0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

It's all in the question.

Quote from: jeffreyHIt's all in the question.Not really. I don't what you mean by reconciling them. Please tell me what that means to you. What would such a thing look like to you?

Why do we need to? Electromagnetism involves charge without mass, gravity involves mass without charge. You might as well reconcile fish and bicycles.

Ditto for the neutron. It has a ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN that betrays the existence of charge.

OK. If we made up an artificial surface made up of segments of alternating north and south poles held firmly together in a box construction where would the flux lines in the centre of the surface go? What would the shape of this field look like if we plotted the field lines?

When you have a whole array of photons close together, the field ends up looking like this:

So what are you saying the consequences of this are?

The magnetic field produced by an electric current is independent of the mass of the charge carriers. A 1 amp proton, electron or ion beam has exactly the same magnetic field as a 1 amp current flowing in a copper (electron conductor) or aluminum (hole conductor) wire.If you oscillate the current you will generate electromagnetic radiation, the frequency and intensity of which are dependent only on the frequency of oscillation and the rms current respectively, and have nothing to do with the mass of the charge carriers.

If we think of ..... the energy released from the electron

And there's your problem. Electrons don't release energy.

In the years following the creation of the general theory, a large number of physicists and mathematicians enthusiastically participated in the attempt to unify the then-known fundamental interactions.[2] In view of later developments in this domain, of particular interest are the theories of Hermann Weyl of 1919, who introduced the concept of an (electromagnetic) gauge field in a classical field theory[3] and, two years later, that of Theodor Kaluza, who extended General Relativity to five dimensions.[4] Continuing in this latter direction, Oscar Klein proposed in 1926 that the fourth spatial dimension be curled up into a small, unobserved circle. In Kaluza–Klein theory, the gravitational curvature of the extra spatial direction behaves as an additional force similar to electromagnetism. These and other models of electromagnetism and gravity were pursued by Albert Einstein in his attempts at a classical unified field theory. By 1930 Einstein had already considered the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac System [Dongen]. This system is (heuristically) the super-classical [Varadarajan] limit of (the not mathematically well-defined) Quantum Electrodynamics. One can easily extend this system to include the weak and strong nuclear forces to get the Einstein–Yang–Mills–Dirac System.

The magnetic field produced by an electric current is independent of the mass of the charge carriers. A 1 amp proton, electron or ion beam has exactly the same magnetic field as a 1 amp current flowing in a copper (electron conductor) or aluminum (hole conductor) wire.

If you oscillate the current you will generate electromagnetic radiation, the frequency and intensity of which are dependent only on the frequency of oscillation and the rms current respectively, and have nothing to do with the mass of the charge carriers.

Thus gravitation and electromagnetism are unrelated.

Let's think about the UV catastrophe and Planck's quantization of energy, angular momentum etc. If we think of spacetime itself as quantized

and the energy released from the electron to only fit neatly into this quatized spacetime it's only option is to move at one speed.

If there is a compression of the quantization of spacetime, making it a smaller and denser medium this will ultimately affect light accordingly.

We have charge which is independent of mass. The electron is smaller than the proton but both have the same charge. We have gravitation which is dependent on mass. Is it though? Can gravity itself be like charge and change in strength with the density of that mass. Like the observer getting the wrong speed from his gravitational constant when viewing a companion nearing a black hole are we missing this vital point? As the gravity changes with density this would increase the curvature of the spacetime around it. Also it could aid the compression of the mass until at a critical point it collapses in due to a dual system of compression. One compression of mass and another separate compression of spacetime. If these are proportional to each other we just have to find this proportionality. It may lie in the theory that the density of black holes lowers with mass increase. This could be counter balanced by an increasing spacetime density.

They do carry kinetic energy when they move but I assume that you're referring to an electron at rest emitted photons. Is that correct?

QuoteThey do carry kinetic energy when they move but I assume that you're referring to an electron at rest emitted photons. Is that correct?That seems to underlie a consistent misconception in this thread. You can add kinetic or binding energy to an electron, or mess with its spin, but the electron itself doesn't absorb or emit anything - they appear to be indefinitely stable.A lot of misunderstanding arises from inaccurate paraphrasing. You learn at school that "a photon is emitted when an electron moves to a lower orbital" Sometimes paraphrased as "....changes state" which is a bit ambiguous - it's the quantum state (or better, status) of the electron that changes, not the structure of the beast itself.

You seem to have proved that a photon of energy is not a particle or a wave nor some sort of entangled quantum. I think that it is a pyramid shaped volume of vibrating magnoflux energy which helixes or rather tumbles forward through magnetised space.If it encounters matter it can be absorbed by vibrating the molecules inner magnet which increases its temperature. CliveS at acsinuk

That seems to underlie a consistent misconception in this thread.

...You can add kinetic or binding energy to an electron, or mess with its spin, but the electron itself doesn't absorb or emit anything - they appear to be indefinitely stable.

In ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN the electron absorbs part of a photon, and there is such a thing as an "Inverse Compton".

It's called Compton Scattering for a very good reason, i.e. because a photon is never absorbed but is scattered off the electron just like one electron would scatter off another. Had the electron absorbed the photon it would violate conservation of energy and if the law of conservation of energy and is true then it's impossible.To be specific JD is claiming that the following two processes occur in sequencee^{-} + -> e^{-} e^{-} -> e^{-} + Which both violate conservation of energy. JD's assertion implicitly assumes that once the electron absorbs the photon it's proper mass, and hence proper energy, increases. However that's impossible because when an electron exists it has a unique proper mass which is well defined and cannot change.

The electron absorbs part of a photon. The photon's E=hf wave energy is reduced.

Conservation of energy applies.

A scatter photon is emitted such that the energy of the Compton photon plus the kinetic energy gain of the electron equals the energy of the incident photon.

The Compton photon isn't "the original photon with a bit less energy"

and the electron is no different from any other electron. If it had mysteriously "absorbed part of the incident photon" we would find a second scatter photon emitted as the "electron plus a bit of photon" decays, which it doesn't.

The Compton photon isn't "the original photon with a bit less energy", and the electron is no different from any other electron. If it had mysteriously "absorbed part of the incident photon" we would find a second scatter photon emitted as the "electron plus a bit of photon" decays, which it doesn't.

The only correction that needs to be applied here is this: The photon is not absorbed by the electron, however, some of the energy that the photon possesses can be transferred to the electron. The mistake the layman makes here is to assume that the photon is energy when in fact, the photon only carries varying amounts of energy. The photon is a wave/particle, it is not energy.