0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this. You can only fit so many electrons in one space at a time.
(2) If photons were electrons, then the annihilation of an electron with a positron to produce a pair of photons would violate charge conservation as you are actually somehow producing two electrons from a positron-electron annihilation.
(3) Beams of electrons can be deflected by magnetic fields whereas beams of photons cannot. Watch this video of an electron beam being deflected by magnetism:
The energy of electrons in a cathode ray are in the kilo-electronvolt range. That is equivalent to x-ray level energies for photons.
For one thing, the beam should not be visible if it was made up of x-rays (especially since it's travelling in a vacuum), yet in this video it very clearly is visible.
If this was true, then you would expect slower moving, lower energy photons (like a beam of visible light) to be even more strongly deflected by the magnetic field than the cathode ray beam is. Yet visible light is not bent by magnetic fields.
It is verifiable but it is not falsifiable. That's a critical difference. If it is correct, you could potentially prove that it is correct, but if it is wrong, you can never prove that it is wrong. It's the exact same thing as the search for Bigfoot: if Bigfoot is real, you could prove it some day by finding a body. If Bigfoot is not real, you could never prove that it doesn't exist because there is always some excuse you could use to explain why we haven't found it yet. That's why cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience: it lacks falsifiability.No falsifiability, no science.
me.
the speed of any electromagnetic radiation measured in a vacuum is the same.
However, if you want to claim that the speed of radiation travelling across the vacuum of space depends on wavelength, then you need to provide some evidence.
Reference required.
If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot
Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies.
I suspect one type of laser beam is used in this experiment to determine distance to the moon and wonder if using a different color of laser would give different results ?
Quote from: Colin2B on 30/12/2017 11:41:23If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.There should be all sorts of strange color effects due to interaction of light and atmosphere.
If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.
Also my theory predicts blue light should deflect more than red light by gravitational fields (positive charges) of celestial objects.
Quote from: Colin2B on 30/12/2017 11:41:23refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequencyMy theory provides a simpler explanation.
refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency
My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right.
In my theory light electrons are very fast and tiny and collisions are rare. I can think of a precision experiment. Cross two laser beams in a dark vacuum container and reflects beams away after they crossed each other. Cover all sides of the container with light detectors. My theory predicts some light particles should be deflected and registered by the detector.
If any of my predictions are correct this theory of elementary interactions is wrong.
This video doesn't show that as you increase the voltage and speed of electrons in the beam the deflection of the beam decreases. I can imagine electrons travelling so fast as to appear undeflected.
Which experiments are used to calculate energies of electrons in a cathode and energies of x-rays ?
In this experiment electrons are absorbed by gas particles in the almost vacuum tube and emitted at an accelerated speeds to visible light. X-rays travel at different speed and are not absorbed by gas in the almost vacuum tube.
There should be an optimal speed that liberates most electrons from a photocathode and faster and lower electrons will librate fewer electrons from a photocathode and appear less energetic.
If weight does Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum and electric current does Not drop across a radiation emitting device and different colors of light do Not travel at different speeds my theory can be described as a Bigfoot theory. If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot but your theory falsified. If all the above predictions are confirmed my theory has a chance at providing a framework for new physics - and your theory disproved.
(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this.
Check this link.https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lhc-atlas-photons-interact-physics
Yes, I've heard of this before. It's a very rare process, unlike that of electrons interacting with each other (high speed electron-electron collisions can be done readily in particle accelerators). Such has been done since 1964 with the VEP-1 electron-electron collider. It used energies up to 160 MeV, the equivalent to gamma ray energies for photons.
If they are “tiny” then that must correspond to short wavelengths and therefore high energies. That is in contradiction to the fact that electromagnetic radiation exists which is low energy with long wavelengths (like radio waves, which can have wavelengths that are kilometers long).
It’s not a “theory”, it’s directly observable. We know that electrons and positrons can annihilate to produce gamma rays. The gamma rays given off are detectable. In fact, positron annihilation spectroscopy and positron emission tomography utilize this as their principle of operation.
The electrons in a cathode ray are already traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (from about 1/10 to ⅓ of the value of c). If it deflects visibly over such a short distance, despite moving that quickly, then the beam going only three to ten times faster would still produce a very detectable deflection by a magnetic field.
How can the electrons be accelerated by interacting with trace gases in the tube?
When talking about absorption, that leads to another problem with your idea: when a photon is absorbed by an electron in orbit around an atom, the photon disappears and the electron enters a higher energy state. Since the photon is now gone and all that is left is a single electron with extra energy, then any charge on that photon must have been destroyed. That violates conservation of electric charge.
It absolutely does imply that. Objects with mass have more kinetic energy when they move faster. This is directly observable and measurable. Or do you think that a pair of cars colliding at 70 miles per hour is somehow a less energetic collision than if they were travelling at only 35 miles per hour instead?
Electrons liberating electrons? What are you talking about, exactly?
So you agree that it’s not falsifiable. Good. It’s pseudoscience.
The article says it is not known how rare are photon- photon interactions and more experiments are required.
Magnetic fields in particle accelerators concentrate electrons to high density and lower speed of electrons compared to laser could account for differences in occurrence.
Different speed of light, if exists and should be tested, disproved Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and your claim short wavelength implies high energy.
If any of my predictions are correct a new theory will have to devised to explain how positron annihilation spectroscopy and emission tomography work.
If any of my predictions are correct the values you state here will change.
Get a kick from another electron in the atom.
In my theory when a light electron is absorbed by an atom the atom becomes excited and more negative for a fraction of a second and the light electron quickly emitted.
In my theory blue light electrons travel slower than red light electrons and interact more strongly and repel more electrons from a photocathode hence appear more energetic.
Slow electrons have more electric force and fast electrons have more kinetic force.
In my theory which you didn't read light is a fast moving electron.
I am sure there are qualitative ways to disprove my theory
but am skeptical of quantitative mathematical arguments based on traditional physics which are disproved if any of my predictions are correct.
According to your predictions, those electrons in that particle collider have to be moving at the same speed as gamma rays because they are gamma rays (they both have MeV energies). Since you say that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then you are saying that those electrons are actually moving faster than laser light.
Another way that we know that more energetic photons have shorter wavelengths is because more energetic photons can give better resolution and see smaller structures than lower energy photons in imaging. X-ray microscopes can see objects significantly smaller than optical microscopes due to their much smaller wavelengths.
The mass and charge of the electron is known from measurements.
The electrons in the gas atoms are already in their ground state. They don’t have any extra energy to donate to the cathode rays.
“Appear” more energetic? Either it is more energetic or it isn’t. Energy is objectively measurable.
That makes no sense. Do you somehow think that the field around electrons becomes weaker when they go faster? Otherwise, fast electrons should have just as much "electric force" (whatever that means) as slow ones because they have the same charge.
As I understandenergy = workwork = force * distanceforce = mass * accelerationAre any of the energy values you are using derived from mass ? If yes and weight decreases at increasing temperature in vacuum a new definition of energy will have to be revised and could falsify your energy values.
No, final magnetic deflection could accelerate electrons to higher speeds.
I wonder if smaller deflection of X-rays when pass near nuclei of atoms inside materials could explain better resolution of images.
I suspect weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum will have something to say about this statement.
They are still moving very fast and could push an absorbed electron to accelerate.
Blue light knocks more electrons from a photocathode than red light and generates higher current.
A faster moving electron exerts its charge for shorter time than slower moving electron.
Are all these long scrolls of yours an attempt to convince the reader to forget about experiments ?
yes and weight decreases at increasing temperature in vacuum a new definition of energy will have to be revised and could falsify your energy values.
Those energy values were derived from direct measurements. Your “weight decreases at increasing temperature” is of no relevance.
It absolutely will not. The mass and charge of electrons is known from measurements, not just theory.
No, because there is no direct correlation between deflection and wavelength. We’ve been through this before.
Electrons don’t work that way. In order for an electron in orbit around an atom to accelerate another electron, it would have to be able to donate some of its energy to that electron. If the atom is already in its ground state, then it can’t go any lower. It can’t donate energy that it doesn’t have to give in the first place.
So what? A fast-moving rubber ball is in contact with a wall for a shorter period of time than a slow-moving ball too. The fast-moving ball exerts more force anyway.
In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.
Interestingly, the electrons were accelerated to this energy level in a figure 8-shaped accelerator. This means that it was possible for humans to magnetically deflect and accelerate electrons in a closed circuit all the way up to gamma ray energies even back in 1965. Since you think that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then your earlier claim that we don’t have the technology to visibly deflect light by a magnetic field because it moves too fast must be wrong. Either that, or your prediction that light is made of electrons is wrong. Which one is it?
The length of antennae is also strongly dependent on the designed wavelength it is supposed to receive. The antenna only works if it is a substantial fraction of the wavelength’s size. Do you really think that scientists and engineers are morons that don’t know how to figure these things out?
You might as well be saying, “If my prediction that electricity doesn’t exist is correct a new theory will have to be devised to explain how the power grid works”. The fact that we can and have detected gamma ray emission from electron-positron annihilation is how we know that your predictions are not correct. The annihilation of positron-electron bound systems into gamma rays has been detected in devices specifically designed to measure them. That’s how the half-lives of positronium were experimentally determined.
All you have after the absorption is an electron with higher energy than before. Electrons don’t become more negatively charged just because they have higher energy.
Which is impossible. Photons can have arbitrarily low energy levels, whereas there is a limit to how low an electron’s energy can be. Even if an electron is sitting (relatively) still, it has an energy of 511,000 eV. This corresponds to the measured value of the electron’s rest mass. Even visible light has an energy significantly lower than this value (1.8 eV for red photons). That makes red photons more than 280,000 times lower in energy than even stationary electrons can be. So photons cannot possibly be electrons.
No duh. Of course the magnetic fields are making them move faster. That’s the entire function of a particle accelerator. That’s how they got them to MeV energies to begin with.
The energy values you provided are derived from E=mc2 or/and Maxwell's wave equations. E=mc2 predicts W (weight) should increase tiny immeasurable bit at increasing T (temperature) i.e. no change. Maxwell waves theory describes heat as massless and predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum too. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves both equations and values provided.
What is the mass of an object weighed at different T in vacuum ?
If the central predictions of my theory are correct a new way to describe X-ray diffraction imaging using deflection will be required.
A fast moving electron colliding with a stationary electron will eject the stationary electron at a faster speed than a slow moving electron. If however a fast moving electron passes near a stationary electron I predict the stationary electron will move less than when a slower electron passes near because a slower electron will exert electric repulsive force for longer. In my theory gamma and X-rays electrons travel fastest and could ionize atoms by direct collisions while optical electrons travel slower and discharge a photocathode by electric repulsion.
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.
In 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.
I don't understand this comment. In my theory there is a correlation between speed and wavelength (linear or exponential) for an emitter and a receiver at a fixed distance. Other factors can also effect wavelength such as relative motion doppler shifts and in antennas the frequency of alternate current which determines the wavelength of radiation.
In my theory gamma electrons are liberated during nuclear decay.
In my theory when an atom absorbs a light electron it becomes excited and less positive (more negative) for a fraction of a second and quickly ejects the light electron returning to its positive ground state.
The claim a stationary electron has 511,000 eV energy is derived using E=mc2 which predicts W should not change at increasing T in vacuum.
I suspect particle accelerators accelerate electrons to light speeds.
Are these like conditions to conclude experiments to test traditional physics ?