0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside
Considering that all massive objects could be thought of as having huge clouds of electrons (which would be their gravitational fields) surrounding them,
these clouds of particles would have been reflecting light since the beginning of the universe and hence the expansion of the universe may be explained as a buildup of radiation between galaxy clusters.
Considering that all massive objects could be thought of as having huge clouds of electrons (which would be their gravitational fields) surrounding them
I don't see how your experience with STEM microscopes are relevant if you don't know that they operate using a current passed through the sample.
You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?
There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances
or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect.
The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.
I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).
you seemed to be implying that the bound state electrons in the tip of the probe of the stem microscope are excited to take the image
That is not the truth. A current of free electrons is passed through the sample and then detected by the probe. That is how it works.
That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them.
More importantly, we always do tunneling experiments with bound electrons, for example the ones in a tunneling electron microscope tunnel from being bound to the sample to being bound by the probe tip."
The interesting question here is what makes them feel a force of attraction to begin with.
I would propose that the particle nature of the electron manifests as the appearance of a standing wave by appearing and disappearing
think there's probably quite a lot of evidence for it.
Kryptid: I think there's probably quite a lot of evidence for it. If we're looking for a quantum to explain the reflective capacity of stars, galaxies, etc, the electron would make a good candidate since it absorbs and emits photons (loads of evidence for that, obviously).
There's evidence from supernovae also that neutrinos are not affected to the same extent as light particles by the collapse of stars; these are uncharged and hence I think probably the best explanation for why light particles are affected by stellar collapses and neutrinos aren't is because some number of particles exists in the gravitational field that absorbs light and leaves neutrinos unaffected.
Then there are the muon g-2 results that I suspect also indicate that a charged particle causes the value of the muon g-factor to be so great; the muon is a heavy electron and so, when passed at high speeds through a gravitational field, formed of electrons, would be getting buffeted by electrons in the gravity field constantly and this would amplify the g-factor.
If we're looking for a quantum to explain the reflective capacity of stars, galaxies, etc, the electron would make a good candidate since it absorbs and emits photons (loads of evidence for that, obviously).
Right, so when Hawking, et al, proposed the Big Bang model
(without evidence)
I did know about before you posted about it
they fire a beam of electrons through a sample and then detect the electrons
And a host of scientists in the past have made predictions
That's why I said 'et al', I can't (and won't) argue with someone who can't read and write.