Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Possibilities to Ponder

  1. Apr 20, 2005 #1
    Possibilities to Ponder​

    I’ve included my journal entry here. Without it, you will not understand the points that that I am trying to put forward.

    There are two sets of dual characteristics about the electron. First, it appears as wave and particle and second, it appears with mass and zero mass. Particle and mass go together and wave and zero mass go together. When I was explaining my perspective to a friend of mine, one Curtis Ricketts, he pointed out that it would also explain why light appears as both wave and particle. Good job, Curt.

    Electricity travels at the velocity of light, less losses. Using the analogy of the novelty game, Newton's cradle, where one ball's motion is transferred to the opposite end while the balls in the center remain (relatively) motionless, electricity moves at the velocity of light because the electron's motion is at the velocity of light. Electricity is an atomic ‘Newton’s cradle’. The reason this has not been 'discovered' previously is because of the assumptions of electron movement. No accurate model of electron motion currently exists. This is probably because scientists have failed to note the chaotic motion of the electron. If you have eight electrons at the same quantum level or shell (i.e. n2) then the motions would have to be chaotic with electron collisions always eminent but avoided because repulsive charges outweigh the mass. This type of chaotic movement would be difficult to detect or measure. This means that, in effect, each quantum level is a charged sphere around the nucleus.

    The reason I subscribe to an only slightly modified Bohr model of the atom is this: The Fraunhofer frequencies. If an electron absorbs light, then something has to happen. Either the electron will get heavier or it will get warmer or move faster or further. But, something has to happen. There is no evidence of different weights of electrons, at least none that I have ever read. I don’t know of any way to measure the temperature of individual electrons, or if anyone has ever done it, however, there would be a change ‘en masse’ if lots of electrons absorbed light and the temperature were measured of the entire mass. I have never read of this kind of experiment being done so I could not predict the result even though it should be obvious.

    (I also have to question the veracity of the current processes of the Fraunhofer experiments. As I understand them, at least for the hydrogen experiment, a 5000 volt excitation voltage is used to conduct the experiment. However, as I have stated in a previous post, if the experiment is performed in a dark room with no light (meaning no light for absorption), then the experiment is flawed. With no light for absorption, the assumption that light at the same frequency of emission is absorbed, is just not possible unless the process is parasitic in which case it would run down, which does not seem to be the case. This means that the process is using energy from the excitation source. It also means that there are more dynamics taking place in atomic structure than previously disclosed.)

    If the velocity changed, assuming that we’re dealing with the electron as a particle, then its orbital position would have to change to maintain a stable orbit. Personally, I think that the Schrodenger model of the atom is probably the most far fetched stretch of science in the history of science, but that’s just me. If the orbital position of the electron changed, still dealing with the electron as a particle, then there are distances between quantum levels and the conventional descriptions of the atom are largely correct. The only difference that I would ascribe to is the chaotic movement of electrons within their quantum levels or shells. I might also say here that the distance between the shells or quantum levels is probably based on the Fraunhofer frequencies. They are probably one wavelength of the Fraunhofer frequency away. So, if there is a 410 nanometer emission from n2 to n1 in the hydrogen atom, then n2 is 410 nanometers away from n1, but only in the hydrogen atom. Each atom would have different quantum distances of the same levels, based on the Fraunhofer frequencies for that atom. It should be possible, with this information, to calculate all of the possible Fraunhofer frequencies for all of the elements.

    If the electron is moving at C, then, according to Einstein, its mass should become infinite. Since the electron exhibits the characteristic of zero mass, then mass would equal zero at C. Thus, the velocity of light is the transition point from mass to wave. It also means that velocities greater than light are possible, although we can only currently detect emissions at C. Emissions above C would not be detectable by any of today’s known technologies. This does not mean that an object with zero mass is infinitely small. It just means that it has changed its state. Above C, an object would be invisible.

    So, what does all of this mean? Well, here are a few possibilities.

    Let’s suppose that a star has a whole host of emissions above the velocity of light. And let’s suppose that as these emissions traverse deep space they began to slow down. What we see is only the emissions that reach us that have slowed to the velocity of light. We currently would have no known means of detecting any emissions above C but we would still have a red Doppler shift based on the distance of the star away from us. It’s just that the distances may not be nearly as far as we currently believe due to this slowing down and the Doppler shift may not be a true indicator of an expanding universe since it would happen even if the star were stationary. These velocities and velocity changes probably follow an exponential curve.

    Let me explain it this way. Suppose there were an emission from a star at 100 C. This means that in the first second it travels 300,000 kilometers. Let’s also suppose that it slows at the rate of say, 1/V^2 per second, or the inverse of its velocity squared. The second second it would be traveling at 299,999.9999999999999999998889 kilometers per second. The third second it would be traveling at 299,999.999999999999998888777789 kilometers per second. So, the greatest rate of change in velocity would be in the time just after its emission and would also be the greatest rate of distance traveled. It would follow an exponential curve downward in both its velocity and the distance traveled for the same amount of time. By the time it reaches the velocity of light the emission would be at the other end of the curve and would appear as a constant, all lower velocities becoming particles. No matter what the star’s distance we would only see the emissions from the star that had slowed to and were currently traveling at the velocity of light.

    Well, so much for that thought… Let’s try another. Doubtless, you conventionalist will not be able to grasp the former concept so this one will probably make you want to puke.

    I read somewhere that Einstein thought that time would stop at C. That makes for some interesting possibilities. I’m inclined to agree with that concept because it fits with so many other concepts.

    Let’s suppose that time follows a declining exponential curve as velocity increases toward C. We would currently exists on the fastest part of that curve, or near zero velocity. If we were to build a hydrogen rocket and stock it with a lot of hydrogen (fuel) and if we were to travel toward a star at one earth gravity of acceleration, then as our velocity increased, time would, slowly at first, began to decrease. This means that as time decreased, with the same relative velocity of 1 G., our actual velocity would increase. Or, the distance traveled would increase. As we moved toward the other end of the exponential curve, past the curve and back toward the semi-linear part of the curve, which is now moving quickly toward zero time, still with the same relative velocity, the distance traveled would radically increase.

    What this means is that if Einstein was right about his time theory, we could actually reach the stars far easier than previously thought and could do it with an atomic rocket.

    And lastly, if my theory of electron motion is correct, and it is not likely that it isn’t, then it means that if there are electrons below n1, they would be traveling above C and would be undetectable by any currently known process. There could be several quantum levels below n1, all of which would be above C and undetectable. These could probably be mathematically predicted or calculated.

    It may also mean that neutrons are protons that have an electron below n1 that is not detectable because it is above C. Since this electron is above C and moving as a wave, it could be in the form of a wave sphere around the proton, although that may be pushing the concept just a little too far.

    Just a few thoughts to stimulate your interests and intellects.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2005 #2
    It seems to me that an electron is a particle that moves like a wave. Waves are mathematical explanations of how things move, not what things are. For example, an ocean wave in just a bunch of water molecules (with some stuff dissolved in it) that moves in a certain way whose movements can be explained with math equations. Likewise,electron particles might be composed of 'strings' that vibrate like waves but they are not waves, they are just strings that vibrate or oscillate or whatever in certain mathematical ways. Same for photons.

    When it comes to space travel, forget about photons and electrons and neutrinos, one has to play by the quark rules.
  4. Apr 20, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Uh huh. Let's see if I can stimulate yours.
    This is true of all particles; the concepts of "wave" and "particle" become indistinguishable at small scales.
    Electrons never have zero mass. They always have the same rest mass, i.e. 0.511 MeV.
    No, it doesn't. Changes in the electric field propagate at the speed of light only in a vacuum. In a wire, the changes propagate more slowly, particularly if the wire is surrounded by a medium. Individual electrons in a wire at room temperature have thermal energies which correspond to random velocities on the order of a million m/s, much, much slower than the speed of light. Electrons move through the wire, from one end to the other, at only a few centimeters per hour. You can measure all of these properties with a basic bench of equipment: a voltage source, a strip of metal, a magnet, and a voltmeter. The behavior of conduction electrons has been understood for more than a century. In no way at all does electricity travel at the speed of light. This is a grave misconception, which indicates your total ignorance of the topic.
    Electrons have mass, and cannot (ever) travel at the speed of light. Neither can any other particle with mass.
    The computer you are typing on could only have been designed with intimate knowledge of the mechanism of electron conduction. The entire booming industry of semiconductor design and manufacture would not exist without it.
    Electrons are not billiard balls, and they do not "collide" inside atoms.
    "Moving faster" is the same as "getting warmer." If an unbound electron aborbs a photon, it will change its velocity. Bound electrons do not absorb photons (the atom as a whole does), and upon absorbing a photon, electrons in the atom will be excited to higher energy states.
    Electrons are responsible for the thermal conductivity of most materials, since they are much more free to move about than are the heavy nuclei. When you are measuring the temperature of any material, you're essentially measuring the temperature of the electrons.
    I can't even decipher this.
    Electrons do not "orbit" nuclei in the same way that planets orbit the sun. The atom provides a number of distinct energy states, and the electrons can occupy one of these states. You can draw pictures of the state's probability density function, but electrons do not move in little circles around nuclei.
    We're currently building state-of-the-art transistors that are only 90 nanometers wide. The computer you're typing on probably has transistors that are about 130 or 190 nanometers. If you think a single hydrogen atom's first energy level is four times the size of an entire transistor, I pity you. This is, again, evidence of your grave ignorance.
    No electrons move at c.
    So your theory predicts invisible particles which cannot be detected. How useful and scientific!
    Why should we suppose this? What mechanism is there to slow down light? Why has no "light-slowing" ever been observed before?
    The speed of light (1 c) is 300,000 km/sec. :uhhh:
    Why would you want to replace a simple, well-understood bit of basic science with a convoluted mechanism full of suppositions, assumptions, and weird unobserved predictions? What's the advantage?
    This is the sort of misconception about relativity normally suffered by high-school kids. Time does not slow down aboard your spacecraft. Your wristwatch will always tick at the same rate, as seen by you. C'mon, Dlockwood, you can't even get through high-school science without getting confused?
    If you can go fast enough, you can reach the distant stars in a year, or a minute, or even a thousandth of a second, according to your own watch. This is what Einstein's theory of special relativity actually says. You seem to think it says something else. This is because, essentially, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

    - Warren
  5. Apr 22, 2005 #4

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Bravo, chroot.

  6. Apr 22, 2005 #5
    Wow, conventionalists extraordinare. Doubtless, you memorized numerous facts in college and got really good grades, but never took the time to understand what you were learning. Its obvious that you didn't understand the concepts that I put forward, which were just meant to stimulate a little scientific creative thinking amongst... conventionalist. I never offered these concepts for new theory development. But I guess saying that somehow didn't mean that.


    Communism - The opiate of the ignorant, and the religion of the rich...
  7. Apr 22, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Doubtless, you never went to school at all.

    The world of scientific knowledge is full of interlocking pieces, all of which reinforce each other. I have personally designed integrated circuits with 130 nanometer transistors. I looked at x-ray pictures of the completed circuit. I held the device in my hand, and made sure it worked. Then, when someone comes along and says "I think hydrogen atoms have a radius of 410 nanometers," it's not a matter of convention, or belief, or education. It's just plain, flat, wrong.

    Also, the majority of the really important concepts in physics (the Hall effect, Newton's laws, the kinematics of pendula, Faraday's law, and so on, and so on) can be personally verified with $10 of crap you can buy from any hardware store, and thus are certainly not a matter of opinion, or somehow reserved for the educated elite. The people who first understood the basic physical laws had only apparatus that would be laughed at by today's high-schoolers.
    I didn't just understand them, I refuted them. There are literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence that demonstrate that your "concepts" are just wrong.

    In fact, if the best rebuttal you have is ad hominem, to call me a communist and a dogmatist, my conclusion is that you have no relevant rebuttal at all. Good luck in your quest to overthrow the work of hundreds of thousands of people smarter than you by typing on the computer they built for you. My only recommendation is that you might want to pass 7th grade science class first.

    - Warren
  8. Apr 23, 2005 #7
    Well, for the sake of some of the other viewers of this thread we'll take a quick look at your refutations.

    I just wanted to throw a few interesting thoughts out there for good people to consider and work with. Your not one of them.

    Here is one of the few places we agree.

    So, the question is, if you admit that the electron appears as a wave, tell me: How much mass does the electron have, as a wave?"

    I've got to tell you that you did not understand this concept at all. Study it further and I think it will finally dawn on you. Electrical wires are rated according to their propagation velocities in reference to the velocity of light. What this whole concept means is that Einstein was wrong about infinite mass. I simply showed you why. Einstein was a great guy, but a lot of good men thought he was wrong on this concept for a long time. I was just trying to understand how things work. I wasn't even thinking about Einstein's concept when I was trying to build a better concept of electron motion. All I've pointed out is that objects do not have infinite mass at C. They simply become a wave. This concept fits with all known phenomena. If he had combined his concept of time becoming zero with his concept of infinite mass he probably would have realized the error. I think his concept of zero time is far more important and impactive than his concept of infinite mass. It's his concept of zero time at C that will let us travel to the stars in conventional hydrogen or other elemental resonant rockets.

    It also poses problems. If any object were to reach C, it, and everything in it would become a wave. This means that the propulsion system would no longer work because of wave dynamics and you would be out of control until you slowed down or ran into something, like a star.

    Traveling at one earth gravity, it would take almost a year (I think) to reach C. Since the time to zero curve is probably exponential, as you approached C, still at the same acceleration, you would traverse distances that may well encompass the universe.

    This really has nothing to do with the concept I put forward. I used to load my own programs with front panel switches, using machine code. But, that was a long time ago, before the pc era, and before I knew anything.

    We both agree that electrons do not collide. I simply explained why eight electrons in the same quantum level do not.

    Tell me, when an unbound electron changes its velocity, does it remain in the same energy state? How was the velocity change measured of a single electron? Or, group of them? Is it one photon per electron or was the test sample just flooded with photons and changes noted?

    Also, are you saying that the absorption of a single photon in an atom with bound electrons will cause all of the electrons to be excited to a higher energy level? How many photons have to be absorbed? Has any body counted them?

    If electrons ‘are responsible for the thermal conductivity of most materials’ are you saying that electrons themselves are temperatureless?

    Has the Fraunhofer experiment ever been done in a completely dark room so that no light was able to reach the test sample? Did the test sample still emit light? For how long? If there is no light to absorb, then how can the test sample keep emitting light when it has to absorb light to change quantum levels? I've pointed this out before but I have never received a response from it. I'm guessing that the sample would absorb the applied energy for the excitation, whether it be a bunson burner or voltage. That opens up new opportunities for the discovery of energy exchange systems.

    I think that is seventh grade science.

    I know.

    Let's see if I understand you correctly. Electrons have velocity, which can change, but they don't go anywhere...


    I think we established electron spacing from the nucleus in a previous thread I started called 'A fourth question', under Atoms, Molecules, and Solids. I was kind of hoping that some enterprising young mathematician would notice that and conclude that the concept has merit, especially if the Fraunhofer frequencies are a harmonic of the original or that they are probably the best clue for understanding quantum dynamics. I could really care less about the details of the concept. I just threw it out there for others to play with.

    So say almost all of the conventionalists who memorized their facts but forgot to take the time to understand them.

    Not particles, waves. I don't know if any real research has been attempted to detect energy above C. I'm not sure if it can be done. About 30 to 40 years ago I read about a Japanese physicist who theorized that there could be an energy who's rest mass state would be equal to the velocity of light. I thought that was pretty good thinking. So, I guess I'm not proposing anything new, really. Maybe just in a different light.

    Ok, maybe I sped past this concept too quickly. Let me try it again.

    Let's suppose that energy emissions from stars encompass not only a myriad of frequencies but also a myriad of velocities above C. Let's also suppose that traveling through deep space they start slowing down. As they drop below C they become the particles that we call photons. But, the energies just above C now have slowed to C so that they are the ones that we see. This whole process of slowing would encompass lights years but the radiant energies that we detect on earth would be the ones traveling at C, or that have slowed to C, since we have no instruments that can detect anything above C, at least none that I know of. But who knows, maybe we have been detecting higher than C energies but have never noticed it before because they were unperceptable by other means.

    I think you completely missed the point here. See the previous comment.

    I can't compete with your ego. Relativity is what I was talking about.

    As I said before, I just threw this stuff out there for others to enjoy. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I was just trying to present some concepts that I thought others would enjoy playing around with, and maybe take some to a better conclusion. Your obviously not one of them. Please defer to others when I post. You and your ego take all of the fun out of science.

    As for the communist thing... My apologies. I wasn't trying to imply that you were a communist. I just threw that out for other anti-communists like myself to enjoy. Here's the other half.


    Socialism - The opiate of the rich and the religion of the ignorant.
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2005
  9. Apr 23, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am issuing a crackpot warning for this post, one which you well deserve.
    All electrons always have the same rest mass: 0.511 MeV. There is no distinction between "wave" and "particle" at small scales, because all particles possess properties which are simultaneously wave- and particle-like.
    You've only shown me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You can measure the speed of electrons with a magnet, a strip of wire, and a voltmeter. If you can't be bothered to do a simple desktop experiment, I won't be bothered to continue telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about.
    We don't need a new concept of electron conduction. The current model explains all known phenomena.
    This is just hocus-pocus.
    Time doesn't become zero, and mass doesn't become infinite. You really need to brush up on special relativity before trying to show off to others.
    More hocus-pocus.
    It would take an infinite time to reach c. In other words, it'll never reach c.
    So, you used an Altair. Does that make you an expert on semiconductors? No. Guess where I work? One of the largest semiconductor companies in the world. I'm published. Does that make me an expert on semiconductors? Yes.
    Unbound electrons don't have energy states. Energy states arise in compositions of particles.
    All you need is a tube of hydrogen gas.
    No, just one electron.
    I have no idea what 'Fraunhofer experiment' you're referring to. If you'd like to describe the experiment to me, I'll be glad to explain the physics of it.
    My response to you included neither the word 'velocity,' nor 'go.' Apparently, no, you don't understand.
    Again, this is just nonsense, easily refuted by any of a thousands of pieces of evidence. This site does not welcome 'throwing things out there for others to play with.'
    And, unlike you, they all have evidence to back their statements up.
    c (lowercase, mind you, not uppercase) is a velocity, not an energy.
    As I've already said, this is just an obfuscated model full of suppositions and assumptions, which makes predictions which are not verified by experiment. In essence, it's crap.
    This sort of post is not welcome here.

    - Warren
  10. Apr 25, 2005 #9
    Dlockwood. Who are you trying to kid? Your first post was a whole bunch of weird assumptions based on flat out mistakes (electrons move at the speed of light, hydrogen atoms have a radius of 410 nm, Einstein was wrong, etc. etc.)

    That's all well and good, but when you get as thoroughly debunked as you did you should at least show a little class, IMHO, and admit the mistakes, instead of playing the martyr and name calling.

    And it seems you know as much about economics as you do about physics.

    Communism/socialism is the opiate of the ignorant and the religion of the rich? That doesn't even make sense.
  11. May 1, 2005 #10

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This thread was the funniest I have read for a long time. Good to see the administrators are taking a hard stance against crackpots.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook