Sha31

Helium-4 has a nuclear magnetic moment of zero' date=' so your claim is clearly false.

[/quote']

 

We were talking about bar magnets, macroscopic objects and static solution. Timo said two magnets with opposite orientation close to another will neutralize each other, so I said they will actually couple to make one stronger magnet, is this what you refer to as "false claim"? Anyhow, do you know what is the spatial arrangement and orientation of magnetic moments of those particles in Helium-4 that makes it magnetically neutral? Is hydrogen magnetically neutral as well?

 

 

The electric field outside the atom is zero, but what about inside? And you just said that far-field effects don't count.

 

Not inside, but outside, as combined entity (on average). Like molecules of water, which are electric dipoles, yet they still arrange into combined electrically neutral entity, say 'glass of water', that's what I mean. When you take a piece of wood and when it does not interact with magnet, you say it's magnetically neutral, that's what I mean. So, is there some static spatial arrangement of permanent bar magnets that can neutralize magnetic fields around them, make them magnetically neutral as a whole?

Two magnets in the same place with opposite orientation. Alternatively' date=' two magnets with opposite orientation close to another and then seen from a large distance.

[/quote']

 

I'm afraid magnetic fields do not cancel in either case. Large distance has nothing to with this, the point is to neutralize magnetic fields immediately around the composition, where it can be measured. Opposite magnetic poles stick to each other, actually increasing the magnitude, so two magnets couple to make one stronger magnet.

 

 

That sounds like "no" but it's the same "no" as for electric fields. For real materials, things might be a bit more complex because "close" then is the typical distance between atoms where matter usually behaves a bit differently than on the meter scale.

 

For electric fields to neutralize all you have to have is uniform (random) distribution. 10 protons and 10 electrons will pair in 10 electric dipoles known as hydrogen atoms and each will be neutral on average making the area they occupy electrically neutral, unlike magnetic dipoles.

 

 

Permanent magnets have this uniform distribution of electrons where electric fields neutralize and obviously their magnetic fields do not. Magnetic fields of electrons actually couple and the larger the magnet the stronger net magnetic field will be.

Magnetic fields do not seem to neutralize like electric fields. Magnetic fields always seem to couple without decrease in overall magnitude, so how non-magnetic materials can manage to cancel all the magnetic fields and stay magnetically neutral?

To simplify the situation let me rephrase this using 'permanent bar magnets' instead of electrons, and their magnetic dipole moment, as a source for magnetic fields. So, in other words, is there some spatial arrangement of permanent magnets that can neutralize their magnetic fields?

The reason I brought this topic up is because I'm wondering if a spinning object suspended in vacuum could make for better energy storage than the currently used chemical batteries. It would also be a lot more convenient to store and release energy' date=' and would never degrade.[/quote']

 

That's interesting, though I don't think it would work for portable batteries as these would not be very shock-resistant. Also, strong magnetic fields would not be very welcomed around electronic equipment.

 

So, I suppose you would feed in electric energy to increase the spin, then later you would use this spin to get back electricity? How would you do the conversion?

Ok, thank you for your input.

I like the bit about stone on a hill.

Can someone provide links to articles or papers describing velocities of FREE electrons in vacuum, superconductors or plasma?

Can someone provide links to articles or papers describing how exactly can we 'slow down' free electrons, what technology is used, and what is the MINIMUM velocity achieved?

Ok. But, I can model this by simply simulating electric and magnetic field interaction according to classical electromagnetic equations, so why do you think zero-point energy/forces are necessary, how do you conclude they are more "basic" than magnetic and electric forces?

Can you describe hydrogen atom and bonding of 2xH into H2 molecule more closely?

 

Probably not' date=' but I did a Table on bonding which I will try and find.

[/quote']

 

What is that 'Table on bonding' talking about? What can it tell us?

 

 

Quantum theory gives us the mathematics of actions' date=' I cannot make any improvement on those, but QT does not tell us [i']how[/i] or why. My aim is to explain particle structure so that the particle described can be used to explain how or why.

 

I'm asking you how and why. How particle structure dictates motion of particles? Why electrons repel?

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

What is electron velocity?

Merged post follows:

I've mentioned thermal velocity distributions a number of times. Do you know anything about this?

Yes' date=' I know. What I don't know are electron velocities in those distributions and how it was measured. Do you know anything about that?

If you have the resumé (or vita) that you claim, you should be well aware that electrons can have small speeds.

Can we bring electrons to full stop?

No, I'm not aware. I'm not even aware of any experimental measurements of electron speed. I'm interested in numbers, in technology used to slow down electrons or measure velocities. Are you aware? Can you provide some reference to some actual numbers?

The trap and the electron's cyclotron motion are cooled to about 100 milliKelvin

What is the velocity of that electron?

How is that velocity measured/calculated?

Merged post follows:

OK' date=' I think we need to pause for a moment here. How do you get around the fact you have accelerating (and thus emitting) charges, they would be loosing energy at a phenomenal rate!

 

There is a staggering amount of evidence for electron orbitals, NOT orbits.

[/quote']

 

No problem, we can pause, after you provide some evidence for the original question:

 

You can have an electron from 0m/s to infinitely close to (but not at) the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

Can you provide some evidence for that?

 

 

 

There is a threshold' date=' if you have the physics background you claim you should be well aware of the photoelectric effect.

[/quote']

 

Threshold, yes, which is what I predicted.

 

Klaynos: -"When you remove an electron from an orbital shell, if the work energy is say 3Energy units, and you give it 3.5Energy units the electron will have .5Energy units of KE, but if you give it 3Energy units the electron will become removed from the atom and have 0Energy units of KE, meaning it cannot be moving."

 

So, do we now agree you were wrong when you said this or can you support that claim with some evidence?

 

 

 

I'm afraid you are just wrong here, it is well known and demonstrated by many experiments that electron spin is intrinsic.

 

Wh..?? Wrong about what?

Do you mean to say that article is wrong?

 

 

1.) Every electron has dipole moment - two magnetic fields, yes/no?

 

2.) Can this axis (line passing through N/S poles) change orientation, yes/no?

Dear swansont,

I have 7 years of university education, physics and computer science, as well as 18 years of experience in experimental physics and manufacturing, actually working in a laboratory. I could just the same tell how you do not understand and have no idea what are you talking about, but that's lousy argument, so if you'd like to disagree with some statement, which is not my question, then just bring on the arguments and stop waving hands.

If measuring a specific electron's speed isn't interesting to scientists, they aren't going to do an experiment. What would this experiment show, and why is that a reasonable way to use up finite lab resources? It's quite possible the specific experiment you describe has not been done.

 

Physicists have models of how things work, and these are extensively tested. A thermal collection of particles will always have slow-moving particles in it. This is well-established physics. Further, if an electron backscatters, it must accelerate and sample speeds down to zero as it changes direction, just like a ball tossed in the air will be momentarily at rest at the apex of its trajectory. This is first-semester physics.

 

Conclusion: Electrons can have arbitrarily small speeds.

Real physicists should be very interested to know things like this, it would help them keep electrons in one location, help them take more precise measurements... and disprove QM in the same time. -- Anyhow, I'm asking very specific question: about linear velocity of FREE electrons in vacuum, superconductors and plasma. Do you know anything about this? "arbitrarily" (usually) means 'according to human decision', on purpose, at will. So, what you need to show is some experiment that can slow down electrons to around zero velocity. Do you know anything about this?

Sha31; When you googled experiments/electron speed' date=' what did the first half dozen or so sites have to say?

[/quote']

 

I searched much more than that and I gave you the best link I could find - "Electron Speedometer". If you are some 'googling guru', then please do find at least one link which talks about experimental measurements of electron velocities in vacuum, superconductors or plasma.

 

 

The problem with bringing an electron to some "state of rest" is that it is a charged particle and will be attracted to everything around it and therefore want to move from any resting state.

 

Not really, the environment is largely magnetically and electrically neutral. Perhaps you are talking about the difficulties of assembling uniform electromagnetic fields to capture electrons and Earnshaw's theorem?

 

 

You have asked several people here for proof, sometimes even after it was provided but have shown no proof yourself for there being any cause to disbelieve the reasons given for being able to vary the speed of an electron.

 

I'm not disbelieving anything since I have not seen anything yet. I simply want to learn about relevant experiments. My reason to question is based on the lack of evidence, that's all. I'm talking about velocities like 100-0 m/s. Are you comfortable with photons not being able to slow down?

 

That is not what I have shown which is:

mr =G/2

And therefore:

The constant of gravitation (G) is twice the constant of the single particle linear force. To support this proposal I have also shown that the wavelength of a photon contains the linear force of two particles; and explained why.

In my theory photon is electric dipole. Electron-positron pair, two opposite electric fields trying to stick together, but because of magnetic fields, instead of orbiting, they end up spiraling each other describing double-helix, also known as transverse EM wave. I discovered this by chance when I was simulating electron trajectories in magnetic field, I was curious to see how electron and positron interact and I saw they produce spiraling waves where opposite electric and magnetic fields oscillate around each other, just like in the real-world.

Can you tell us more about how did you come up with your conclusion?

The existence of a magnetic force is well-established. You need a very compelling reason to discard it.

 

I have discarded nothing; in showing that atomic structure can be explained without the introduction of magnetic force I am obeying the Law of Economy.

Can you describe hydrogen atom and bonding of 2xH into H2 molecule more closely?

Do electrons in your theory follow classical trajectories? Do you have any equations to describe what are electrons and protons actually doing, who is attracting who with what force, what is their velocity and such?

Well' date=' that seems interesting, but remember that your ideas have to account for the real world. And remember that electromagnetic fields can be blocked, and can repel as well as attract. So you need to find a way to make your thing behave like gravity.

[/quote']

 

I did not mean to say gravity force is some product of superposition of magnetic and electric forces. I agree there are three kinds of fields and three forces: electric, magnetic and gravitational. What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as 'mass', and that all energy is kinetics, including "mass". There is gravity field, yes, but it's magnitude does not increase with some surplus of "matter", rather it's caused by the dynamics of it, just like with photons.

Apparently the fastest an object has ever been made to spin is only 23 million rpm. What is preventing us from making things spin faster, and maybe even approach the speed of light? If an object is magnetically suspended in a vacuum, I see no limiting factor. The only objects ever made to approach the speed of light have just been subatomic particles spun around a circular circuit of tube. When spinning an object with significant mass, however, the circuit of tube poses a huge limit to speeds attainable because the object's centrifugal force would be to great to hold in, but if it is spinning stationary, I see no limit to how fast electromagnets could accelerate it.

Where did you get information about 23mil rpm?

How much is that when converted to linear velocity?

Other than ball falling apart there should be no other limits. Actually, it should even keep its velocity indefinitely... perhaps even speed up as it gets lighter due to radiation.

Physically why would you expect an "escape velocity" they are not classical orbits. It is knocked out of the bound state' date=' this takes energy. It is possible that it will be rebound later but immediately after it has been removed it is unbound.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mod1.html#c5

[/quote']

 

According to my simulations they are in classical orbits actually, but in any case laws of electromagnetic attraction/repulsion apply. Your link actually confirms what I said. You see there are no "low velocities", low energy photons simply do not knock off any electrons, they do not transfer enough kinetic energy, i.e. VELOCITY, for electron to escape.

 

 

Not really magnetic poles, they are intrinsic spin angular momentum.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29

 

There is no axis of rotation, hence intrinsic.

 

Yes, they are magnetic poles, north and south magnetic poles, whether you want to think they are caused by real spin or come built-in with each electron. But, I said I'm not talking about that spin, I'm talking about the other two axis perpendicular to the line connecting these two poles, like this:

 

 

Electron Speedometer

http://focus.aps.org/story/v17/st4

- "In a magnetic field, the spin axis of each electron rotates, or precesses, around the field, just as a tilted, spinning gyroscope or top precesses around the vertical gravitational field."

 

 

 

 

The two refernces I provide give KE which is related to velocity through a well known equation, as the KE goes to 0 as does the velocity.

 

I already know about equations and theories, now I want to know about experimental measurements and how exactly can we bring electrons to full stop? I want to know the average electron speed in superconductors and plasma.

 

 

Mr Skeptic, for simplicity I'm ignoring quantum effects and treating the electron as a classical particle, for the sake of the OP we need to get the easier physics understood first.

 

Please, don't ignore anything. Is <1>de Broglie frequency<1> actually describing <2>linear velocity<2>, or are these two variables independent and each can contribute to total electron energy by itself?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What makes you think I know? However' date=' you can yourself calculate the average drift velocity of electrons in a superconductor. Simply find how many free electrons are in the superconductor (this can be found from how many electrons are free per unit of a superconductor and how many units are in a sample of superconductor (find this by the weight per unit and the weight of the sample). Multiply by the charge per electron and you get the total charge. Then for a current, you can calculate what portion of the charge is flowing through a section of the superconductor which will give you the average velocity of the electrons.

 

If you want to make a claim about the speed of electrons in a superconductor, you need some evidence not just complaining that no one is proving you wrong.

[/quote']

 

You have not provided any reference where I can learn how to do it, and I do not have experimental data to plug in whatever equation you're talking about. I'm asking question, you made a claim without evidence or any reference, but at least you admit now it was just an opinion.

 

 

 

You were already told how. Did you find a mistake in my example?

 

Failure to show a flaw in my argument in post 70, or accept it, means I will no longer participate in your delusion.

 

Argument? I'm not arguing, I'm asking for EVIDENCE. You failed to answer the question. I'm asking for REFERENCE, online ARTICLES and published PAPERS describing EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS. Good bye.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

velocities aren't that useful. but kinetic energy is, so that is what is listed.

 

as it happens you get 5.93*10^6 m/sfor 100eV

 

a tv is up nearer 1.8*10^6m/s (assuming 1keV energies.)

 

with the paper swansont linked to you get 1741m/s

 

and particle accelerators and the like do emit narrow band velocities due to the way the plates and magnetic fields are arranged. electrons with significantly differing velocities get drawn off to the side or miss an appeture.

 

anyway, the velocities aren't typically useful in the energy ranges commonly dealt with. but expressing the kinetic energy of the electron in eV is. the energy is directly related to the velocity of the electrons.

 

Ok, thanks. That's what I want - numbers. Now, what I'm looking for is some experiment that measures the speed of electrons based on velocity= distance/time, instead of based on momentum.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In case you missed the earlier post about electrons in a Penning trap' date=' though,

 

[indent']The trap and the electron's cyclotron motion are cooled to about 100 milliKelvin[/indent]

 

What is the velocity of that electron? How is that velocity measured/calculated?

Why a reference when you can see for yourself?

I'm asking questions' date=' stop being mysterious, be helpful, if you will. Where do I look? Are you referring to some equation? Reference because I want to learn the theory behind it and I want to know about experimental measurements that can confirm it. Can you now just answer the question without asking me any more questions, please. - What is the minimum electron velocity in low temperature superconductors?

[mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp]

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/slowelectrons.html#anchor636597 < many of the papers here deal with electrons with KE's of ~100eV

 

a tv will produce several keV electrons and particle colliders will provide GeV electrons.

 

this definitely indicates that they have an arbitrary speed.

I don't see mention of any velocities there. I want to know how to SLOW DOWN electrons, I want to read about electrons being brought to COMPLETE STOP.

The problem I have with TVs, accelerators and electron microscopes is that they do not actually measure any velocity, they assume they emit electrons at certain speed based on some voltage they supply to the instrument, but what is the experiment that actually measures electron VELOCITIES?

The reference for this' date=' and several other topics, is an introductory physics text. It's a huge diffic...

 

[b']- "An individual electron can have an arbitrarily small speed."[/b]

I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim.

No, electrons in superconducting materials move very slowly (just run the numbers yourself, how many moles of electrons are free to move, and how much current is there). What superconductors have is no resistance, so electrons don't go bouncing off atoms the wrong way and turning their energy into vibrations of the atoms in the material (aka heat)

I don't believe you. C'mon, just give me some links with some numbers.

Is that a yes, you accept that electrons can be accelerated?

All I want is some reference, just give some, or not. Yes, I accept electrons can be accelerated. Now, I want to understand how electron microscope can produce low velocity electrons. I'm also interested to know about how to slow down electrons to zero velocity. And, I want to know average velocities of electrons in superconductors at low temperatures.

But then all you have to do is put the electrons in a magnetic field, where they will curve perpendicular to the magnetic field lines. This way you can measure the charge-mass ratio via the radius of the circle they travel in. I have done this myself btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio

You mean like this:

Yes, that's fine... so what was the velocity?

What is the velocity of these electrons on the photo?

However, my whole point is to distinguish between ALL the kinetics and mass, so 'linear velocity' as calculated with "v=s/t" is the only acceptable one.

The de Broglie frequency and wavelength are directly related to the momentum, as you should know.

Let me rephrase it:

1.) Can de Broglie frequency be zero with non-zero linear velocity?

2.) Can de Broglie frequency be non-zero with zero linear velocity?

Well' date=' if you want more than one electron to be still they need to have zero temperature. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles, so if it is not absolute zero then they have kinetic energy by definition.

[/quote']

 

Another one on zero temperature.

 

Consider superconductivity of certain materials at very low temperatures, where electrons kind of get free like in plasma. This very effect of *super-conducting* directly implies electrons move at very high velocities, maybe even very close to lightspeed, regardless of very low temperatures. So, are there any measurements of this super conductivity expressed in velocity of electrons? What is supposed to be velocity of electrons in superconducting wire?

Sure' date=' anything that accelerates electrons slows them down in different reference frame. Or did you also not accept that electrons can be sped up?

[/quote']

 

I accept all evidence for consideration. Right now I'd like to read something about 'slowing down electrons' specifically, and I'd like to see some numbers, some velocities and the description of what technology was used, about the procedure with which measurements were taken. I also want to know how do they measure electron velocity in particle accelerators, v= distance/time?

 

 

You already shared the links, the de Broglie wavelength. What happens in that equation when velocity and therefore momentum (the p term) goes to zero?

 

Yes, ok. At least we agree there is something strange (impossible) about electron zero velocity. Anyway, I thought you were referring to some experiments.

 

 

Well, if you want more than one electron to be still they need to have zero temperature. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles, so if it is not absolute zero then they have kinetic energy by definition.

 

I'm talking about plasma, about free electrons and electron beams. Normally "temperature" is about atoms and molecules, but in any case, if you can show me example of electron plasma or electron beam where electrons can move at some "slow" or different velocities, than you will convince me.

 

 

 

Anyhow, throw an electron through an electric field and measure its deflection. The slower it was going the more it will be deflected because it spends more time in the field, just as if you tossed a baseball through a wind tunnel (perpendicular to the airflow).

 

But, you see, you don't know what's kinetics and what's mass. Instead of fast moving low-mass charge (electron) that could be slow moving large-mass charge (muon), and you would not know the difference, no?

 

 

Is ,<1>de Broglie frequency<1> actually describing <2>linear velocity<2>, or are these two variables independent and each can contribute to total electron energy by itself?

When you remove an electron from an orbital shell' date=' if the work energy is say 3Energy units, and you give it 3.5Energy units the electron will have .5Energy units of KE, but if you give it 3Energy units the electron will become removed from the atom and have 0Energy units of KE, meaning it cannot be moving.[/quote']

 

Can you provide some reference for that? I have to disagree. I expect there to be 'escape velocity', so if electron is knocked just a little bit off, it would get attracted back.

 

 

Things are a little more complicated due to quantum mechanics, but remember spin is an intrinsic property not movement.

 

Ok, but these two magnetic poles can have any orientation, which we can see when we rotate permanent magnet in hand, so why we could not spin single magnetic dipole (electron) with external magnetic fields just like we can spin bar magnet? I'm talking about axis of rotation that is perpendicular to axis along these two magnetic poles.

 

 

OK, I'll put it simply.

 

You can have an electron from 0m/s to infinitely close to (but not at) the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

Ok. Can you just provide some reference to that?

 

 

 

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v113/i1/p110_1

 

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v98/i4/p889_1

 

There is no mention of any velocities there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I ask because you made a claim' date=' and I'm wondering what the physical basis is for that claim. How slowly electrons can be made to move is fundamentally a flawed question, because you can always look at a situation in the rest frame of the electron, as has already been mentioned.

[/quote']

 

1.) I assure you, I mean only to ask question, and you said:

- "An individual electron can have an arbitrarily small speed."

 

...so, I'm merely questioning your claim.

Can you provide some evidence to support your claim please?

 

 

 

2.) Reference frame? What are you talking about? In the same reference frame that we use to measure the speed of light, of course. Surely not electron's reference frame, I want to know VELOCITY. What is kinetic energy of electron its own frame of reference anyway, zero?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Sha31; If one has the right equipment, the speed of an electron can easily be measured by how much it deviates from its path of trajectory when passing through a known magnetic field. The more deviation=more time spent in the field=slower kinetic energy, or speed. In fact, if the electron is stationary or not moving fast enough the magnetic field will capture it.

 

I disagree with all that. Can you provide some evidence to support what you said?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually electrons in a wire move very slowly on average (they bounce around a lot)' date=' so much so that you can walk faster than they move. X-ray machines generate x-rays by accelerating electrons and then quickly stopping them on a plate of metal.

[/quote']

 

Ok, let me once more underline that I'm talking about "free electrons" and real velocity, like in electron beam, not average drift velocity, scattering, bouncing or similar.

 

 

Electrons can be accelerated by an electric field, and decelerated by an opposing electric field or by hitting something (especially a conductor). Particle colliders take this to an absurd level.

 

Can you just provide some reference about slowing down electrons?

 

 

 

Now, a minimum speed for electrons may be reasonable. If you were to bring them to a complete halt, then funny things start happening with their wavelength.

 

Where do you find that information? Can give some links about that?

 

 

Bringing them to a complete halt would also require a temperature of zero Kelvin, which is unattainable. I don't know if there would be a specific lower limit though. This is not unique to electrons either.

 

Now we need zero temperature?

Why can't electric and magnetic fields do it anymore?

 

 

 

Unlike light, where adding energy to or removing energy from photons will change their color instead of their speed.

 

But then, how do you know when you add energy to electrons you are in fact not just increasing their de Broglie frequency? How do we measure electron velocity? What exactly can we measure?

What phenomenon is there to prevent an electron from moving slowly?

I don't know. I also don't know why are you asking me questions. I've never seen any free electrons moving slowly, nor have I ever heard of slow moving electrons. If you can point me to some examples that should be sufficient to convince me, I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I tried to google, but I can not find any particular velocities associated with electrons traveling trough different mediums, like there is for light.

However, I found something else...

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

- "The greater resolution and magnification of the electron microscope is because the de Broglie wavelength of an electron is much smaller than that of a photon of visible light."

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

- "In quantum mechanics, a matter wave or de Broglie wave is the wave (wave-particle duality) of matter. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy. The wavelength of matter is also called de Broglie wavelength."

...it seems this makes it even harder to distinguish between kinetic energy coming from linear velocity, angular momentum or mass, and now there is this frequency, some "vibration" as well.

Merged post follows:

When swansont discussed thermal distributions there is nothing to stop the particles being electrons, why would there be that limitation? One example I can think of is an electron sea in a metal.

I don't know. I just want to see some numbers or range, some velocities, but specifically for electrons. It takes energy to knock electrons out of orbit, so when becoming 'free electrons' they will at least have some velocity proportional to its 'orbital energy', right?

Why do you think their "usual speed" is so high? I'm not sure that the concept of "usual speed" means anything, what's the "usual speed" of a car? And in what frame of reference?

I don't know, I'm asking. There is "usual speed" of photons in vacuum, so I expected there are some measurements of electron velocities similar to that.

Just how slow can we make electrons go?

Can we make them stop completely in one place?

In a CRT do you know the velocity of the electrons off of the filament before they are accelerated? If you can accelerate them, which we know you can, you can de-accelerate them by applying an opposite field.

 

Have a read of this and related articles:

 

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

 

See above, these electrons are then accelerated, depending on the field used changes their final energy. So the electron emitter does not change the energy of the electrons it generates, but those electrons are accelerated different amounts afterwards.

Unfortunately article does not mention any velocities. I would think there must be some experimental measurements of electron beams passing through different mediums like vacuum, glass, water...

What makes you think that the rest mass of an electron is zero?

I didn't mean to say exactly the speed of light, but whatever is their usual speed in vacuum, something a little bit less than lightspeed I suppose.

What is the technology and physical principle based on which electron microscopes emit slow electrons? How do they produce different electron energies, how do they slow down electrons?

On the other hand, you are not far from what I'm trying to question here. I'm trying to figure out if there is such thing as mass in the real world at all, or is gravity force just an side-effect of different forms of kinetic energy of electromagnetic fields.

A classical thermal ensemble follows a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of speeds. Some particles will be fast, some will be slow.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/kinetic/kintem.html

 

There are always some particles in the low-velocity part of the distribution.

Those "particles" are atoms and molecules, not electrons. Can you prove to me electrons can actually go any slower than close-to-light and what is the technology used to achieve this? How can electron microscopes slow down electrons in electron beam, their linear velocity to something like 5,000 m/s? I think electrons, just like photons, can not go any slower than the speed of light.

No, we can't change it in an arbitrary direction — it's quantized. It will always have some orientation restrictions with respect to the field, and always have the same value.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

- "If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount, producing an even distribution on the screen of a detector."

This assumption does not need to apply to electron beams and electrons coming from the same source, or any group of electrons with the same velocity, as these electrons might be aligning their magnetic fields according to velocity vector, and most certainly they would be aligning their magnetic fields in relation to each other. So, it should not be surprising this experiment produces these results even if starting assumption does not apply.

What are they trying to establish anyway? That angular momentum is constant...

or/and

...that ORIENTATION of these two magnetic fields can be only along one axis?

I stated in the course of a different debate that the way physicists use minus quantities such as negative charge and negative mass is incorrect. That is to say that (as in all other professions) physicists should regard such negative terms as implying that something real is missing and not that the minus quantity itself is a reality.

Physicists actually do not refer to physical entities at all' date=' sign is not a description of some material property, it is a description of the EFFECT, i.e. forces of attraction/repulsion, it's a three-dimensional description of motion, action-reaction. So, it is actually mathematical and geometrical property referring to DIRECTION, it has to do with matrix and vector math rather than being a statement about structural make-up of the matter.

When looking at the opposite magnetic fields, they only seem to be twirling in different directions, so how do you explain this magnetic interaction with the lack and excess of something? By the way, in my theory magnetic fields are just an effect of motion of electric fields through Aether, like this:

[img']http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/250px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg[/img]

...so, the "lack and excess" in my theory comes from density differences due to kinetic pressure, compressibility and viscosity of aether (vacuum), where the force will actually have inward radial direction, it will "suck in" like tornadoes and whirlpools do, because of the difference in density distribution. But then, this force can have different directions, both inward and outward regardless of it's original outward flux of the medium and inward force, and so these entities (dynamic itself) like solitons (whirlpools) can both attract and repel, depending on the DIRECTION of their rotation.

This is illustrated above in graph form where I show how two positive quantities interact to produce a single negative quantity and a single positive quantity. Comparison of 'A and B' with 'C and D' shows how to arrive at the missing mass.

Comparison of 'A and C' with 'B and D' shows the origin of particle and anti-particle and of positive and negative charge.

 

Note that the balanced field structure used to illustrate this proposition is the same as the balanced field structure used to define electron shell structure on the page referred to above.

Ok, I don't see anything wrong with that. But, I also don't see what do you think was wrong to begin with. It's all about direction of displacement, about direction of the force. You might be right, and all that might be the result of only one particle and one force, but the current physics is simply not talking on that level at all, they only describe the "surface" (forces and their directions), while you're trying to describe the essence, so I do not see there is actual disagreement really.