paralyzes real learning.

Stacking an equation on an equation on an equation is not physics - it just makes a crappy equation full of holes that doesn't make sense, isn't practical, and produces bad real world outcomes.

In other words, physics today. All talk, all theories, no good new inventions. The reason that we have 15 year olds inventing awesome new things is that their perspective of things hasn't been obscured by stupid overlayed math pretending to by physics. What that does is disconnect physics so badly from reality that it becomes meaningless - just a bunch of stuffy men who rote learned stupid equations agreeing with each other.
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
Somebody wrote that there are more than 14 different interpretations of QT.
=====.
 

Attachments

  • f=4.jpg
    f=4.jpg
    3 KB · Views: 183

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
Truth is singular. Any of its versions are mistruths.

That's why Einsteins theory of relativity is still just a theory. It isn't true.


Einstein’s theories are true but their interpretations aren’t correct.
Therefore 100 years debates about them have no end.
===
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 11:01 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Einstein’s theories are true but their interpretations aren’t correct.
Therefore 100 years debates about them have no end.
===
If they're true, there wouldn't be debate, because the theory would match reality.

Newton has a law. No one "interprets" Newton.

Conversation about Newton: "Look! apples do fall down! And just like Newton said it would! Excellent, Igor."

Conversation about Einstein: "Well, it's a bit like a ball bearing on the end of a spring, except that it isn't really like that, because the spring doesn't exist".

So it's a bit like religion. You just have to have a bit more faith, say 3 hail Einsteins, and everything will be okay ;)
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
-->
Location
Schmocation
If they're true, there wouldn't be debate, because the theory would match reality.

Newton has a law. No one "interprets" Newton.

Conversation about Newton: "Look! apples do fall down! And just like Newton said it would! Excellent, Igor."

Conversation about Einstein: "Well, it's a bit like a ball bearing on the end of a spring, except that it isn't really like that, because the spring doesn't exist".

So it's a bit like religion. You just have to have a bit more faith, say 3 hail Einsteins, and everything will be okay ;)

That being said, even Newton's laws are flawed (which Einstein proved).

The search for absolute truth is a fruitless quest. It's like trying to find the end of an infinitely long piece of string.

All we can do is constantly improve on theories based on what we think we know.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 11:01 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
That being said, even Newton's laws are flawed (which Einstein proved).

The search for absolute truth is a fruitless quest. It's like trying to find the end of an infinitely long piece of string.

All we can do is constantly improve on theories based on what we think we know.
I disagree regarding your last statement about "improving on theories".

I think that, at some point, an entirely new paradigm is required.

Some of what I have been working on flies in the face of what mainstream physics accepts as absolute truth, but that being said, my stuff has echoes of Russell and Keely (I found that out later, when I was trying to find anyone who thought the same way) and goes a lot further in explaining some fundamentals - particularly in regards to magnetism, spin, and transmission of charge.
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
-->
That being said, even Newton's laws are flawed (which Einstein proved).

The search for absolute truth is a fruitless quest.
It's like trying to find the end of an infinitely long piece of string.

All we can do is constantly improve on theories based on what we think we know.

I cannot agree that :
we can know only bits and pieces of Nature but not the whole picture of Universe.
What is Physics opinion about “absolute - absolute truth “ ?
In his autobiography Max Planck explained that are “ absolute truth “ in the Physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass.
b) The negative 4D continuum.
c) The speed of light quanta.
d) The maximum entropy (which is possible at temperature of Absolute zero: T=0K.)
On my opinion these Planck’s absolute parameters are good basis to understand

the whole picture of Universe.
====

 

Attachments

  • Photon time distance.jpg
    Photon time distance.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 204

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
-->
Location
Schmocation
I disagree regarding your last statement about "improving on theories".

I think that, at some point, an entirely new paradigm is required.

Some of what I have been working on flies in the face of what mainstream physics accepts as absolute truth, but that being said, my stuff has echoes of Russell and Keely (I found that out later, when I was trying to find anyone who thought the same way) and goes a lot further in explaining some fundamentals - particularly in regards to magnetism, spin, and transmission of charge.

A new paradigm is an improvement on previous models is it not?

These new models are considered fine until the next anomaly occurs and the whole process starts again. Each time this happens the system gains in complexity and draws ever nearer to becoming universal.

Can we reach an absolute truth? Possibly, but how will we ever know?

What if we simply have a very, very, good wrong equation?

355/113 contains the same digits as pi to 6 d.p., but it isn't pi. However, if you were to only ever use 4 d.p. you would never get a wrong answer with 355/113.


Kenneth R. Miller said:
We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth.

E. T. Bell said:
Science makes no pretension to eternal truth or absolute truth.

Simone de Beauvoir said:
Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 11:01 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
A new paradigm is an improvement on previous models is it not?

These new models are considered fine until the next anomaly occurs and the whole process starts again. Each time this happens the system gains in complexity and draws ever nearer to becoming universal.

Can we reach an absolute truth? Possibly, but how will we ever know?

What if we simply have a very, very, good wrong equation?

355/113 contains the same digits as pi to 6 d.p., but it isn't pi. However, if you were to only ever use 4 d.p. you would never get a wrong answer with 355/113.
Depends on how different it is. Personally I don't think that electrons exist, and that they don't move down a wire. Switching over to my theory of electricity wouldn't be an improvement, it would be an outright transplant.

I see where you're coming from in regards to absolute knowledge, and think that we can only know if we are right if we try the model in all possible ways (but then, how do you know that you found all of the possible ways? :storks:) at all possible scales.

But then, I don't think that it is that difficult, since we have been looking at science/physics in the wrong manner. I think that the patterns are more important than the numbers ie I dont care what planks constant is, I want to know how space was divided in order to get planks constants, because there is something smaller than planks constant that will certainly be divided up the same way.

A good example is how we came up with the proper equation for phi. The way it was first done was to write out very large fibonacci numbers and do a division, until someone figured out a formula. Same with prime numbers.

Thats the problem with living in a fractal universe - you can only measure so many fractals
 
Top Bottom