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.