[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

J.J Thomson showed the point at which electric and magnetic forces balance. My theory does not require addition of mass to explain the results. In my theory there is no such thing as mass all explained with charge.
You say "visible light has energy thousands of times lower than a stationary electron". Is this statement not derived from E=mc2 ?
Maxwell equations work well for optical light and radio but if any of my predictions are true Maxwell equations are disproved and should not be applied to all types radiation.

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.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and as I understand is used to construct the constant in Coulomb's law which was used by J.J Thomson and Millikan to find the 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.

In my theory blue light also has a shorter wavelength than red light. I derived this from diffraction grating.

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

This is not an example of direct measurements of X-ray diffraction. This experiment directly measures current and angle of a mineral. If the central predictions of my theory are true this result will have to be explained with reflection.

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.

In my theory when an atom absorbs a light electron excess repulsive forces between electrons in the atom could eject the electron at an accelerated speed. The remaining electrons will lose speed and pick it up from other particles in the environment.

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.

I think in this example faster electrons should transfer more kinetic energy (speed) to the wall.

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 07:31:32
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?

My theory predicts light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields generated in particle accelerators. The word "appear" used earlier was in response to an experiment with a weaker magnetic field.

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.

Do you take this match as a conclusive proof E=mc2 is correct ?

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.

No. I didn't say the charge of an electron changes in accordance with its energy state. I said the charge of an atom changes in accordance to its energy states.

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.

Do you suggest this validation proves E=mc2 correct and no other experiments should challenge this equation ?

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

I suspect electron collisions in particle accelerators are more common than photon-photon interactions because the magnetic field in the accelerator keeps electrons densely packed together and may have other effects on the behavior of electrons.

We conduct experiments to test traditional physics all the time.

Really ? You seem to ignore the title of this thread.

[Kryptid]

This is a fruitless effort. I give up.

[jeffreyH]

Those that are too lazy to actually study science have to make things up to fill the gap. They end up putting more effort in than if they had simply gone away and borrowed some textbooks from the inter library loan service. I read Schrödinger's autobiography that way. But getting up out of the armchair or their bed is far too difficult.

[Colin2B]

This is a fruitless effort. I give up.

Very wise. Go back to discussing with The Box, he’s much more logical 

[Bored chemist]

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.

OK, presented with video evidence that light is not deflected by a magnetic field, you predict light "should be deflected by strong magnetic fields".


Why?
Why do you ignore the evidence of your own eyes? (Not to mention a few hundred years of scientific observation)

Seriously, when someone tells you that getting hit by a car is a "bad thing" (for which we only have roughly 100 years of supporting data), do you walk out into traffic?

[Colin2B]

Why do you ignore the evidence of your own eyes? (Not to mention a few hundred years of scientific observation)

You only have to look at the opening page of his paper to discover that to expect sane discussion is pointless:
“a positron and an electron are attracted to each other and interact to form a neutral particle named "neutrino". A simultaneous interactions between two positrons and one electron form a "proton" and a simultaneous interaction between two electrons and one positron forms an "anti-proton". A proton and an anti-proton interact to form a "neutron"”

[jeffreyH]

I just don't see the point. I have spent years learning how things actually work and it is so rewarding to know that the effort is paying off. These guys expend so much effort on nonsense. Here I am waving from the parapets. Wish you were here.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

OK, presented with video evidence that light is not deflected by a magnetic field, you predict light "should be deflected by strong magnetic fields"

My theory predicts light should deflect by strong electric and magnetic fields (videos watched showed weak electric and magnetic fields). I read photons are deflected by strong electric fields of nuclei (Delbruck scattering) and magnetized materials also effect the behavior of light. Could electric and magnetic forces at short microscopic distances be stronger than forces generated in moderate laboratory experiments ?

[Bored chemist]

So, because you have seen that magnetic fields don't bend light and you read that electric field gradients do, you think that a magnetic field will bend light.
It still makes no sense.

The closest you get is this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

[Yaniv (OP)]

The closest you get is this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

This video describes work of scientists attempting to curve light under magnetic fields (min 6).

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

This is another link claiming photons are deflected by magnetic fields.
https://www.photonics.com/a52202/A_Magnetic_Field_for_Photons

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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. (Spoiler alert- they don't) and this frog would look strange (spoiler alert- it doesn't).

So we know from many experiments- including the one that you cited in the first place, that you are actually wrong.
Why can't you accept that simple fact?

[Yaniv (OP)]

The difference  is that a synthetic magnetic field isn't actually a magnetic field.

The article reads "To build its device, the team developed a grid of tiny cavities etched in silicon, forming the photonic crystal. By precisely applying electric current to the grid, the scientists can control, or harmonically tune, the photonic crystal to synthesize magnetism and exert virtual force upon photons". This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.

Your theory is easy to test, If light was perturbed by strong magnetic fields then people would see the effect  when doing MRI scans.

Deflection of light by an MRI magnetic field may be too small to notice. Placing many magnets in sequence such as in particle accelerators could increase the effect.

So we know from many experiments- including the one that you cited in the first place, that you are actually wrong.

Results required.

[Kryptid]

Does your model predict that objects with a net negative charge should weigh less than those with a net positive charge?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Does your model predict that objects with a net negative charge should weigh less than those with a net positive charge?

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. 

[Colin2B]

This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.

This sounds nothing like an electromagnet.
They describe very clearly what they did and it doesn’t involve magnetism. They only call it synthetic because it mimics the effect of a magnetic field on a charged particle, but they are not suggesting it is a magnetic field.
It would be best if you could learn some real physics so you could correctly read the research reports.

[Kryptid]

In my theory there are no negatively charged materials, only positive.

Surely that isn't the case? If we look at your model of atoms, a diatomic hydrogen molecule has equal numbers of electrons and positrons so it would have to be neutral. As you heat up these hydrogen molecules, they gain more electrons as they get hotter and hotter so they would have to have a net negative charge.

The theory predicts weight should decrease when positively charged materials absorb negative charges (heat or electric charges) and become less positive. 

That's pretty much what I was getting at, yes. It sounds like you could make some good mathematical predictions about just how much weight should decrease as a piece of metal gains or loses negative charge, since negative charge comes in discrete, quantifiable amounts. I may try to do that myself when I get the time. However, in order to do this, I will probably need to know why a proton weighs almost 2,000 times more than an electron if the components of a proton are only two positrons and an electron. What mechanism in your model accounts for all the extra mass?