Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: socratus on 21/01/2010 08:38:05
-
An ‘unknown’ electron.
==========================.
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e= +ah*c and e= -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Question.
Why does electron heed five ( 5 ) formulas ?
=========================.
Why does electron obey three Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
================================.
#
Now nobody knows what the Electron is.
1
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
2
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /
3.
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
All of them are problematical.
Nobody knows what electron is.
#
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
====================.
So, why do physicists call an electron a simple
elementary particle if IT looks not very simple ?
=====================.
We know the electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
-
Waoo em impressed :)
-
Socratus, when, and if, physicists call electrons a 'simple particle' they probably mean that even though we can't pinpoint it, its behavior is fairly well known. I doubt they mean that they 'understand' what it really is though. There are Swedish recent photographs of it/them photos (http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/) but they are 'indirect' evidence as they come from interactions with laser. On the other hand there is no other way i know of directly proving the existence? Other indirect proof we have here indirect proof (http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html)
We have refined a description of what a electron constitutes of but as for what it really 'is'? A probability of something when in the atom, a entity when 'traveling' as in the second proof. Neither?
For now it seems easiest to look at it as something 'existing' by itself. But maybe we will find a better answer for it than that?
==
The electron (http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/AP/2004Norman/Chapter7/Lec11600.html)
-
Comment by Sam ‘sasam2 ‘
#
On Jan 21, 10:59 am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An ‘unknown’ electron.
Speaking of electrons - physics and biology seem to meet in the study
of interaction of magnetic fields with DNA.
I've read up a bit on studies undertaken by Poponin and Garjajev - has
it been discussed on TO yet? These studies seem to indicate a phantom
organizing effect of DNA on the previously random distribution of
photons in a vacuum - some effects lasting a month after the DNA has
been removed. No other material / substance causes this effect.
Poponin thinks that this can give some clues as to the sub-structure
of a vacuum, since the presence of DNA left a history of slowly
propagating "holes" in the vacuum influencing electromagnetic fields.
Garjajev focuses on the effects of modulated laser beams on DNA. These
studies seem to give evidence of the DNA code (all 100% of it)
following linguistic rules, while in vivo chromosomes react on DNA
(and normal voice) modulated laser. It shows DNA exhibiting some form
of non-chemical information transmitting characteristic connecting all
chromosomes of an organism as a unit, while starting to explain how
our toe nail DNA knows it must form toe nail cells and not nose hair
cells.
This shows that a DNA wave theory will probably answer some questions,
i.e the phantom leaf and limb effect while enhancing medical
treatment.
I've read somewhere that cells separated from tissue in micro gravity
does not revert back to their basic state as on earth, but retains
their individual characteristics. This also seems to indicate that the
earth's gravity field acts on the DNA "field" in some way.
Cheers
Sam
==========.
-
Comment by Zerkon
I'd say they use the word to indicate reduction. Many things reduced down
to a few, these then are called simple as in irreducible.
Your question is very important, I think. Is simplicity here now void of
complexity, the only reason being the object is common or basic therefore
simple? Or can this simple object have infinite complexity which would or
will seem very likely to be the case proved at some future point.
"What will then happen" is a good question. A material finality must be
then formed outside of object parameters. The scientific method will
survive even as many scientific minds implode, for a while anyway.
It may be a greatest day yet to come. Philosophers in and out of their
graves, of course, will have to chuckle at least a little.
/ Zerkon /
-
On Jan 21, 4:00 am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An ‘unknown’ electron.
==========================.
On Jan 22, 3:49 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
Isreal
This post begs the question.
How was the electron, and positron created?
/ TreBert- /
==============================================.
How was the electron and positron created?
Socratus.
On the one hand – everybody knows.
On the other hand - this Question still waits its Answer.
==============================.