Hello Every one. I'm working on a model that would demonstrate the veracity of the string Theory .

Please your answer will be very much appreciated, if Yes why and if No Why Thanks .

I think this depends on exactly what you mean by "can exist." Electrons can exist for periods of time without photon association. But the HUP makes that period of time variable, and I don't know to what extent you could "isolate" an electron such that you prevented such associations for any given period of time T. So in that sense I think such associations are allowed and expected, but in a probabilistic way.

Can an electron exist without being associated with photons.?

 

Charged particles that are decelerating, are emitting photons to conserve energy.

f.e. in vacuum tube electron gun is emitting electrons, they are passing through hole in positive charged electrode, and flying through tube (their path can be controlled by external electric field or magnetic field (typically electromagnet)).

They hit something which you will put there, f.e. piece of metal,

and x-ray photons are emitted after collision.

Maximum energy of photon emitted depends on kinetic energy of electron prior collision.

I think this depends on exactly what you mean by "can exist." Electrons can exist for periods of time without photon association. But the HUP makes that period of time variable, and I don't know to what extent you could "isolate" an electron such that you prevented such associations for any given period of time T. So in that sense I think such associations are allowed and expected, but in a probabilistic way.

Thanks you very much for the answer .

Charged particles that are decelerating, are emitting photons to conserve energy.

f.e. in vacuum tube electron gun is emitting electrons, they are passing through hole in positive charged electrode, and flying through tube (their path can be controlled by external electric field or magnetic field (typically electromagnet)).

They hit something which you will put there, f.e. piece of metal,

and x-ray photons are emitted after collision.

Maximum energy of photon emitted depends on kinetic energy of electron prior collision.

 

 

 

Maximum energy of photon emitted depends on kinetic energy of electron prior collision.

is in it the other way around ?

I always thought the kinetic energy of electron was dependent of the abortion of photons

 

Edited June 4, 20178 yr by Roger Dynamic Motion

I always thought the kinetic energy of electron was dependent of the abortion of photons

 

That's direct the case in photoelectric effect.

 

In vacuum tube, you can accelerate electron to f.e. 1 keV kinetic energy, thus being able to have at max 1 keV photons, when you will provide 1000 Volts to electron gun electrodes..

Edited June 4, 20178 yr by Sensei

Charged particles that are decelerating, are emitting photons to conserve energy.

f.e. in vacuum tube electron gun is emitting electrons, they are passing through hole in positive charged electrode, and flying through tube (their path can be controlled by external electric field or magnetic field (typically electromagnet)).

They hit something which you will put there, f.e. piece of metal,

and x-ray photons are emitted after collision.

Maximum energy of photon emitted depends on kinetic energy of electron prior collisi

 

Charged particles that are decelerating, are emitting photons to conserve energy.

I thought that electrically charged particle would emits photons and died.

That's direct the case in photoelectric effect.

 

In vacuum tube, you can accelerate electron to f.e. 1 keV kinetic energy, thus being able to have at max 1 keV photons, when you will provide 1000 Volts to electron gun electrodes..

thanks you Sensei

Edited June 4, 20178 yr by Roger Dynamic Motion

I thought that electrically charged particle would emits photons and died.

 

No. They don't die. They decelerate (lose their kinetic energy).

 

Electron is destroyed in annihilation, together with positron.

got to go lunch time

The photon is the exchange particle for the EM interaction, which is the primary means of interaction for the electron.

The photon is the exchange particle for the EM interaction, which is the primary means of interaction for the electron.

just want,, could it be also <<the primary means of interaction (with) the electron. ?

Edited June 4, 20178 yr by Roger Dynamic Motion

just want,, could it be also <<the primary means of interaction (with) the electron. ?

 

 

Isn't that what he just said?

Isn't that what he just said?''

he said = interaction ''for'' the electron,, not ''with'' the electron. a great difference .

I thought that electrically charged particle would emits photons and died.

 

I will extend previous reply from post #7.

 

It's very often actually reverse.

Photon that's absorbed by electron (which is part of atom) is "dying" (disappearing from system), and electron going to higher energy state.

When electron is going back to ground state, it's emitting photon.

 

It can take a while to do it.

 

Such situation is called metastable state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability

 

 

Technetium-99m is widely used nuclear isomer, which is emitting gamma photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m

Nuclear isomer has the same quantity of protons and neutrons as ground state isotope (daughter isotope),

but has different nuclear spin. When gamma photon is emitted by nucleus, nuclear spin is decreased by 1.

Nuclear isomer has higher mass-energy than its daughter isotope.

Edited June 5, 20178 yr by Sensei

he said = interaction ''for'' the electron,, not ''with'' the electron. a great difference .

Not really in how interactions are defined in physics.

he said = interaction ''for'' the electron,, not ''with'' the electron. a great difference .

 

 

Perhaps you could clarify why you think this is a great difference.

Perhaps you could clarify why you think this is a great difference.

its ok if you do not see any difference. Just wanted to make sure

I will extend previous reply from post #7.

 

It's very often actually reverse.

Photon that's absorbed by electron (which is part of atom) is "dying" (disappearing from system), and electron going to higher energy state.

When electron is going back to ground state, it's emitting photon.

 

It can take a while to do it.

 

Such situation is called metastable state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability

 

 

Technetium-99m is widely used nuclear isomer, which is emitting gamma photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m

Nuclear isomer has the same quantity of protons and neutrons as ground state isotope (daughter isotope),

but has different nuclear spin. When gamma photon is emitted by nucleus, nuclear spin is decreased by 1.

Nuclear isomer has higher mass-energy than its daughter isotope.

 

 

 

When gamma photon is emitted by nucleus, nuclear spin is decreased by 1.

 

so is the energy of the photon .

 

 

 

its ok if you do not see any difference. Just wanted to make sure

 

 

No, you can't just leave it at that. You claimed a great difference. What is this difference?

No, you can't just leave it at that. You claimed a great difference. What is this difference?

Electrons have electric charge, which means that they interact ''with'' each other; ''not to'' , including photons through the EM electromagnetic field.

what do you think?

Edited June 5, 20178 yr by Roger Dynamic Motion

Electrons have electric charge, which means that they interact ''with'' each other; ''not to'' , including photons through the EM electromagnetic field.

what do you think?

The electrons emit and absorb virtual photons. Are they not interacting with the photons?

The electrons emit and absorb virtual photons. Are they not interacting with the photons?

yes they are ! Thanks