[Yaniv (OP)]

(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.

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.

(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.

If any of my predictions are correct this theory of elementary interactions is wrong.

(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:

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.

The energy of electrons in a cathode ray are in the kilo-electronvolt range. That is equivalent to x-ray level energies for photons.

Which experiments are used to calculate energies of electrons in a cathode and energies of x-rays ?
 

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.

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.

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.

In my theory blue light travels slower than red light and interact more strongly with electrons on a photocathode and appear to have more energy. Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies. 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.

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

me.

OK, we need to clarify something here.
the speed of any electromagnetic radiation measured in a vacuum is the same.
In other materials, such as water or air, the apparent speed is reduced.
That's understandable in terms of classical physics or QM- take your pick.


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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

the speed of any electromagnetic radiation measured in a vacuum is the same.

Reference required.

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.

In my theory wavelength depends on speed.

[Bored chemist]

Reference required.

Really?
Still?
OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
et loc cit.

[Colin2B]

If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot

If the predictions were truly independent, yes. However, all your predictions are based on light being composed of electrons at differing speeds, so they are not independent and one being false causes a domino effect.

Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies.

Then you don't understand energy of electrons, or that of any moving mass.

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 ?

The US initially used green, but other colours have been used eg red, Russians did it as well.

If 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.

Nothing to do with atmosphere, think planets being eclipsed by their moons. Has been used to measure the speed of light, no difference seen with different colours within white light.

Also my theory predicts blue light should deflect more than red light by gravitational fields (positive charges) of celestial objects.

Then your prediction is wrong. See Eddington famous experiment. You can see his original photos in Greenwich observatory, the stars show as white points with no colour smearing.
Also, by your assumptions the deflection should be greater than was measured so you can’t claim more precision needed.

refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency

My theory provides a simpler explanation.

Then it is wrong because current theory and observation match. Yours won’t match observation.

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.

No, you cant use that argument here. Take an led, for any observable light output the loss of charge would be significant and the current difference readily measurable. Also as previously pointed out a charge deficit would build up in the device which would be easy to measure. Ive also been through the detail of the transistor laser and no current or charge is lost, the sum of base, emitter and collector currents is 0.

Your hypothesis fails repeatedly and i see no point in pursuing further.
Good luck with convincing someone to take you seriously. I suggest a local university where you can discuss face to face and do some experiments.

[Kryptid]

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 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).

If any of my predictions are correct this theory of elementary interactions is wrong.

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.

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.

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.

Which experiments are used to calculate energies of electrons in a cathode and energies of x-rays ?

The energy of electrons is directly calculable by the voltage used to accelerate them. The electronvolt, by definition, is the amount of energy required to move a single electron across an electric potential difference of one volt. Given that we have directly measured the charge and mass on electrons, this isn’t just some “theory” either: it’s based on direct observation.

The energy of X-rays can be found by their various effects on matter, such as photoelectric absorption. Different molecules have different energies that they absorb radiation at and this can be used to tell how much energy the radiation has.

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.

How can the electrons be accelerated by interacting with trace gases in the tube? Collisions with gas molecules should slow them down, not speed them up. Gas molecules can’t pull energy out of nothingness to make the electrons go faster.

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.

Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies.

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?

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.

Electrons liberating electrons? What are you talking about, exactly?

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.

So you agree that it’s not falsifiable. Good. It’s pseudoscience.

[Yaniv (OP)]

(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

[Kryptid]

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.

Now what about all of that other stuff I said?

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

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.

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).

Different speed of light, if exists and should be tested, disproved Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and your claim short wavelength implies high energy.

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.

If any of my predictions are correct a new theory will have to devised to explain how positron annihilation spectroscopy and emission tomography work.

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.

If any of my predictions are correct the values you state here will change.

How can the electrons be accelerated by interacting with trace gases in the tube?

Get a kick from another electron in the atom.

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.

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.
 

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?

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.
 

Electrons liberating electrons? What are you talking about, exactly?

In my theory which you didn't read light is a fast moving electron.

So you agree that it’s not falsifiable. Good. It’s pseudoscience.

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.

[Kryptid]

The article says it is not known how rare are photon- photon interactions and more experiments are required.

Rare enough not to have been discovered until very recently.

Magnetic fields in particle accelerators concentrate electrons to high density and lower speed of electrons compared to laser could account for differences in occurrence.

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.

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?

Different speed of light, if exists and should be tested, disproved Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and your claim short wavelength implies high energy.

So you ignored the link I provided which showed that we know how to measure wavelengths, huh? 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 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?

If any of my predictions are correct a new theory will have to devised to explain how positron annihilation spectroscopy and emission tomography work.

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.

If any of my predictions are correct the values you state here will change.

The mass and charge of the electron is known from measurements. You can also know the strength for the electric and magnetic fields used to deflect the cathode ray. When you have this information, you can calculate the speed of the cathode rays. This is all based on verified knowledge, not guesses or theory. Go read the part of this link titled “Making the beam go straight” to see how it is done: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys1/labs/lab3.pdf

Get a kick from another electron in the atom.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“Appear” more energetic? Either it is more energetic or it isn’t. Energy is objectively measurable.

Slow electrons have more electric force and fast electrons have more kinetic force.

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.

In my theory which you didn't read light is a fast moving electron.

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.

I am sure there are qualitative ways to disprove my theory

Then list them.

but am skeptical of quantitative mathematical arguments based on traditional physics which are disproved if any of my predictions are correct.

I’d call it ignorance more than skepticism.

[Yaniv (OP)]

As I understand
energy = work
work = force * distance
force = mass * acceleration
Are 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.

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.

No, final magnetic deflection could accelerate electrons to higher speeds.

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.

I wonder if smaller deflection of X-rays when pass near nuclei of atoms inside materials could explain better resolution of images.

The mass and charge of the electron is known from measurements.

I suspect weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum will have something to say about this statement.

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.

They are still moving very fast and could push an absorbed electron to accelerate.

“Appear” more energetic? Either it is more energetic or it isn’t. Energy is objectively measurable.

Blue light knocks more electrons from a photocathode than red light and generates higher current.

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.

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 ?

[Kryptid]

As I understand
energy = work
work = force * distance
force = mass * acceleration
Are 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.

Those energy values were derived from direct measurements. Your “weight decreases at increasing temperature” is of no relevance.

No, final magnetic deflection could accelerate electrons to higher speeds.

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.

I wonder if smaller deflection of X-rays when pass near nuclei of atoms inside materials could explain better resolution of images.

No, because there is no direct correlation between deflection and wavelength. We’ve been through this before.

I suspect weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum will have something to say about this statement.

It absolutely will not. The mass and charge of electrons is known from measurements, not just theory.

They are still moving very fast and could push an absorbed electron to accelerate.

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.

Blue light knocks more electrons from a photocathode than red light and generates higher current.

Since when was I talking about photocathodes? I was talking about cathode ray tubes.

A faster moving electron exerts its charge for shorter time than slower moving electron.

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.

Are all these long scrolls of yours an attempt to convince the reader to forget about experiments ?

It’s an attempt to demonstrate to you that your claims are nonsense.

You’ve also ignored a lot of things that I said in my prior post. How about going back and addressing them?

[Bored chemist]

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.

So, if a "made up thing" happens then we will need to change our understanding of physics.

What if that "made up thing" does not happen?

Do you understand why we don't need to change?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Those energy values were derived from direct measurements. Your “weight decreases at increasing temperature” is of no relevance.

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.

It absolutely will not. The mass and charge of electrons is known from measurements, not just theory.

What is the mass of an object weighed at different T in vacuum ?

No, because there is no direct correlation between deflection and wavelength. We’ve been through this before.

If the central predictions of my theory are correct a new way to describe X-ray diffraction imaging using deflection will be required.

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.

In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.

Then you don't know what a ground state is.
In the real world, electrons in the ground state are in motion, but can't provide energy to another body.

[Kryptid]

@Yaniv, I'm still waiting for you address the following statements that I have already made. Answer them and then I will address your most recent post:

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

In my theory gamma electrons are liberated during nuclear decay.

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

I'm still waiting for you to get to those last two quotes...

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

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.
 

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.

I suspect particle accelerators accelerate electrons to light speeds.

Are these like conditions to conclude experiments to test traditional physics ?

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

What is the mass of an object weighed at different T in vacuum ?

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.

If the central predictions of my theory are correct a new way to describe X-ray diffraction imaging using deflection will be required.

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

In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.

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.

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.

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:

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.

So which is it? Can scientists detectably deflect light with magnetic fields or not?

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.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. There is a correlation between effective antenna size and the wavelength it can pick up. How the waves are generated is irrelevant. Antenna that are much smaller than the wavelength they are trying to detect are not effective.

In my theory gamma electrons are liberated during nuclear decay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I suspect particle accelerators accelerate electrons to light speeds.

That would make your earlier comment speculating that electrons behave differently than lasers because they move more slowly wrong then, wouldn’t it?

Are these like conditions to conclude experiments to test traditional physics ?

We conduct experiments to test traditional physics all the time.