Sha31

I don't understand how that can slow down electrons. "Thermal" is just a description of kinetic state of some medium. Higher temperatures correspond to higher atom velocities or higher molecular vibrations/oscillations. Low temperature decreases velocities, but I don't think electron velocity changes, just this velocity of atoms or molecular vibrations. Electrons need their velocities to stay in their orbit, classically speaking. -- But anyhow, this is the question: how can electron microscopes produce different electron energies, how do they emit slow electrons? Ok, so there is south and north magnetic pole, and whatever the orientation we can change it in arbitrary direction, yes? In fact, we should be able to spin this electron by influencing this magnetic dipole moment, just like electric motors do, and when we turn our spin induction magnets off, the electron should continue to spin, right?

Hey there, By some chance I ended up reading some post of yours from couple of years ago and I noticed your theory is amazingly similar to some of mine conclusions. Though interestingly, your approach and my approach is completely different which makes similarities in conclusions even more intriguing. I like what you said here:

250 MeV [93,835,378,660 m/s] v=299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ (250,000,000/510,998 +1)^2 ) = 299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ 240,333.9883 ) = 299,791,834 m/s 30 keV [3,248,528 m/s] v=299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ (30,000/510,998 +1)^2 ) = 299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ 1.120864 ) = 98,444,785 m/s 1 eV [593,097 m/s] v=299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ (1/510,998 +1)^2 ) = 299,792,458 * sqrt( 1 - 1/ 1.000003914 ) = 593,096 m/s I got different result for 30 keV, but the same result for 1 eV, as before. Anyway, when you measure some particle has 250 MeV energy how do you know whether it is fast electron or slow muon?

This one? Ok, what is velocity equal to?

E = 1/2 * m * v^2 30,000[eV] = 0.5 * 510,998/299,792,458^2[eV/m/s] * v^2[m/s] v = sqrt(30,000/2.84281e-12)[m/s] = 3,248,528 m/s 1 eV, v= 593,097 m/s 30 keV, v= 3,248,528 m/s 250 MeV, v= 93,835,378,660 m/s Ok, this looks better, but 250 MeV is out of range, so what are the minimum/maximum electron energies we can produce/measure? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This sounds very strange to me. For some reason, I simply can not imagine electrons move at any slow speed, like a meter per second or slower? What is the process and technology to slow down electrons? What words to google?

I was talking about kinetic energy since that is how eV is defined. Anyway, what is the velocity of an electron with energy of 1eV, 30keV and 250MeV? E = m/2 * v^2 30keV = m/2 * v^2 30,000 = 510,998/2 * v^2 v= sqrt(30,000 / 255,499) = 0.342662 ?? That's wrong obviously, and what happens to units? Can someone do it properly?

White powder gold - monoatomic gold, they call "philosopher's stone", for some reason. I have no idea what is claimed this thing can do, but the existence of this substance and the story of its discovery seem to be quite true.

Ok, after reading that article linked below, I think I can answer that question now - eV actually gets divided by c^2. So, it's just a shortcut to just write "eV" instead of "eV/c^2". Funny. Well, this surely answers one of my questions, but I'm afraid it opens a few new ones, like - just how slow electrons can go and what happens with all that mass increase stuff as they close to the speed of light, do they kind of start to look like muons with their newly gained mass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass - "The electronvolt (eV) is primarily a unit of energy, but because of the mass-energy equivalence it can also function as a unit of mass. In this context it is denoted eV/c^2, or simply as eV." Ok. Can you tell what is the velocity of an electron with energy of 1eV, 30keV and 250MeV?

That is exactly my point. I'm interested in velocity because that is one of only two variables defining kinetic energy, second being mass. Yes, the proton will be moving slower and for equation to work, for energy to come up the same, we have this larger mass so the product can give the same result: mass*velocity. And there it is 'mass' right there in the definition of electron volt, as one of the two properties defining 'kinetic energy'. The other thing is how can eV = kg? How can unit for energy substitute unite of mass, what happens to velocity? Yes, but work is imaginary concept, some useful relation, while distance, force and velocity are true properties of the real world. Mass is also supposed to be one of these true and measurable properties, like charge, which is what I kind of question here. But, charge in coulombs is not specific too, and is experimentally determined, so naturally, the mass was involved in the measurements of these forces via F=ma. Don't you see something is strange about defining gravity force (mass) with electric force? It's like defining 'charge' with free fall.

The point is not to skip any derivation steps' date=' so to see if the definition is self referencing, if it is circular. When you say "work", that automatically involves force and distance, which automatically involves acceleration and velocity. Velocity is the variable we are after. And while there are shortcuts when stuff gets canceled and some things end up to be equal, for the point I'm making we have to realize what came first, what means what, what is a shortcut, assumption or derivation and what is actual definition. Circular definition and self-reference: "chicken": thing that comes out an 'egg' "egg": thing from which 'chicken' comes out So, what came first, work or velocity? [img']http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/a/e/9aeac7ca01e03ffd4b80c513dbeb1b6a.png[/img] Ok, distance is constant, force is constant, so work done is the same. But, how can objects have the same velocity after traveling the same distance if acceleration was different? In any case, my point is that it makes no sense to say electron mass is 0.511MeV if "mass" itself is involved in the definition of electron volt. The other thing is that mass is NOT energy, mass*velocity is, so how can unit of energy replace unit of mass when it involves one more variable? It's as if some velocity is assumed or suggested in the same time with this "mass". Why not define mass as amount of work done by gravity force on an object free falling through the distance of 1 meter?

That definition is specifically using electron to define this particular amount of energy' date=' hence the name. Do you think you can take a proton and it will gain the same amount of energy as electron? So, we have some distance and we have some force, it also means we have some delta-time, right? What exactly is the equation you suggest here to calculate energy, work, acceleration, velocity and distance from this, without using mass? Yes, fundamental charge - "electron", not any charge. Gained *kinetic* energy, not any energy, since mass is constant that can mean only one thing - gained velocity. So, how exactly do you calculate this difference in energy independent of mass variable? I say it is not exact and that it very much depends on mass and F=ma. There is a circular logic for confirmation in your reasoning again, so it wold explain a lot, and it would be the most helpful, if you could just print down those trivially derived equations you're talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt - "The electron volt is not an SI unit and its value must be obtained experimentally."

Did you say: - "An electron-volt is the amount of energy an electron gains.."? To find out that amount of kinetic energy (acceleration and velocity difference) you have to know the 'mass' to start with' date=' because of: F=ma. Beside that, this acceleration will not be uniform and the result will contain error, it's approximation, so this is really terrible definition of mass (energy), it's self-referencing (circular) and it's non-exact. Some terms, like 'relativistic mass' are defined differently here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass But, that still solves nothing, it's still circular. Define "p"? Define "m0"? How did we ever measure and conclude what is electron mass? Can someone point to a couple of different experiments that confirm these numbers for electron mass? Ok. From electron microscopy we know there are high-energy and low-energy electrons. It is the conclusion then, this energy difference is solely due to electron velocity? But, how is it possible then to make electrons move slower than the speed of light and then even slow them down some more? What is the velocity of an electron with energy of 1 eV and with 30 keV?

Ok, but there is a problem. The definition is circular. Electron volt, the amount of energy an electron gains falling through 1 volt will depend on electron mass, hence this definition is unsuitable to be defining "mass" as it requires 'mass' to already be defined. Similar thing you can see with this equation for 'massless particles': p= E/c but... E= m*c*c ...so, again: p = m*c -> p = m*v Without mass energy is zero, without mass momentum is zero. Thus, if photons have energy and momentum they must have mass. Unfortunately, from all this it is still kind of unclear if 'mass' is a real property, do gravity fields really exist, or perhaps gravity force is just some side-effect due to motion of charges, effect of superposition of electric and magnetic fields and their kinematics/dynamics, their kinetic energy. But, anyhow, the real question is this: - can electrons traveling a straight line with the same velocity still have different energies due to some vibration, spin or something?

That is not sufficient then. Can you explain how do you equate kg and eV? How come mass is expressed via some property of electric charge? What gravity field has to do with electric field and its kinetic energy, what is the relation?

If you can not observe these quarks separately, and their charge sums up to one electron, then how do you know that is actually not electron? But, electron is elementary particle, it is not made of anything, or so it would seem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle What I'm trying to say is that electric field is no different thing from electron. Whenever you have some electron you can only know it's there indirectly by probing this electric field. You never actually observe and measure this "ball" we call 'electron' and is supposed to be in the center of this electric field. For all it matters we can take away what has NO SIZE and then we are still left with our field and its charge, we can call it 'electron', give it momentum (mass) and nothing has changed with experiments or equations. Unless, of course, there exist even smaller elementary amount of el. charge. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged They do not really annihilate, they form photons (EM waves/radiation). This is confirmed by inverse process, "Pair production", which does the opposite - it splits this electric dipole (photon) into two monopole electric fields, positron and electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_annihilation Superposition of positive and negative electric fields, neutralizing each other, would sure explain how can photons be made of electric fields and still have zero net charge, right? Electron and positron are trying to stick together, but due to their magnetic fields, instead of orbiting, they end up spiraling each other in some linear direction describing double helix, and there it is your transverse EM wave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation It's interesting Wikipedia even marks the graph with "+q" and "-q". I'm not aware of any effects of strong and weak nuclear forces with photons and EM waves. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok. Yes, I agree. I want to suggest that electric field is elementary entity and that electron, as elementary concept, is just an illustrative representation of this field, it's kind of the same thing. I say, fields can exist on itself (given the medium), like solitons, whirlpools and tornadoes that do not have some particle in the center of the field, but the whole dynamics of it acts as an entity itself. Cool. Now, how do you know muon is not electron? According to that table above the only difference is in mass, but would not electrons with high enough frequency (energy) be indistinguishable from muon? In other words, what is the difference between mass given in electron volts and electron energy/frequency or kinetic/wave energy? How do you differentiate what is mass, what is energy and what is plain velocity? According to p= m*v, mass of that photon is about: m= 2.85e-19 / c How much is (2.85e-19/c)kg in electron volts?

Ok, thank you, that makes a lot of sense to me. Now, if I have a theory that all composite particles like protons and neutrons are actually made of assembles of positrons and electrons (elementary el. fields whose motion/spin causes magnetic fields), could you refute that?

Ok, let me rephrase. You know proton is not made from positrons, you know it is made of quarks and its positive charge comes from quark's electric field instead, i.e. magnitude of electric charge. So, basically I'm asking what is the difference between quarks and electrons/positrons? And, what is the equation that describes electric and magnetic fields of quarks?

Ok' date=' but how do you know antiproton does not contain electrons? What is the magnitude of electric charge of meson and antiproton? Momentum implies mass: P= m*v. Without mass momentum is zero, right? What is the value of photon momentum? How do we know (measure) photon momentum?

Ok. The only example I can think of where electric fields have no mass is 'photon'. What other example is there of electric field that is actually not an electron? Also, it turns out fields do have mass: - "... and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

So' date=' "electron" and "single negative charge" are different things? F= k* q1*q2/r^2 "q" stands for CHARGE, it represents electric FIELD, and we use it to calculate force between two ELECTRONS. The three words seem to be quite interchangeable. In fact, I can not think of any case where there is an electric charge, that does not have electric field, which is not a part of some electron. Numerical value and location for all three of these "things" seem to be in the same spot, sharing the same place with that "q". Why is this? Aether and solitons, I like that. So, the only difference between 'electric field' and 'electron' is that in the case of electron there is some "ball" in the center that has no size?

Field potentials, i.e. potential energy. It's all fields. Gravity, electric and magnetic fields. They have their potentials that drop off with distance by inverse-square law. So, gravity pulls on an object, which speeds up, thus gaining kinetic energy, but also losing potential energy, hence energy is conserved. However, this does not really explain what in the world is this potential energy and where does it come from. Its a 'property of fields' - I think of it as spherical space-density gradients around charges and masses, kind of like curvatures in space-time.

Ok. Electrons, whatever they are, also act as sources of electric fields, so would you agree 'negative charge' is the same thing as electron, and that 'positive charge' is the same thing as positron? Then, what is the difference between electric field and electron? And, could there be electric field which is not in the same time a part of some electron/positron (charge)?

1.) What is the difference between electric field and electric charge? 2.) What is the difference between electric field and electron/positron? 3.) What is the difference between electric charge and electron/positron? 4.) Is there an electric field which is not the field of some electron/positron?