0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The charge-to-mass ratio for the electron was measured in 1897 by J.J Thomson by measuring the deflection of cathode rays by electric and magnetic fields. The electric charge on the electron was measured in 1909 with Millikan and Fletcher’s oil drop experiment. The mass of the electron can be computed from those two values. Neither one of these measurements required any degree of reliance on E=mc2.Maxwell’s equations can be verified firsthand in the laboratory and those equations are exactly the kind of thing that are tested in college laboratory classes. If they are not correct, then the amount of error present must be so small that it cannot be detected. If such is the case, then the amount of error in those energy values I presented must also be extremely small and therefore irrelevant to my arguments anyway. So what if an electron’s mass or an electrons charge is 0.001% higher or lower than expected? That does nothing to change the fact that cathode rays are at X-ray energy levels or that visible light has energy thousands of times lower than a stationary electron.
Temperature is not a property of individual subatomic particles. The only way you could describe an electron as “hot” would be to say that it is moving quickly, but you already said that your definition of temperature doesn’t involve a particle’s speed. So whatever happens to an object’s mass at raised temperature is irrelevant to the measured mass of an electron.
You are aware that wavelengths can be measured directly, aren’t you? The Michelson interferometer allowed us to do exactly that way back in the late 1800’s. Here’s a video explaining how interferometers can be used to measure the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation:. So don’t assume that just because someone tells you that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light that it is just a prediction based on modern theory: it’s verifiable with this device.
We can directly measure the wavelengths of X-rays with Bragg’s spectrometer:. If you need further clarification on how it works, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law
Please describe to me how an electron in its ground state can donate non-existent energy to another electron. In order for one electron to gain energy in the interaction, the other electron will have to lose energy and therefore enter an orbital that is in a lower energy state than the one it is already in. In an atom or molecule in its ground state, the very lowest energy electron orbitals are already completely filled. There are no lower orbitals that they can possibly enter. This is why they cannot lose energy and therefore cannot donate energy to something else.
And what if you are shining beams of light, x-rays or whatever directly at a wall that is perpendicular to the beam? The photons with more energy will have to exert more force on that wall (assuming the wall is opaque to all wavelengths used). The impact is head-on, not a glancing blow.
My theory predicts light should be deflected by a strong magnetic field. I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.You said, and I quote:Quote from: Yaniv on 18/11/2017 07:31:32In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments.So which is it? Can scientists detectably deflect light with magnetic fields or not?
Positronium does not have any nucleons in it and therefore this comment is irrelevant. The energy level of the gamma rays emitted by positronium decay exactly matches what is predicted by E=mc2 (0.511 MeV), so scientists know if the gamma rays produced come from positronium decay or elsewhere.
So then you are saying that charge on an electron changes in accordance with its energy state. If this was true, then more energetic beams of cathode rays would be deflected much more than expected by magnetic fields, because the charge on the electrons would be much higher than expected. Likewise, electrons in particle accelerators would not behave as expected if their charge changed with energy levels (the strength of their electric charge would affect how much they are deflected by magnetic fields). Given that no such news of the incredible discovery of changing electric charge on the electrons has been made, these phenomena must not occur and therefore your claim is wrong.
It’s directly measurable and verifiable. The two gamma rays given off by electron-positron annihilation each have 511 keV of energy, which is exactly what you’d expect given E=mc2. It’s just another validation that E=mc2 is correct. Even if E=mc2 was not true in some particular case, it absolutely, provably is in this one.
That would make your earlier comment speculating that electrons behave differently than lasers because they move more slowly wrong then, wouldn’t it?
We conduct experiments to test traditional physics all the time.
This is a fruitless effort. I give up.
I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
Why do you ignore the evidence of your own eyes? (Not to mention a few hundred years of scientific observation)
Quote from: Yaniv on 02/01/2018 06:04:51I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.OK, presented with video evidence that light is not deflected by a magnetic field, you predict light "should be deflected by strong magnetic fields"
The closest you get is this sort of thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect
The audio is terrible but as far as I can tell they said that could get light to curve in a material if they can generate the right conditions.There's no evidence that they can do so.And getting light to curve isn't new- a bit of glass will do it.
Did you notice that they keep referring to "synthetic magnetism".That's because real magnetism doesn't deflect light.So your claim "photons are deflected by magnetic fields." is false.Why don't you give up on this.Every idea you have put forward has been shown not to work.
What is the difference between synthetic and real magnetic fields ?My theory predicts light should be deflected by strong magnetic (and electric) fields and I would like to see precision deflection measurements of a laser beam passing through strong magnetic and electric fields.
The difference is that a synthetic magnetic field isn't actually a magnetic field.
Your theory is easy to test, If light was perturbed by strong magnetic fields then people would see the effect when doing MRI scans.
So we know from many experiments- including the one that you cited in the first place, that you are actually wrong.
Does your model predict that objects with a net negative charge should weigh less than those with a net positive charge?
This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.
In my theory there are no negatively charged materials, only positive.
The theory predicts weight should decrease when positively charged materials absorb negative charges (heat or electric charges) and become less positive.