Post by: McQueen on 21/03/2016 00:29:04
Note: It turns out that this reasoning is absolutely true, it turns out that optical photons would have too great an energy resulting in too great a recoil , one which could not be accommodated without the massive nucleus to fall back against.
There is a catch here, if you look at electron interactions in general within the atom and otherwise, it is found that all electron interactions are mediated by photons. How can an exception be made with regard to free electrons, whether the electrons are in a conductor or being accelerated through space ? The answer , if all the facts are taken into consideration, is probably that free electrons DO in fact emit and absorb photons ! At least, given the considerable data available showing the photon as the mediator of all electron interactions, there is a very high likelihood of this being so. The point to ascertain next is how this may be possible. In order to do this it is necessary to turn to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as related to energy and time:
This equations states that if an interaction takes place in an extremely short time on the order of 10-15 sec. the Laws of Conservation of energy are not violated. Therefore a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, Eviolation, exists for a time less than h/4πEviolation. Thus it is possible for a free electron to emit a photon provided that it immediately reabsorbs that photon in an extremely short time. GAT ( Gestalt Aether Theory ) states that this is how electromagnetic fields are formed, a free electron within the conductor emits a photon , but in order to escape violation of the laws of energy conservation, in this case as related to momentum and recoil, the photon has to be reabsorbed by the same electron or by another electron provided the first electron absorbs another photon of the same energy during the permitted time. This is why the lines of force form around a conductor. When a photon is emitted by a free electron within a conductor it has to be immediately reabsorbed, often the shortest route is to exit the conductor and circle back, in exiting the conductor the photons of the 'virtual photon' aether line up in the direction of propagation of the photon resulting in the distinctive lines of force seen around a conductor.
Looked at on a time line it would be as follows: At t1, free electron e1 emits a photon . In which case, by momentum conservation, e1 will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. (c) At some time t2, less than h/4πE violation later ( and before the recoil can take place), electron e1 re-absorbs the photon in such a way that the total energy of the electron e1 is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. In the second scenario at t1 electron e1 emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e1 will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. At some time t2, less than h/4πE violation later ( and before the recoil can take place), the photon exits the conductor and re-enters and is absorbed by electron e2 which has also emitted a photon, while electron e1 absorbs a photon emitted by another free electron within the same time period. These transactions take place in such a manner that the total energy of the electron e1 and electron e2 is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. Still looking at the time line and applying it to real situations e.g., current in a wire it is found that the time stipulation of 10-15 can easily be met.
Think of what this means, it means that the electron is no longer the basic unit of charge but that the photon is. The electron uses photons to mediate its energies in ALL circumstances and not just within the atom. Thus the electromagnetic field around a free electron accelerated through the air is due to emission and absorption of photons in accordance with the HUP. It is not due to the fact that the electron is a charged particle that when it moves emits an electromagnetic field., the electron mediates its energies through photons it does not react at random through fields electric, or magnetic or electromagnetic. The electromagnetic field IS photons. This is how current is conducted in an electrical conductor according to GAT.
Today the thinking of physicists has undergone a sea change. It has been found that the electromagnetic and electrostatic forces are dependent on the mutual change of virtual photons. Physicists will definitely say that the electromagnetic force is mediated by these photons. In fact, the electromagnetic force is made up of photons.
GAT RULES YAY!!!
[;)]
Post by: agyejy on 21/03/2016 00:48:46
What is it about free electrons that makes them so special ? For the past 100 years or so, in the field of physics it has been assumed that a free electron can neither absorb nor emit a photon because energy and momentum cannot simultaneously be conserved. This is why light cannot be conducted through a metal and since light cannot be conducted through a metal it was reasoned that this must be due to problems with the conservation of momentum, since free electrons if they emit or absorb photons would have nothing against which to recoil.
Note: It turns out that this reasoning is absolutely true, it turns out that optical photons would have too great an energy resulting in too great a recoil , one which could not be accommodated without the massive nucleus to fall back against.
If free electrons cannot emit photons then how do free electron lasers work?
http://journals.aps.org/prab/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.034801
Or what about synchrotron radiation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/synchrotron.html
Of course if you want to be completely pedantic those electrons aren't "free" because they are being accelerated. But in that case the reason that a "free" electron cannot emit a photon is that a "free" electron is not being accelerated and has nothing to do with momentum conservation. Now momentum conservation does prevent a free electron from absorbing a photon. However the free electron can and does scatter the photon:
http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/tth_example2.html
Post by: McQueen on 21/03/2016 03:23:31
Quote
If free electrons cannot emit photons then how do free electron lasers work?
http://journals.aps.org/prab/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.034801
Or what about synchrotron radiation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/synchrotron.html
The clue lies in the generation of x-rays. Electrons are accelerated and suddenly stopped, resulting in radiation.
Quote
Of course if you want to be completely pedantic those electrons aren't "free" because they are being accelerated. But in that case the reason that a "free" electron cannot emit a photon is that a "free" electron is not being accelerated and has nothing to do with momentum conservation. Now momentum conservation does prevent a free electron from absorbing a photon. However the free electron can and does scatter the photon:Nothing at all about photons, everything is waves ? One man's meat......
http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/tth_example2.html
Quote
It can be shown [1] from basic electromagnetic theory
Basic electromagnetic theory does not work with the quantum particle model.
Post by: agyejy on 21/03/2016 03:51:56
QuoteIf free electrons cannot emit photons then how do free electron lasers work?
http://journals.aps.org/prab/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.034801
Or what about synchrotron radiation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/synchrotron.html
The clue lies in the generation of x-rays. Electrons are accelerated and suddenly stopped, resulting in radiation.
Sorry but no. In neither of those cases are the electrons suddenly stopped. They are accelerated but not stopped. You are obviously thinking of Bremsstrahlung radiation which is related in that it has to do with electrons being accelerated but is not the same thing as synchrotron radiation (of which the radiation from free electron lasers is a subset).
Quote
QuoteOf course if you want to be completely pedantic those electrons aren't "free" because they are being accelerated. But in that case the reason that a "free" electron cannot emit a photon is that a "free" electron is not being accelerated and has nothing to do with momentum conservation. Now momentum conservation does prevent a free electron from absorbing a photon. However the free electron can and does scatter the photon:Nothing at all about photons, everything is waves ? One man's meat......
http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/tth_example2.html
Quantum mechanics is a theory of waves. The waves aren't equivalent to classical waves and have properties we normally associate with classical particles. The degree to which we observe classical wave behavior or classical particle behavior from a quantum system depends on how we interact with it. However, there is always a wave function and properly describing a quantum system can always be done through a wave equation. Sometimes you can take shortcuts (called approximations) that threat things like particles but using the full wave equations will also work and give correct results. Assuming you can do the math correctly.
Quote
QuoteIt can be shown [1] from basic electromagnetic theory
Basic electromagnetic theory does not work with the quantum particle model.
Except that it absolutely does. The electrostatic potential used to correctly model the atom and its electrons is exactly basic electromagnetics. It is nothing but coulombic attraction for unlike charges (proton and electron) and coulombic repulsion for like charges (electron and electron).
Post by: McQueen on 21/03/2016 05:23:20
Quote
Sorry but no. In neither of those cases are the electrons suddenly stopped. They are accelerated but not stopped. You are obviously thinking of Bremsstrahlung radiation which is related in that it has to do with electrons being accelerated but is not the same thing as synchrotron radiation (of which the radiation from free electron lasers is a subset).
If you can prove that this is indeed the case and accelerating electrons can produce x-rays, you are in line for the next Nobel prize.
Quote
Quantum mechanics is a theory of waves. The waves aren't equivalent to classical waves and have properties we normally associate with classical particles.
I think you would have done well in the era before Max Planck, there was nothing wrong with classical theory and still isn't if you ignore certain facts, possibly you are still living in those times ?
Quote
Except that it absolutely does. The electrostatic potential used to correctly model the atom and its electrons is exactly basic electromagnetics. It is nothing but coulombic attraction for unlike charges (proton and electron) and coulombic repulsion for like charges (electron and electron)
Except that t doesn't !
[;)]
Post by: agyejy on 21/03/2016 06:39:30
QuoteSorry but no. In neither of those cases are the electrons suddenly stopped. They are accelerated but not stopped. You are obviously thinking of Bremsstrahlung radiation which is related in that it has to do with electrons being accelerated but is not the same thing as synchrotron radiation (of which the radiation from free electron lasers is a subset).
If you can prove that this is indeed the case and accelerating electrons can produce x-rays, you are in line for the next Nobel prize.
No not really as it is a very well known fact. It has been used for a couple decades now to produce X-rays for scientific experiments and there are several multi-million dollar facilities dedicated to doing nothing but producing X-rays by accelerating electrons.
Here are the ones supported by the US DOE: http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/x-ray-light-sources/
Here is a more comprehensive list for the world: http://www.lightsources.org/regions
Quote
QuoteQuantum mechanics is a theory of waves. The waves aren't equivalent to classical waves and have properties we normally associate with classical particles.
I think you would have done well in the era before Max Planck, there was nothing wrong with classical theory and still isn't if you ignore certain facts, possibly you are still living in those times ?
Nope.
Quote
QuoteExcept that it absolutely does. The electrostatic potential used to correctly model the atom and its electrons is exactly basic electromagnetics. It is nothing but coulombic attraction for unlike charges (proton and electron) and coulombic repulsion for like charges (electron and electron)
Except that t doesn't !
[;)]
No it really does and you'll find zero evidence to the contrary.
Post by: McQueen on 21/03/2016 07:06:05
Quote
No not really as it is a very well known fact. It has been used for a couple decades now to produce X-rays for scientific experiments and there are several multi-million dollar facilities dedicated to doing nothing but producing X-rays by accelerating electrons.
Here are the ones supported by the US DOE: http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/x-ray-light-sources/
Here is a more comprehensive list for the world: http://www.lightsources.org/regions
You are pretty good at quoting sources, but you don't seem to understand the significance of what you are quoting. But if it satisfies you go ahead, believe that accelerated electrons emit x-rays. [:0]
To my query if you belong to the time before Max Planck.
Quote
Nope.
If this is so, how come you depend so much on classical electromagnetism? If you didn't know better you would explain black body radiation in the same classical way!
Quote
No it really does and you'll find zero evidence to the contrary.
Nothing wrong per se but your ideas seem to be dated.
Post by: agyejy on 21/03/2016 08:43:22
QuoteNo not really as it is a very well known fact. It has been used for a couple decades now to produce X-rays for scientific experiments and there are several multi-million dollar facilities dedicated to doing nothing but producing X-rays by accelerating electrons.
Here are the ones supported by the US DOE: http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/x-ray-light-sources/
Here is a more comprehensive list for the world: http://www.lightsources.org/regions
You are pretty good at quoting sources, but you don't seem to understand the significance of what you are quoting. But if it satisfies you go ahead, believe that accelerated electrons emit x-rays. [:0]
Well you seem to be incapable of reading.
Quote
To my query if you belong to the time before Max Planck.QuoteNope.
If this is so, how come you depend so much on classical electromagnetism? If you didn't know better you would explain black body radiation in the same classical way!
Because classical electromagnetism is still correct. It isn't the entire story of nature but it is still correct.
Quote
QuoteNo it really does and you'll find zero evidence to the contrary.
Nothing wrong per se but your ideas seem to be dated.
Not in the least.
Post by: PmbNEP on 23/03/2016 04:44:29
Quote from: McQueen
of all electron interactions, there is a very high likelihood of this being so. The point to ascertain next is how this may be possible. In order to do this it is necessary to turn to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as related to energy and time:That's a common misconception. It doesn't mean that at all. From Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd Ed. by David Griffiths page 118
This equations states that if an interaction takes place in an extremely short time on the order of 10-15 sec. the Laws of Conservation of energy are not violated.
Quote
It is often said that the uncertainty principle means that energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics - that you're allowed to "borrow" energy delta E, as long as you pay it back in a time delta t~ hbar/(2 delta E); the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time principle, but this is not one of them. Nowhere does quantum mechanics license violation of energy conservation, and certainty no such authorization entered into Eq. 3.74. But the uncertainty principle is extraordinarily robust: It can be misused without leading to seriously incorrect results, and as a consequence physicists are in the habit of applying it rather carelessly/This text is known as the best undergraduate text in quantum mechanics. It's used at MIT for their undergraduate quantum mechanics course.
Post by: McQueen on 24/03/2016 09:06:35
Quote
This text is known as the best undergraduate text in quantum mechanics. It's used at MIT for their undergraduate quantum mechanics course.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words........ By analogy the natty little scooter in the picture is GAT Theory, it might not be satisfactory when compared to a whale, but that is what you get when you compare reality to fantasy or conjecture. The GAT is the nearest thing to a TOE that it is possible to imagine, even more concise than Newtonian Physics and anything that Einstein could have thought of, no esoteric wave/particle duality, or disembodiment or being in two places at once, but still a touch of the exotic in the form of HUP. (As to the exploded whale ? Anyone's guess....? ).