Lazarus

Swansont said: Show that this is true. Present a model. Reply I am so glad you asked. The physical picture of the electrons dancing around the nucleus and the mathematics involved comes out beautifully. The reason shell electrons in an atom conform to discrete energies is there are only certain relationships between the orbital electrons and the rotating magnetic field around the nucleus that are stable. An electron has to approach the nucleus at the minimal magnetic field. With a field rotation time of 1, the lowest energy orbit will have an orbit time of 1 since that will synchronize the orbit and field rotation. Helium has two electrons orbiting synchronized with the rotation of the magnetic field. The electrons in the lowest energy orbit approach the nucleus on opposite sides. Again the time of orbit of both electrons is 1. That becomes shell 1. The time between the electron visits to the nucleus is ½. For shell 2, with room for 8 electrons has orbit times of 8. The time between approaches to the nucleus is 1. The approaches to the nucleus fit in between the shell 1 approaches. For shell 3, a maximum of 18 electrons that have an orbit time of 27. The time between approaches to the nucleus is 1.5. The rest of the shells are in the table below. The units used are: The time of rotation of the nuclear magnetic field is 1. The velocity of the electron in the lowest orbit is 1. The radius of the electron in the lowest orbit is 1. Electron mass is 1. Circular orbits are used. Elliptical orbits are more work. The formulas used are: T=R to the 3/2 power (Time vs Radius) R=1/V*V (Radius vs Velocity) K=V*V/2 (Kinetic energy vs Velocity) In the following table the columns are: A Shell number B Number of electrons in a shell C Radius of the circular orbit D Time of the electron orbit E Velocity of the electron in orbit F Kinetic energy of the electron G Total kinetic energy of the electrons in the shell H Time of next electron to approach the nucleus A B C D E F G H Shell Elec’s Radius Time V KE TKE Next 1 2 1 1 1 1/2 1 .5 2 8 4 8 1/2 1/8 1 1 3 18 9 27 1/3 1/18 1 1.5 4 32 16 64 1/4 1/32 1 2 5 50 25 125 1/5 1/50 1 2.5 6 72 36 216 1/6 1/72 1 3 7 98 49 343 1/6 1/98 1 3.5 8 128 64 512 1/8 1/128 1 4 Interestingly, column H has the same numbers as Spin. Also interesting is that all the shells have the same total kinetic energy. I will try to answer the next question you would have, “What happened to orbit times from 2 to 7?”. Some of the possible explanations are, Mother Nature doesn’t like to do cube roots, She doesn’t like shells with partial electrons or more likely, there is some physical or mathematical result that I have been unable to grasp. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Swanson said: Ad hoc. Science doesn't like ad hoc. Reply: Proof that it is impossible for the electron to hang in there without loosing kinetic energy is a hard row to hoe. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Swanson said: :Now you just have to find experimental evidence of these smaller charges, and that any massive body can move at c. Reply: A massive body would have to have all the small vector like entities parallel and that would be difficult to do so electrons aren't supposed to travel at c. Is there a better explanation of the incredable strength of the electron's magnetic moment?

It turns out that the pick and shovel work for this model was done 100 years ago. Johann Balmer related spectral lines to photon wave length back in 1885. Johannes Rydenberg related the photon wave length to the energy change of an electron in an atom. Neils Bohr introduced his model of electrons in circular orbits 100 years ago. Arnold Summerfield showed that Bohr’s model could work with elliptical orbits. Ralph Konig proposed that electrons could have a magnetic moment. George Uhlebeck and Samuel Goudsmit showed that electron magnet moment (later called spin) could account for the spectral fine lines. Then things came to a screeching halt because of 3 issues: There was no explanation for the discreet orbits of electrons. Accelerated electrons “always” had to radiate. The magnetic moment of an electron was greater than the charge rotating at the speed of light around the circumference of the electron. What they had no way of knowing is that nuclei can have a rotating magnetic field. That is all that is needed to force the orbits to have discreet values. Since the length of a photon is much greater than the circumference of an electron’s orbit, there could easily be a mechanism that would prevent the photon from escaping. (i.e. Electrons can absorb photons) Also, the assumption that accelerating electrons “always” radiate could cloud an exception. This model contends that the electron, and all matter, consist of smaller positive and negative charges traveling at the speed of light so counter flowing charges could create a large magnetic moment. To summarize this model. The difference in mass of a neutron and a hydrogen atom is evenly divisible to 7 digits of accuracy into both of them which implies a “building block”. The building block can be an electron/positron pair. The neutron is equivalent to a proton plus 2 electrons and 1 positron. That removes the need for the bonding force created to hold the nucleus together. An electron can hold 2 protons together. A neutron consists of 1200 electrons and 1200 positrons. A proton consists of 1199 electrons and 1200 positrons. The rotating magnetic field about the nucleus forces electrons to discreet orbits. The energy difference relates to the spectral lines which relate to the velocity of galaxies. All matter, electrons, neutrons, protons, photons etc, consists of positive and negative entities traveling at the speed of light. The entities can change direction but cannot change speed. The red shifted light arriving now was produced by objects moving away from where the earth is now at a velocity great enough to produce the red shift.

I certainly appreciate all your comments.

Swansont said: You could, oh I don't know, accelerate a charged particle. Reply: I will settle for that. A magnetic field causes a electrostatic field that causes magnetic field. Swansont said: I have no idea what the second part is supposed to mean. Reply: That would be the photoelectric effect.

Then how can the E field change without a current> Also, how do Maxwlell's Laws knock an electron out of its cage 400 miles or 10 billion light years away?

Then at least tell me how a charge can change witout a current involved.

Swansont said: Maxwell's equations predict that any accelerated charge radiates, and Maxwell's equations are well-tested. Reply: OK, I will tackle Maxwell. Maxwell’s Laws Law 1 Gauss’ Electrostatic Law. Basic idea is that similar charges repel, opposite charges attract and distance between them is significant. Law 2, Gauss’ Electromagnetic Law. Boils down to the magnetic field wraps around an electrical current. A hand holding a wire with thumb pointing in the direction of the current has the direction of the flux in the direction of the fingers. Law 3, Faraday’s Law. Turns out to be the 3 finger rule (right hand, left hand rules) for changing current, magnetic flux and force. Law 4, Ampere’s original Law. The essence is that the magnetic field is proportional to the changing current. So far so good. Law 4.5, Maxwell’s modification to Ampere’s Law. The assumption is that a changing charge generates a magnetic field. Mathematically, it is just fine to change a point charge. In the real world a charge cannot change without a current involved. There is no such thing as a continuous current. The current is the sum of the effects of discrete charges. The concern about a circuit with a condenser (Oops, New name, capacitor) is why it was thought modification was needed. When you look at the sum of the individual fields of the electrons there is no problem. The requirement that a current has to complete a circuit is not always applicable. Pour some electrons into a capacitor and you have a changing current. Pull the plug on the source and you now have too many electrons sitting on one side of the capacitor which shows that it is possible to have a current that just stops. The same kind of thing can be done with a piece of wire. It the capacitor were 2 sheets of metal a meter apart, it should be possible to detect a dip in the strength of the magnetic field half way between the sheets. Maxwell’s Laws do not demonstrate that an accelerated electron always radiates, without the presence of a magnetic field.

I really appreciate your posts. The question was as apposed to accelerated electrons "always" radiate. I suspect that if you were on the opposite side of the discussion that you would insist on better evidence. Thanks again.

I understand what you are saying but this thread has not demonstated that electrons in positive linear acceleration from electrostatic force must radiate, to a level of evidence that would be up to your standards.

Swansont said: It requires no more faith than trusting any other part of Maxwell's equations, which have been shown to work extremely well over the years. Reply: And the equation for the Roulette proves the sun and the planets rotate around the earth. Swansont said: Anyway, do you know how a radio antenna transmits? You accelerate electrons at some frequency, and they radiate at that frequency. Reply: The electrons do not have time to run the length of the antenna in half a cycle. So that is no proof. Swansont said: The thing is I do it all the time, and so do you. You sound like you believe acceleration means to speed up, and that's not the case. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, and velocity is a vector. So any change in velocity, be it in magnitude or direction, is an acceleration. If you speed up, that's an acceleration. If you slow down, that's an acceleration. If you change direction, that's an acceleration. The difference is in the direction of the acceleration with respect to the velocity. That is why I like to use speed instead of acceleration. Speed change causes a change in kinetic energy. Acceleration may not.

Swansont said: You don't actually know this unless you compare the energy transferred to it and the kinetic energy it has as a result. Reply: It takes quite a leap of faith to assume that electrostatic force not only accelerates the electron but throws in some extra energy to blast out a photon. If you don't beleve that there is a difference between acceleration and deceleration try accelerating to a stop sign. (Just being facetious, sorry)

Swansont said: What do you mean by compensation? Both require a force to be exerted and work to be done. The only difference is in the direction of the force with respect to the displacement. Reply: When an electron decelerates it looses kinetic energy. The lost energy could conceivably be in a radiated photon. When an electron is accelerated by an electrostatic force its kinetic energy is increased. No energy left to radiate a photon.

Swansont said: The magnetic fields are much smaller, and deceleration is just a specific subset of acceleration. The electrostatic forces are responsible. Reply. A decrease in "speed" requires something to compensate for the lost kinetic energy. An increase in "speed" does not require a compensation. As strict as you are about solid proof, it should be fair that there would be experimental evidence clearly influenced solely by electrostatic acceleration.

HAPPY NEW YEAR Enthalpy said: For four decades, computer monitors that use electron beams are being spied through their uncontrolled radiation. Though, I can't tell whether the electron beam radiates during the electrostatic acceleration, or the modulating electrodes and circuits, or something else. Reply: It appears that the radiation from the electrostatic acceleration in a CRT would be infinitesimal . Enthalpy said: X-rays are produced by the electrostatic deflection of electrons at heavy nuclei: what kind of other proof is necessary? Reply: That is a good point to consider. There are magnetic fields around a nuclei to confuse the issue. Also, there is deceleration involved. The electrons around the nucleus have an effect.

This excerpt from http://www.physicsforums.com suggests that the test for radiation from electrostatic acceleration is a bit difficult. It also offers a possible means of performing the test. Are they correct? Q-reeus Still a no-go for absolutely uniform acceleration owing to the extreme feebleness of any energy loss. You may find appealing a fairly simple argument based on conservation of energy given here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9811030 Not saying I endorse it though. Universal_101 Alright, let me have another shot, suppose we have a electrostatic linear accelerator which can accelerate charges to speeds approaching 'c', Now if there is present a radiation reaction force then the speed of the particle approaching the end of the accelerator would be less than the expected speed without radiation. i.e. E−(e2ac2/6π)=mec2(γ−1) and for appropriately chosen E of the accelerator and its length, it seems the other two energy comes close for 1.05≤γ≤1.1 and normal accelerations(a). If I did everything correctly. Therefore, now by injecting these accelerated particles in a magnetic fields and separating them by their energies can easily show if the particles radiated or not. If I assume my calculations are correct.

You are right. The storage ring acting differently from a synchrotron didn't seem fair. You are also right that the electrostatic accelerator not producing visable radiation is a null experiment. I will keep looking for a valid experiment.

I am un-disappointed. Thanks to the last post I found a simple experiment to demonstrate radiation from electrostatic acceleration of electrons at www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/linac.htm. A physicist built an electrostatic accelerator while in high school that appears to be a test of accelerating electrons. He had to add a florescent screen for the electrons being accelerated to hit in order to show that the accelerator was running. That implies that there was no radiation from the accelerated electrons. Another thing I found was a description of storage rings that seems to say electrons do not lose energy by radiation in a storage ring. The excerpt and the website are below. https://sites.google.com/site/4thdimensionapps/particle-accelerators For some applications, it is useful to store beams of high energy particles for some time (with modern high vacuum technology, up to many hours) without further acceleration. This is especially true for colliding beam accelerators, in which two beams moving in opposite directions are made to collide with each other, with a large gain in effective collision energy. Because relatively few collisions occur at each pass through the intersection point of the two beams, it is customary to first accelerate the beams to the desired energy, and then store them in storage rings, which are essentially synchrotron rings of magnets, with no significant RF power for acceleration.

I am disappointed in the lack of an experiment without contaminating magnetic fields to show the radiation. Your efforts to explain this issue to me are greatly appreciated.

There is a slight difference between an electron passing through an electromagnetic field and an electrostatic field. Approximating an electron with a ring of circulating current shows the difference. Different parts of the ring are moving at different velocities so have different force vectors in different directions from the magnetic field. Although the individual vectors may not be perpendicular to the travel of the ring, the net force is perpendicular. However, this would put internal stress on an electron which would not exist in a similar situation in an electrostatic field. Come on, guys. That the electron “always” radiates on acceleration is a fundamental assumption of current physics theory. The mathematically derived conclusion can easily be tested in almost any physic lab. I am sure it has been done and documented. That all that I am asking for.

Merry Christmas What you say is completely reasonable. It's the chicken and egg problem that conserns me. Is the electron slowed because it radiated or did it radiate because is slowed? A spark from across an open contact doesn't help because of the air in the way. An antenna doesn't fit because the electrons don't have time to travel the length of the antenna and also collide with atoms. To demonstrate the difference all you need to do is pull out your electron gun and shoot at a highly positive target through a vacuum and you should be able to see the path of the electrons. The case for electrons "always" radiating when their velocity vector changes is strong but so far not bulletproof. It is testable and certainly that has been done.

#21 swansont Posted Today, 02:54 AM Why would a magnetic acceleration cause radiation, then? Magnetic forces don't change KE. Reply: But you said that the electron loses energy and slows down in the magnetic turning field in the synchrotron.

The distinction is that slowing down means the electron has less kinetic energy. Speeding up means it has more kinetic energy. Less energy I understand has to be compensated for. For the electron to have more kinetic energy shouldn't require dissipation of energy by releasing a photon.

The logic is sound that an electron should radiate when is loses kinetic energy by slowing down. Even in a synchrotron the electron slows down when turning a corner. That should be true for andelectron being slowed by electrostatic force. If the electron is being accelerated by electrostatic or gravitational forces it may not follow that is has to radiate. There have to be experiments accelerating electrons through a high voltage difference that would show the radiation. That is what i would like to know. Thanks for your patience with me.

Strange said: Magnetism and electrostatic forces are the same thing (clue: it is called electromagnetic force for a reason) so I don't see why it would make any difference. It is the acceleration that is important not the force causing it. Reply: There are different rules for electromagnetic forces from electrostatic forces so how can they be the same thing?

swansont said: Electrons slamming into a piece of metal experience electrostatic forces that bring them to a stop and cause them to emit radiation. It's called bremsstrahlung, and you can make x-rays this way. I've observed it dozens of times myself Reply: When electrons lose kinetic energy it is certainly reasonable that they would radiate. An electron colliding with something could lose kinetic energy and thus radiate. That doesn't seem to demonstate that electrostatic force is the cause of the radiation. Strange said: Some examples here: http://hyperphysics....ynchrotron.html Reply: Thank you for the information. There seems to be magnetic forces involved so it is not clear what the role of the electrostaicforces is.