[mxplxxx (OP)]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_boson.

"A composite boson is a bound state of fermions such that the combination gives a boson. Examples include Cooper pairs, mesons, superfluid helium, Bose–Einstein condensates, atomic bosons, and fermionic condensates. "

From https://www.definitions.net/definition/bound+state

Bound state

"In physics, a bound state describes a system where a particle is subject to a potential such that the particle has a tendency to remain localised in one or more regions of space. The potential may be either an external potential, or may be the result of the presence of another particle. In quantum mechanics, a bound state is a state in Hilbert space that corresponds to two or more particles whose interaction energy is less than the total energy of each separate particle, and therefore these particles cannot be separated unless energy is spent. The energy spectrum of a bound state is discrete, unlike the continuous spectrum of isolated particles. In general, a stable bound state is said to exist in a given potential of some dimension if stationary wavefunctions exist. The energies of these wavefunctions are negative."

[mxplxxx (OP)]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

"Potential energy is associated with forces that act on a body in a way that the total work done by these forces on the body depends only on the initial and final positions of the body in space. These forces, that are called conservative forces, can be represented at every point in space by vectors expressed as gradients of a certain scalar function called potential."

It would seem that potential energy depends on forces outside the particle.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In relation to the topic, from http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C990809/docs/butterworth.pdf

"1.2 How photon structure is measured

The quick answer to the question “How do you measure the structure of the
photon?” is unfortunately, “With great difficulty”. Experiments measuring the
photon structure, in general, use the almost on-shell photons accompanying e+
or e− beams. These photons are typically probed by some short distance process.
This may be deep inelastic scattering [1], high transverse energy (Et) jets [2, 3, 4,
5, 6] or particles, or heavy quark production [7, 8]."

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Static energy would be energy of an object that doesn't change, such as its Rest Mass

It was pointed out that energy is derived from Uranium rest mass. Fair enough. I change my statement to "Static energy would be energy of an object that changes little, such as its Rest Mass". It should be pointed out though that the energy gained per atom is ridiculously small:
 
From http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Decay.htm#.XLZuT-gzZ3g
 
"The amount of mass that was turned into energy during the α-decay was:0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,007,600 kg. Needless to say, this wouldn't show up on any kitchen scales! However, this number has been experimentally verified"

[Bored chemist]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

Not by you, perhaps, but it is understood.

It should be pointed out though that the energy gained per atom is ridiculously small:

The mass of an atom is also ridiculously small.

So, in percentage terms, the change in mass is quite big.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, in percentage terms, the change in mass is quite big.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

"When a uranium nucleus fissions into two daughter nuclei fragments, about 0.1 percent of the mass of the uranium nucleus[7] appears as the fission energy of ~200 MeV"

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

I repeat this assertion. I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, in percentage terms, the change in mass is quite big.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

"When a uranium nucleus fissions into two daughter nuclei fragments, about 0.1 percent of the mass of the uranium nucleus[7] appears as the fission energy of ~200 MeV"

FRom https://www.mpoweruk.com/nuclear_theory.htm

"From one atom of Uranium-235 the mass of Uranium actually converted into the 200 MeV of energy is 3.56 X 10 -28 Kg, an almost infinitesimal amount."

[alancalverd]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

I repeat this assertion. I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise.

Because it isn't true. We abandoned "orbits" about 100 years ago because they never made sense.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

I repeat this assertion. I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise.

Because it isn't true. We abandoned "orbits" about 100 years ago because they never made sense.

And can you explain why they never made sense and what has replaced them?

https://www.shmoop.com/modern-physics/atom-model.html discusses orbits as being part of modern physics theory?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Sorry to say, in 90% of cases on Naked Scientists where I have been told I am wrong, the naysayer never explains why. Please justify your criticisms, or don't post.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

I repeat this assertion. I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise.

From https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-photon-and-an-electron

Miroslav Halza

Answered Jan 19, 2018 · Author has 70 answers and 23.1k answer views

The electron comprises mostly the quantum particles, which are photons when are free to travel.

A photon comes to exist when the quantum particle of a subatomic particle is free (from a ‘jail’) to travel. Photons travel in a transverse form. If you annul the speed of the photon— make its linear momentum equal to zero, then you must get a particle that circles or spins, and so creates a shape looked like a vortex, or a hourglass or a wheel. Or, when we add the linear momentum to the circling (move its centre of rotation) we get a sinusoid, as the combination of the rotational trajectory and the straight-line trajectory.

The main reservoir of photons is an electron. This is because the electron already has a speed that is near to the speed of light, which is constant in the constant gravitational field. Besides it, the electron spins. That is why the photon gets the needed speed already being a constituent of the electron.

When the quantum particle is free (the photon is emitted), the electron loses on its linear momentum. When the quantum particle lands on the electron then it increases the linear momentum of the electron. However, it is not all.

We know, when the photon had landed on the electron it kicked the electron farther from the nucleus. But soon, the electron returns back, so has been attracted by an additional force. Since the electron is bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force due to negative charge of the electron, it means the landed photon has changed its (let’s say sinusoidal) shape to a shape that is for the electric effect. Thus, the photon has added its ‘charge’ to the electron. This new charge—increased charge has caused an additional attraction of the electron in accordance with the Coulomb law. The added force causes the electron to jump into a nearer orbit to the nucleus.

Hence, the dual effects of the photon took actions in time during the landing. The first is colliding (Newton’s Third Law) when the photon added its linear momentum to the electron, and then has come the second effect—creating additional charge to the electron. The additional charge decreases a radius (Coulomb’s law) but does not decrease the linear momentum of the electron. And here is a reason why the photon does not anchor firmly on the electron. A higher momentum for this orbit is solved so that a photon is again emitted. And so we have atomic absorption and emission spectra. We use them in analyses of chemical elements and substances, but also to measure time—the atomic clock.

The conclusions are: The photon can produce the electric charge as the electron does since both have the same origins for the electric energy. They differ in their numbers. The photon has the linear momentum related to the speed of light, c, but the electron has the linear momentum to a speed that is less than c. Here is the difference. Namely, the electron is affected by the gravitational force because has the rest mass, but the photon does not have a rest mass and therefore may move by the speed of light in any gravitational field. Hence, the electron comprises the quantum particles for the negative electric charge and the quantum particles for mass, but the photon (a big photon) comprises only the quantum particles for the negative electric charge.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A photon molecule!. From https://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html

"Working with colleagues at the Harvard-MIT Center for Ultracold Atoms, a group led by Harvard Professor of Physics Mikhail Lukin and MIT Professor of Physics Vladan Vuletic have managed to coax photons into binding together to form molecules – a state of matter that, until recently, had been purely theoretical. The work is described in a September 25 paper in Nature."

This opens the intriguing possibility that an electron is just a type of photon that exists in time (i.e at sub-luminal speeds). No wonder the electron and the photon share such a cosy relationship. Could it also open the possibility of all bosons having a fermion counterpart and vice versa? Mass may be just a photon that exists in time.

In my computer programming I have introduced an event (a boson) that contains an instance of a regular class (a fermion). In this way I can react in a program based on the past state of an object. I have found that reality and computer systems parallel each other in many ways.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A photon (a boson) is the past state of a fermion.

... or just information (as per optical fibre networks). The likely reason bosons travel at  the speed of light is they need to be timeless (i.e unchanging).

[Bored chemist]

The mechanism by which an electron emits a photon and falls to a lower orbit is not understood in physics.

I repeat this assertion. I would be pleased to be convinced otherwise.

It's not our fault that you don't understand it.
I have pointed you in the right direction
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg570962#msg570962

Did you look into it?

Sorry to say, in 90% of cases on Naked Scientists where I have been told I am wrong, the naysayer never explains why.

Are you sure?
Could it  be that they explain it, but you don't listen?

And can you explain why they never made sense

An orbiting electron, looked at from the side is an oscillating dipole and would emit radiation continuously until the electron spiralled into the nucleus.
Atoms do not do that, so we know they don't have orbiting electrons.

Why don't you study science rather than coming here and cluttering the site with your nonsense?

So, in percentage terms, the change in mass is quite big.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

"When a uranium nucleus fissions into two daughter nuclei fragments, about 0.1 percent of the mass of the uranium nucleus[7] appears as the fission energy of ~200 MeV"

So a definite change then- you can measure that on a good set of kitchen scales.
Yet you were saying it was constant.

Static energy would be energy of an object that doesn't change, such as its Rest Mass.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, in percentage terms, the change in mass is quite big.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

"When a uranium nucleus fissions into two daughter nuclei fragments, about 0.1 percent of the mass of the uranium nucleus[7] appears as the fission energy of ~200 MeV"

FRom https://www.mpoweruk.com/nuclear_theory.htm

"From one atom of Uranium-235 the mass of Uranium actually converted into the 200 MeV of energy is 3.56 X 10 -28 Kg, an almost infinitesimal amount."

Actually, it would seem that the rest mass of uranium is what remains after fission.

From https://atlas.cern/glossary/mass-invariant-mass

Mass / Invariant mass

Particle physicists use the word "mass" to refer to the quantity (sometimes called "rest mass") which is proportional to the inertia of the particle when it is at rest. This is the "m" both in Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, and in Einstein's equation, E=mc2 (in which E must be interpreted as the energy of the particle at rest). When a particle decays and hence no longer exists, its mass before the decay can be calculated from the energies and momenta of the decay products. The inferred value of the mass is independent of the reference frame in which the energies and momenta are measured, so that that the mass called "invariant". The concept is frequently generalized, so that for any set of particles (e.g., two leptons emerging from a collision), one can apply the same formulas to obtain an "invariant mass" (also called the “effective mass”) of the set.

[Bored chemist]

Actually, it would seem that the rest mass of uranium is what remains after fission.

Which is the same as the mass before fission.
That's why it's invariant.
However, if you look at what people actually think of as mass (not the relativistic bit) then there's a change.
So your assertion remains wrong.

Why do you do this?
You had an idea

There seems to be two basic types of energy in this universe, Static and Mobile. Static energy would be energy of an object that doesn't change, such as its Rest Mass. Mobile energy is energy that can move from object to object, such as a photon.

and it turns out that idea is wrong.
Why do you still cling to it?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

According to relativity, time stops for a particle when it reaches the speed of light (i.e. the particle stops aging). This makes sense given that the present is unfolding at the speed of light. This stopping of time can only occur for Bosons given an infinite amount of energy is required for a Fermion to reach SOL.. A photon may not exist in spacetime:). Also, given a photon is a Boson, the fact that it is timeless would likely make it impossible to detect except when it reacts with an electron (and other particles?). In fact, its timeless nature may be what gives rise to the Heisenberg uncertainty.

Also, maybe it is possible that the photon is part of an EM wave but is hidden because it is timeless. Somehow an EM wave can transport a timeless particle to locations in a spacetime universe. Phew!

A bit whishy washy but worthy of inclusion in a discussion of measurement of a photon's energy.

[Bored chemist]

In fact, its timeless nature may be what gives rise to the Heisenberg uncertainty.

No
Because that's observed with other things apart from photons.

A bit whishy washy but worthy of inclusion in a discussion of measurement of a photon's energy.

Not unless it makes a testable prediction.