Jump to content

Split Speculation on The behaviour of electrons


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think Dekan is right.
I think electrons are material particles, real particles that have nothing to do with annihilation. Even interacting with positron they dance with him preserving hidden in photon own entity,. They display themselves when divorce with positron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, I think electrons have been observed long enough, and put to so many practical uses, that they must be accepted as actual physical entities. Their reality is demonstrated by the flow of electric currents. And by the behaviour of electrons in devices such as transistors and computer chips.

 

But where's the physical evidence to support the existence of Higgs Bosons - is it just meter-readings?

Edited by Dekan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think electrons have been observed long enough, and put to so many practical uses, that they must be accepted as actual physical entities. Their reality is demonstrated by the flow of electric currents. And by the behaviour of electrons in devices such as transistors and computer chips.

 

There are more direct ways of seeing electrons, even at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo

 

But where's the physical evidence to support the existence of Higgs Bosons - is it just meter-readings?

 

When proton annihilates with antiproton with velocity close to 0 (so total energy is 938 MeV * 2 = 1876.5 MeV + little K.E.), there can be created 2, 3 or more pions 0 which have just 135 MeV each + K.E.

Energy of the input particles, doesn't quite match energy of newly created particles.

So there is needed answer where is the rest of energy.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know “the fate” of the by-products of ”annihilations” sort of pions 0 , gammas, even simple photons of light.
Where is their destiny? Eterne travels toward infinity?
Somebody knows the answer. Please elucidate a curious lay-man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Sensei
So, “pion 0” decays in two “gamma photons”, doesn’t this give me the right to suppose that pion 0 was structured by two gamma photons? !
So, pion0 was not destined to move in eternity. It splits without traveling 1 meter. My mistake. --- But wait a minute, why not? It is kind a photon, and photons are stabile! Ha?
Further:
What about it’s offsprings -- gamma photons? Have they any mean life? Have they possibility to travel more far than their mother pion 0 ?
As I am aware they too splits in two ” mass particles” electron and positron. I don’t know if they degenerate in lower frequency photons.
This gave me the right to suppose that “pion 0” is a bunch of electron positron pairs that dance for a short period a kadrill called Pion 0 and after a while split in grups called gamma photons which going home split in pairs electron-positron.
This is a lay-mans reasoning and sure by specialist will be ignored as senseless crap.
I have doubt myself but not about the fact that the so called mass-less particles are structured by mass particles with opposite gravity property.



My doubt is about the by - product of “ annihilation” of proton. There must be compulsory the neutrino particles in the ensemble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pion 0 can also decay to gamma photon, electron and positron.

It's just one of decay modes. They can be really complicated..

 

Gamma photon will collide sooner or later with charged particle and accelerate it, and new photon will be produced with lower energy. See Compton scattering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

Without collision of photon with something, you have no idea that photon was there..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, “pion 0” decays in two “gamma photons”, doesn’t this give me the right to suppose that pion 0 was structured by two gamma photons? !

No, it does not. There's no reason (within physics) to expect photons to behave this way.

 

So, pion0 was not destined to move in eternity. It splits without traveling 1 meter. My mistake. --- But wait a minute, why not? It is kind a photon, and photons are stabile! Ha?

No, pions are not a kind of photon.

 

Further:

What about it’s offsprings -- gamma photons? Have they any mean life? Have they possibility to travel more far than their mother pion 0 ?

Photons don't decay, so the mean lifetime is infinite. They can interact with other particles, though.

 

As I am aware they too splits in two ” mass particles” electron and positron. I don’t know if they degenerate in lower frequency photons.

This gave me the right to suppose that “pion 0” is a bunch of electron positron pairs that dance for a short period a kadrill called Pion 0 and after a while split in grups called gamma photons which going home split in pairs electron-positron.

No, it does not. Not in the context of science. If you are doing science fiction, though, then you can make up anything you wish. But if you want to do science, you need to make yourself aware of the larger picture, of all of the interactions that are (or aren't) taking place.

 

This is a lay-mans reasoning and sure by specialist will be ignored as senseless crap.

And rightfully so. It ignores known physics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sensei say:

Pion 0 can also decay to gamma photon, electron and positron.

It's just one of decay modes. They can be really complicated..
------That’s exact conforms with my reasoning: that “pion 0” has a structure. The structure “must have been created” in itself from elementary base blocks. Those blocks must have property to combine with each other in different modes. So after fall down (decay) the structure of Pion0, those blocks combines in simpler structure: gamma photons, further in more simple combinations : electrons , photons (those elementary particles base of objective reality).

 

Gamma photon will collide sooner or later with charged particle and accelerate it, and new photon will be produced with lower energy. See Compton scattering.

http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering

Without collision of photon with something, you have no idea that photon was there..

---- That right. The Compton scattering and the Compton wave length reinforce my credo that reality consists in “particularity” existence of matter. The basis of this particularity are alleged blocks of matter which are able to create all kind of particles perceived or not, by us humans.
-----------------------------
But specialist of science rejects down this idea.
And specialist is sincere in his objection. Based on data of a century research. Based in "irrefutable" interpretations of these data.
Forget about disputes: Strings? Loops? Etc. Those are all inside the box. They are based in sancta math, and math has nothing to do with common lay mans reality. The math is subtle, is Platonic. It create things where is nothing from.
Only one thing the science has not pinpoint: How something, without charge or mass called Pion 0, gives birth of things called electrons which posses charge and mass ?

Swansont

No, it does not. There's no reason (within physics) to expect photons to behave this way. -----Please explain for me how are created gamma photons from Pion 0. Pion 0 has to do with gamma photons, gamma photons have nothing to do with Pion 0, this is something strange.

No, pions are not a kind of photon.
---- My ignorance. I thought that something in physics that has not mass, has not charge is Photon. And Pion0 is one of them. A different kind in the zoo of particles!

Photons don't decay, so the mean lifetime is infinite. They can interact with other particles, though.
---- Is this sure? How comes that from gamma photons take life electron –positron?

No, it does not. Not in the context of science. If you are doing science fiction, though, then you can make up anything you wish. But if you want to do science, you need to make yourself aware of the larger picture, of all of the interactions that are (or aren't) taking place.

----- I don’t make science. I only throw my doubt about some aspects and assertions of modern physics that seems to me weird, irrational and far away illogic by the common sense.
If I speculate with idea of “unique sub particles”, and the particularity of reality, in the forum of speculations, I think that my aim is not to irritate interlocutors (if any) but only to make stressing that for me “modern physic, in a lot of assertions, is highly speculative”.
And if this is premeditated is very bad.

And rightfully so. It ignores known physics.

----- I see. It’s not only your opinion. It is of all readers of my posts.
I am not able to convince nobody about my so called hypothesis of sub particles, even those that think that electron is the basis block--- (because I think that electron positron and photon have similar structure). I don’t blame anybody, even my self.

Again who knows? Maybe in the future-- if scientist will find that antimatter has anti gravity—the science will change what is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How something, without charge or mass called Pion 0, gives birth of things called electrons which posses charge and mass ?

 

 

Pion 0 has mass ~135 MeV/c^2

In kg it would be ~2.40676*10^-28 kg

~264.2 higher mass than electron.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sensei say:

Pion 0 can also decay to gamma photon, electron and positron.

It's just one of decay modes. They can be really complicated..

------That’s exact conforms with my reasoning: that “pion 0” has a structure. The structure “must have been created” in itself from elementary base blocks. Those blocks must have property to combine with each other in different modes. So after fall down (decay) the structure of Pion0, those blocks combines in simpler structure: gamma photons, further in more simple combinations : electrons , photons (those elementary particles base of objective reality).

A pion is a composite particle, comprised (as all mesons are) of a quark and antiquark. In this case, an up and a down. So it has a structure. Sensei has already taken care of the mistaken notion that pions are massless. But mass is one form of energy, so there is no inherent violation of any laws for an energetic massless particle to form massive ones in an interaction.

 

----- I don’t make science. I only throw my doubt about some aspects and assertions of modern physics that seems to me weird, irrational and far away illogic by the common sense.

If I speculate with idea of “unique sub particles”, and the particularity of reality, in the forum of speculations, I think that my aim is not to irritate interlocutors (if any) but only to make stressing that for me “modern physic, in a lot of assertions, is highly speculative”.

And if this is premeditated is very bad.

 

 

They might look like assertions and speculative, but that is likely based on not being aware of the science that's been done over time.

 

I have no idea what your area of expertise is, but I'd wager that if a neophyte showed up and told you that you were doing it wrong, you'd find that annoying. Especially if that person had obviously put little effort into gaining at least some level of competence in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer, build particle detector, Cloud Chamber, like I said many times in this and other forums. It costs $20-$30 and $3-$4 for single run.

 

Then you will be able to see electrons, positrons, muons, pions, kaons. Effects of ionization from x-rays, gamma photons, etc. etc.

 

Use magnet/electromagnet below cloud chamber and it will reveal charge of particles.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLiXgdymIYE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sensei

Pion 0 has mass ~135 MeV/c^2

In kg it would be ~2.40676*10^-28 kg

~264.2 higher mass than electron.

---- Now this confused me: “ this eV / C^2”. Is it a gravitational mass or an mass equivalent of energy via Einstein ?
All the debate is about the conundrum: what is exact the relation Mass – Energy! What is the mechanism of their reversion in each other status, on a particle or wave?
The photon has energy, but we say is mass les, because interact weakly with gravitation bodies. The neutron or neutrino have zero electric charge (only for outside observer – I think), but they have gravitation mass, and slightly electromagnetic behavior.
I think you have your right to be correct and precise with science data: Viva Vikipedia, and cover with rug the essence of questions or problems: the structure of particles, the mechanism of decay, the byproducts of decay and how are they linked with previous status….
I hope you will give your insight, about the problems that derive by the certain data facts which are out of dispute.

swansont

A pion is a composite particle, comprised (as all mesons are) of a quark and antiquark. In this case, an up and a down. So it has a structure. Sensei has already taken care of the mistaken notion that pions are massless. But mass is one form of energy, so there is no inherent violation of any laws for an energetic massless particle to form massive ones in an interaction.
------- I have some vague ideas about “sub particles quarks” and about their scheme in interactions with protons and neutrons, about their “broken” electric charges (that aims to justify and pacify some discrepancies in “spins” and I think is the hugest minus of “quarks theory”, this fraction of unity of electric charge). I am not aware if now is pinpointed experimentally the quark, or if it is absolute sure it’s existence.
---- In our debate about the decay of Pion 0, I would like to know the role of quarks, their fate after decay, their link with by products of decay, especially the link with the ending byproduct electron positron pairs.

I can’t grasps how two quarks results in a bunch of electrons or neutrinos.

They might look like assertions and speculative, but that is likely based on not being aware of the science that’s been done over time.
------ Well, just for this the ignorant lay man poke the nose in unknown fields, via the curious and dubious humans nature. Some buy cheap and go on, some resist to buy the pig in the sack.

 

I have no idea what your area of expertise is, but I'd wager that if a neophyte showed up and told you that you were doing it wrong, you'd find that annoying. Especially if that person had obviously put little effort into gaining at least some level of competence in that area.
---- I got it.
I admit again that I am a lay-man, --- a neophyte that has no intention to bother anybody. Every human being is doted with hunger to feed his intellect with news in various fields of human’s activity. I find very interesting various and wonderful physic’s achievements.
But what made me annoying disputable person are some weird, transcendent, interpretations of physics. Those I can’t digest. Sorry.
I think that is no need for competence to admit or refuse weirdness. It depends on person.
For example:
Let say: Is it mathematically true that ( -1 + 1) = 0 ---à 0 = ( -1 +1) = (-10^500 +10^500) . With all respect for this kind of scientist, I let to by his product, somebody else.
May be I am wrong to dispute. But this is very simple: ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---- Now this confused me: “ this eV / C^2”. Is it a gravitational mass or an mass equivalent of energy via Einstein ?

It is the mass. Gravitational and inertial mass are, as far as we know, the same.

 

 

All the debate is about the conundrum: what is exact the relation Mass – Energy! What is the mechanism of their reversion in each other status, on a particle or wave?

The photon has energy, but we say is mass les, because interact weakly with gravitation bodies. The neutron or neutrino have zero electric charge (only for outside observer – I think), but they have gravitation mass, and slightly electromagnetic behavior.

For a particle at rest, E=mc2 (if it's moving there is an additional term to account for the kinetic energy)

 

We say the photon is massless because it has no mass and thus travels at c. One result of this is that it responds to gravity relatively weakly as compared to massive objects.

 

Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically.

 

They might look like assertions and speculative, but that is likely based on not being aware of the science that’s been done over time.

------ Well, just for this the ignorant lay man poke the nose in unknown fields, via the curious and dubious humans nature. Some buy cheap and go on, some resist to buy the pig in the sack.

I hope you have some appreciation of how this is insulting and condescending to scientists, that you will not accept any of their work until you understand it, because of the good chance they are deceiving you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---- Now this confused me: “ this eV / C^2”. Is it a gravitational mass or an mass equivalent of energy via Einstein ?

 

 

P = I * U

so in units you have

1 W = 1 A * 1 V

 

but 1 W is also 1 J /s

so

E/t = I*U

1 J/1s = 1 A * 1 V

 

which gives

E = I*t*U

1 J = 1 A * 1s * 1 V

(I am using 300 kWh of energy per month - so it's like saying: 300,000 W*h = 300,000 J/s*3600s = 1,080,000,000 J of energy)

 

1A*1s = 1 C

so again

1 J = 1 C * 1 V

 

But 1 C is quantized by e const 1.6*10^-19 C

1 C / e = 6.25*10^18 charges/electrons.

 

so

1.6*10^-19 J = e*U (U=1 V)

 

And this is exactly 1 eV energy unit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

 

If you divide 1.6*10^-19 J by Planck const 6.626*10^-34 J*s you will get the same if you would divide 1 eV / 4.135667*10^-15 eV*s

1.6*10^-19 J / 6.626*10^-34 J*s = 2.414*10^14 Hz

 

1 eV / 4.135667*10^-15 eV*s = 2.414*10^14 Hz

 

You can go back and forth from eV to J, dividing by Planck const in one unit, and then multiplying by Planck const in other unit.

 

f.e.

Electron has 510999 eV energy

510999 / 4.135667*10^-15 = 1.23559*10^20 Hz (it's Compton frequency BTW)

1.23559*10^20 * 6.62607*10^-34 = 8.187*10^-14 J

m=E/c^2

so

m=8.187*10^-14 J / 299792458^2 = 9.11*10^-31 kg

and we have our mass of particle in kilograms matching data..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swansont

It is the mass. Gravitational and inertial mass are, as far as we know, the same.
--- I think that gravity is a weight tied in the leg of quantum theory, which bother and irritate theorists. In the most cases they ignore it, but they can’t get rid of it without going in strange speculations.
My question was clear: Has “gravity mass” this Pion0 sub particle? Because I think that particles with gravity mass have distinguished features which can’t be covered with random used, equivalence of mass : eV / C^2.

For a particle at rest, E=mc2 (if it's moving there is an additional term to account for the kinetic energy)
----- Right. Known in eons, but this “at rest” is confusing via relativity. Different topic.

We say the photon is massless because it has no mass and thus travels at c. One result of this is that it responds to gravity relatively weakly as compared to massive objects.
------ Right. Known. For “Respond to gravity weakly” here my speculation: Unique sub particles have a tiny discrepancy in gravity and anti gravity.
Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically.
---- That a blow for me. My conviction is that does not exist particle without electromagnetic property, hence without electric charges.
Is it sure-sure that doesn’t interact?

I hope you have some appreciation of how this is insulting and condescending to scientists, that you will not accept any of their work until you understand it, because of the good chance they are deceiving you.
------ That ridicules. Who care what a crack - pot lay man feel, think and say. And where--- in speculative forum?
Only --- if in himself of (alleged) scientist, resonate faintly the same doubt.


 

Sensei

But 1 C is quantized by e const 1.6*10^-19 C

1 C / e = 6.25*10^18charges/electrons.
----- Thanks Sensei for really accurate and pedantic explanations They are very helpful for a lay-man that has a lot of lack in knowledge.
Only I have, especially for you, request for help about two dilemma:
1---- Why is fading from modern physic the system of unity Kg,m,sec.A?
2---- If “C” is quantised in “e” what is your thought about fractional electric charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question was clear: Has “gravity mass” this Pion0 sub particle? Because I think that particles with gravity mass have distinguished features which can’t be covered with random used, equivalence of mass : eV / C^2.

Since "gravity mass" is a non-standard term, your question is not at all clear to me. You appear to be introducing something new, which you have not defined.

 

 

We say the photon is massless because it has no mass and thus travels at c. One result of this is that it responds to gravity relatively weakly as compared to massive objects.

------ Right. Known. For “Respond to gravity weakly” here my speculation: Unique sub particles have a tiny discrepancy in gravity and anti gravity.

Great. Come up with a model for it. Calculate how much of a difference there is, so when the people at CERN answer this question you can compare your prediction with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1---- Why is fading from modern physic the system of unity Kg,m,sec.A?

 

In high energy physics electronvolt unit is simply useful and convenient.

 

You can say "electron at 2 GeV" and everybody know what you had in mind.

 

You can see example of usefulness of using eV in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81036-nuclear-properties-of-isotopes/?p=788316

 

2---- If “C” is quantised in “e” what is your thought about fractional electric charge?

 

 

I don't want to hijack your threads.

We would have to speak off-forum.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swanson

Since "gravity mass" is a non-standard term, your question is not at all clear to me. You appear to be introducing something new, which you have not defined.
---- Sorry. Different topic, after which “mass” is not inner property of particles, --- it is induced by Higss field. “from outside” . And cover the debate under rug.
My shallow lay-mans knowledge, can’t be conformed with this excellent idea, --- for scientists, and seems to me as a speculative patch to get rid from a nuisance that tether gallop toward total mystification of physics.
What has to do this, with the topics we are debate?
Introduce I something new?
Not at all. My conviction is, as it has been, that all elementary particles are structured from material unique sub-particles, which posses at least three property:
incessantly movement in an unlimited space,
electric attractive or repellent ability,
gravity attractive or repellent ability.
It is for this that I want to know what is the mass of this Pion 0.

Great. Come up with a model for it. Calculate how much of a difference there is, so when the people at CERN answer this question you can compare your prediction with it.

----- Now I can’t. When CERN will pinpoint the cardinal question: Have anti particles , anti gravity? Then will opened the way for many different calculations. By the way, the duty of calculations are upon scientists, not upon lay-mans.

Sensei

In high energy physics electronvolt unit is simply useful and convenient.
----- Yes! So it is said. But where is the convenience in “eV”? Here “e” is a constant, what is the rest, the driver? ---- “V”. or “giga V”.
As we know the potential is created by electric charges, that is from constant “e”, so the only variable is distance in “meter”, potential create a force, which is applied upon “e”., but force is Newton - Kgmsec^-2. etc.
Yes Maybe convenient but most is confusing and derailing.

I don't want to hijack your threads.

We would have to speak off-forum.
----- I have no idea what is it “hijack” even though I have had one awareness about “hijacking”. Who is ones that protests “hijack”? is it O.P. or staff of forum? And--for what reason?
I would be happy if somebody has ideas similar of mine, better of mine, in contrary of mine in whole or in partial. For this I think is “speculative forum” , to debate, to make the ideas property of society, for scrutiny. Sure in a civilized manner.
As for selfishness, authority , profitability, those have their post in forums “for per view”.
So I don’t see why “off-forum”. Indeed if you want to slam me and don’t like in open, take example by gentleness of Swanson, and I go with one “ouch”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----- Yes! So it is said. But where is the convenience in “eV”? Here “e” is a constant, what is the rest, the driver? ---- “V”. or “giga V”.

As we know the potential is created by electric charges, that is from constant “e”, so the only variable is distance in “meter”, potential create a force, which is applied upon “e”., but force is Newton - Kgmsec^-2. etc.

Yes Maybe convenient but most is confusing and derailing.

 

 

It's better described on Electronvolt wiki page, than I can express it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

eV is simply alternative unit of energy, instead of Joules.

eV/c^2 is alternative unit of mass.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swanson

Since "gravity mass" is a non-standard term, your question is not at all clear to me. You appear to be introducing something new, which you have not defined.

---- Sorry. Different topic, after which “mass” is not inner property of particles, --- it is induced by Higss field. “from outside” . And cover the debate under rug.

My shallow lay-mans knowledge, can’t be conformed with this excellent idea, --- for scientists, and seems to me as a speculative patch to get rid from a nuisance that tether gallop toward total mystification of physics.

The shortest path to un-mystifying physics would be to learn the fundamentals, upon which the advanced subjects are based.

 

It is for this that I want to know what is the mass of this Pion 0.

You have been told what the mass is.

 

But where is the convenience in “eV”? Here “e” is a constant, what is the rest, the driver? ---- “V”. or “giga V”.

As we know the potential is created by electric charges, that is from constant “e”, so the only variable is distance in “meter”, potential create a force, which is applied upon “e”., but force is Newton - Kgmsec^-2. etc.

Yes Maybe convenient but most is confusing and derailing.

It's the energy a fundamental charge gains when accelerated through a potential difference of 1V. It's convenient because it's it's on a similar scale to the workings at the atomic and nuclear level, whereas Joules are convenient for macroscopic scales.

 

If it's confusing, I refer you to my above comment about learning the basics. That's really your responsibility if you want feedback from people who have spent considerable time doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swanson
If it's confusing, I refer you to my above comment about learning the basics. That's really your responsibility if you want feedback from people who have spent considerable time doing so.


---- Thanks for reference and advice. About feedback –I am sorry to tell—was not much helpful because they dodged the problems and questions most of the time. Sure, based on the data and the fact that a lay-man don’t have any idea about Lagranges and Hamiltonians, and must be pleased on what say knowledgeable people. Short shepherds and sheep.
I am sorry too about your considerable time spent. Sure I appreciate your patience and tact. But I see that I have overreacted in my tenacity.
I think that after this say, is without any use to continue the debate in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.