An electron is not a little ball. What is it?
malibu
'little ball', or some other compact
'thing'................................ Think instead of an energy
event. Think of a fountain. The body of water is the proton. The spray
of water in the air and the water falling back is the
electron............................. Give it more energy and it will
spray higher. Cut it back by half and it falls to a lower level. It
remains 'attached' to the pool at its origin at all times, however, of
course............. ................. Now factor in the spin, which
throws it out in a flat spiral; the spiral simply spreads or contracts
to accommodate the energy level......................... This is in
accordance with spin slowing as energy levels increase.
....................... :-).........John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john ........ The Galaxy Model for the Atom
Put YOUR version of what an electron is below in about the same number
of words.
Points off for making reference to anything said before.
John
rds
Particles are just energy spinning (charge rotating) at rates so high
that we cannot detect it. Also the lack of apparent radiation is die to
the extremely short wavelength. In actuality the particles are
radiating at wavelengths so short that it effectively would take an
infinite amount of time for the wave to propagate. The energy contained
in these particles is directly related to the mass and can be release
by annihilation colliding the particle with its antiparticle (spinning
in opposite direction). Very rare, like two identical but oppositely
spinning tornados colliding. The amount of energy released would be
incredible.
Sue...
FrediFizzx
news:1158607454....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hi John,
My version of an electron (Dirac spinor) is like a douple looped string
(Hubius Helix) due to quantum "vacuum" and relativistic effects.
However this string is not the same as orthodox superstrings. Nor
exactly like the one in the link below as it has a "current flow" within
the string itself.
"The Nature of the Electron"
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
G=EMC^2 Glazier
a vortex who's building blocks are photons,and virtual photons, So tiny
are electrons they will never be seen.So mystifying that they in their
quantum realm can be in two places at the same time. Bert
Sorcerer
"malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:1158607454....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
As with Wave-Particle Duality, an electron is a diffractable particle.
All we really have is a mathematical model based on behaviour;
the electron is the invention of J J Thompson.
It is a little (massive) ball with a minus sign painted on the side if you
see it that way, otherwise it is wave, a cloud, a fuzz. Nobody really
knows anymore than they know what gravity is.
hanson
news:ubHPg.13659$wg.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
[John]
> "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> news:1158607454....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> |I think perhaps many people are still thinking of electrons>
> | http://users.accesscomm.ca/john . The Galaxy Model for the Atom
> | John
>
[Andro]
> As with Wave-Particle Duality, an electron is a diffractable particle.
> All we really have is a mathematical model based on behaviour;
> the electron is the invention of J J Thompson.
> It is a little (massive) ball with a minus sign painted on the side if you
> see it that way, otherwise it is wave, a cloud, a fuzz. Nobody really
> knows anymore than they know what gravity is.
>
There is a self-evident take that Nature/Cosmos [1] is
fundamentally discrete and self similar over many many
if not all orders of magnitude. John's Galaxy model has a
lot of that implied. However,. the fundamental "thing [2]"
about "it [1] " is perhaps so close that we can't see the
trees because of the forest .... IOW, "it[2]" is still missing
as is seen in the example of the electron by Andro, who
points out "Nobody really knows anymore about the electron
than they know what gravity is."
Never the less as John is pointing out by Willie Johnson, Jr.
in his link above the derivation of Newton's G can be done
via certain conjectures with connections and relations of
(fundamental) constants. Conversely, the same game can
be played with/about any other physical entity/event/or process,
like for instance such that the mass of the electron, m_e,
does emerge in like fashion as
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
or the proton with mass m_p as
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
See detailed explanation for that here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/53371ffd43fe32b9
What is kinda intriguing here is that these comparisons of
fundamental constant which describe event horizons [c^2/G]
or Plancklengths diameters [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] do quickly
emerge from the unseen micro world in a self similar way
into the realm of everyday ponderable experiences by the
use of making 1 discrete mole size step with Avogadro's
constant N_A from the electron mass into the Plank mass
that weighs some whopping 0.05 miligrams.
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
or conversly
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
or
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
:::1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
or
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
::: 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
See detailed explanation for that here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968
Mind you that all these things are currently more or less
only mind games, but eventually someone may see from
it how to conduct (an) experiments of how to get a mol
step further down into the unknown, just like they did a
century+ ago when they conducted experiments to *prove"
the existence of the atom... after it was known for
centuries that elements do combine in simple ratios.
Of course none of this is of any interest to mainstream
physicists and especially not to Einstein Dingleberries
and/or traditional QM-assters. They are content to read
books about what has been done and defend what they
have "learned"... ahahahaha... just like religious fanatics do
who are followers and disciples that represent any of the 3
criminal sociopathies of Monotheism which Abe, the Arab
gave birth to some 6 KY ago: Judaism, Xianity and Islam....
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
malibu
Hi Fred
Isn't the Hubius Helix just one rotation in one
plane at the same time as one rotation in
an orthogonal plane?
I will construct something like the drawing in
the pdf of the above link using one rotation
versus one rotation; I like the grids- that will
give good perspective.
But, seriously, you need one rotation versus *two*
rotations to seriously model matter, because the
former only covers half a sphere.
John
FrediFizzx
I expect it is actually more complicated than just a Hubius Helix (HH)
double loop string. More like,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janhande/sizedmatter/jpegs/electron.jpg
Cylinder-like instead of spherical. For me, the HH is just the most
simple model to get spin 1/2 from a "structure". And traces around a
cylinder. The "current flow" within the string basically produces spin
external to the point-like object making the string.
Y.Porat
in very short words:
see 'the chain of orbitals' idea
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:0KLPg.7528$832.803@trnddc04...
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:ubHPg.13659$wg.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| [John]
| > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1158607454....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |I think perhaps many people are still thinking of electrons>
| > | as a 'little ball', or some other compact 'thing' :-).........John
| > | http://users.accesscomm.ca/john . The Galaxy Model for the Atom
| > | John
| >
| [Andro]
| > As with Wave-Particle Duality, an electron is a diffractable particle.
| > All we really have is a mathematical model based on behaviour;
| > the electron is the invention of J J Thompson.
| > It is a little (massive) ball with a minus sign painted on the side if
you
| > see it that way, otherwise it is wave, a cloud, a fuzz. Nobody really
| > knows anymore than they know what gravity is.
| >
| [hanson]
| There is a self-evident take that Nature/Cosmos [1] is
I thought Cosmopolitan was full of cosmetics advertising.
I get confused when words have more that 5 letters, my
computer fills them for me after 4 letters. c-o-s-m...o...politan.
Sometimes I wish I'd learned Chinese instead.
| fundamentally discrete and self similar over many many
| if not all orders of magnitude. John's Galaxy model has a
| lot of that implied. However,. the fundamental "thing [2]"
| about "it [1] " is perhaps so close that we can't see the
| trees because of the forest .... IOW, "it[2]" is still missing
| as is seen in the example of the electron by Andro, who
| points out "Nobody really knows anymore about the electron
| than they know what gravity is."
Vacuum+Hot Cathode+Phosphor+Voltage = Spot of light.
http://tinyurl.com/znfr4
Stir in Gaussage and we can steer the spot.
Bounce the beam off a crystal and we have diffraction.
How does this mean "electron"?
What irks me is that someone like J J Thompson creates
a **MODEL** and the model is then used by engineers
to create such things as electron microscopes and TV,
but even engineers know it is only a model.
This doesn't denigrate Thompson, his model is useful.
We still have no idea if the electron even exists, let alone
whether it has mass or not.
If it does, what is the flubber it is made of?
The lay public and the fuckwit physicists take Thompson's
model and treat it as god's spell (gospel), but the truthful
answer is "Don't know". All John is doing is collecting
opinions and opinions are like arseholes, everybody
has one.
This is the starting point:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
Action at a distance.
We can add copper coils to the rotating magnet, connect
wires across miles to coils at the compass needle and
do the same thing. All we've really done is steer the
energy. We call it generator and motor (or light bulb),
but we still haven't explained what an electron *IS*.
It is a simple matter to me to *imagine* a phosphor screen
on the moon and an electron beam from Earth with
a return wire, painting a TV image for world wide
viewing. Not practical, of course, and fraught
with engineering difficulties to the point of impossible,
but as a thought experiment it works.
I do not have an opinion as to what an electron is. I
accept Thompson's model because it works. I do not
see any mass transfer between Earth and Moon and
back again, that was done by Apollo.
Energy is the currency of mass transfer, but I have no
idea what mass is. All I can do is measure force, and
even force I have to fall back on intuition to describe.
Exactly. It's a mind game, and mathematics is mysterious
to most. Those with a command of math can bamboozle
the idiots who trust.
Now say three Hail Aethers for your sine()s.
Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
Prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.
hep
An electron is a pixel on the 4D ( 3 + 1 time) screen. That is. Our
lower reality is just a screen of a higher dimensional reality
where all the mathematics originated.
This makes sense considering that in Special Relativity.
Time can dilate, length can contract, mass can change
as viewed from another reference. General Relativity
where gravity is just related to geometry. Quantum
Mechanics and superposition and entanglement is the
true conditions before decoherence giving us a seemingly
newtonian world. This means our *physical world* is
not fundamental but only approximation!
Come on. Is it not obvious?!! Our lower 4D (3 + 1 time) reality
is an output of a higher dimensional reality with informational
field.. something physics has missed. In fact we don't have
a true physics of information.
The above scenerio is the only one that can make sense
which can explain many mysteries. This begins to sink
in the past few days. I thought physics was going insane
and I didn't want a part of it.. until I realized a higher
dimensional existence akin to Superstrings higher
dimensions can make sense of everything.
Now the mathematical derivations of it all will lead to the
real Theory of Everything.
hep
PD
Two comments:
- you have neglected the fact that there is a *reason* why water falls
back on itself in a fountain, and of course a fountain in free fall or
zero gee does not work. So positing a behavior for the "stuff" of an
electron without trying to describe the mechanism at work that is
responsible for that behavior seems a bit .... loose.
- there is no reason to try to describe (accurately) the behavior of
anything in a paragraph or less. The only way to write down something
fundamental in compact enough form for it to fit on a T-shirt is with
mathematical shorthand, and I doubt that's what you're looking for.
PD
malibu
Well, here's a one rotation versus one rotation
on a sphere beside the 'hubius' thingy:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/hubius.jpg
and it looks like the hubius thingy is just one rot vers one rot
on a fairly oblate spheroid.
John
FrediFizzx
> > > Hi Fred
> > > Isn't the Hubius Helix just one rotation in one
> > > plane at the same time as one rotation in
> > > an orthogonal plane?
> > > I will construct something like the drawing in
> > > the pdf of the above link using one rotation
> > > versus one rotation; I like the grids- that will
> > > give good perspective.
> > >
> > > But, seriously, you need one rotation versus *two*
> > > rotations to seriously model matter, because the
> > > former only covers half a sphere.
> >
> >
> > I expect it is actually more complicated than just a Hubius Helix
(HH)
> > double loop string. More like,
> >
> >
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janhande/sizedmatter/jpegs/electron.jpg
> >
> > Cylinder-like instead of spherical. For me, the HH is just the most
> > simple model to get spin 1/2 from a "structure". And traces around
a
> > cylinder. The "current flow" within the string basically produces
spin
> > external to the point-like object making the string.
> Well, here's a one rotation versus one rotation
> on a sphere beside the 'hubius' thingy:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/hubius.jpg
> and it looks like the hubius thingy is just one rot vers one rot
> on a fairly oblate spheroid.
Yeah, you can kind of do it that way. Here is a very close relative to
the HH.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cylinder-SphereIntersection.html
There is a java aplet you can play with on the page above.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VivianisCurve.html
I first did it by just putting sine waves on a piece of paper using
MathCad and rolling it into a right circular cylinder. I think that
process is more like the Hubius Helix as the cylinder height can be
anything you want instead of being limited by the intersection with a
sphere or oblate spheroid. And possibly the curvature of the "string"
is bit different using the sinewave process. But both processes do
trace around a right circular cylinder.
tadchem
An electron is an electron.
A troll is a troll.
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together pretty well, but
you won't get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Y.Porat
malibu wrote:
> FrediFizzx wrote:
> > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> > news:1158647972.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > FrediFizzx wrote:
> > > > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:1158607454....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > I think perhaps many people are still thinking of electrons as a
> > > > > 'little ball', or some other compact
> > > > > 'thing'................................ Think instead of an energy
> > > > > event. Think of a fountain. The body of water is the proton. The
> > spray
> > > > > of water in the air and the water falling back is the
> > > > > electron............................. Give it more energy and it
> > will
> > > > > spray higher. Cut it back by half and it falls to a lower level.
> > It
> > number
> > > > the string itself.
> > > > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com
> > > > >
> > I expect it is actually more complicated than just a Hubius Helix (HH)
> > double loop string. More like,
> >
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janhande/sizedmatter/jpegs/electron.jpg
> >
> > Cylinder-like instead of spherical. For me, the HH is just the most
> > simple model to get spin 1/2 from a "structure". And traces around a
> > cylinder. The "current flow" within the string basically produces spin
> > external to the point-like object making the string.
> >
> > FrediFizzx
see the' Circlon' idea
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
> >
>
G=EMC^2 Glazier
virtual and light photons spinning at 'c' Bert
Y.Porat
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> Y Porat An electron is a vortex cloud made up of an equal number of
> virtual and light photons spinning at 'c' Bert
why shoud a virtual photon spinn??
is there experimental evidence of it
and even if there is
what is the reason for it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
G=EMC^2 Glazier
just virtual but the electron cloud is structured by photons of both
types. Bert
tadchem
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> Y Porat An electron is a vortex cloud made up of an equal number of
> virtual and light photons spinning at 'c' Bert
My uncle used to make vortex clouds with his pipe.
It's all smoke and mirrors - without the mirrors.
You can say that the electron is *like* anything you want, and try to
make predictions and measurements to justify your claim, but to
paraphrase Freud, an electron is just an electron.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA