Theory for cause of metastable state - Establishing causality in nature again -

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Theory for cause of metastable state

 

- Establishing causality in nature again -

Wolfhart Willimczik

2106 72^nd St W,
Bradenton, Florida 34209

E-mail : Wolfhart@tampabay.rr.com

Abstract : Searching for the cause of the existence of metastable states the
author offers a first hypothesis: Nature will not start any process basically
ready to start, but with several exact equal ways to go until one way
distinguishes itself from all others by a noticeable value.

An electron in an exited state, what has basically the freedom to choose any
direction and any time of emitting light, will not do it by "chance",
but only if a specific time and direction is given; for instance by a collision
with another atom coming from a certain direction by thermal movement in a gas.

Keywords : Metastability;

Causality; Probability; chance; Einstein; new law of physics; spark chamber;
light emission; decay, excited electron; radioactive decay; boiling water;

PACS No. : 03.65.-w,
33.90.+h, 34.10.+x, 13.15.+g, 13.20.-v

 

1. Introduction

Since about 100 years lingers
the question of causality in nature over the physical society: Is there always
a reason if something happens in nature or may something happen simply by
chance as claimed at the radioactive decay?

No solutions reported in the literature can be found.

This is the first attempt to solve this problem establishing causality in nature
again as Einstein demanded this.

2. The problem

About 100 years ago several
physicists - including Albert Einstein - created the Quantum mechanic. But
nobody could explain why a single exited electron emit light just this time and
just in a specific direction. Calculations are only exact for a great number of
atoms. The term "probability" was introduced by dropping causality.
Einstein had a problem with it, because it is unthinkable that something
happens in nature without any reason.

Einstein believed an Electron has no own will to decide when to emit a light quanta and in

what direction. "The thing about causality plagues me very much, " Einstein wrote Max Born in 1920. [1]

Einstein was not ready abandoning continuity and causality in nature.

Niels Bohr was also against
Einstein’s opinion and countered to him, “ abandoning strict causality was the
only way open." Einstein lamented, "but if all this is true then it means the end of physics." [2]

In spite of all the progress in physics this problem has not been solved in the last 100 years. I think the
leap from: "We are unable to determine or to calculate when a single atom
will emit a photon and in what direction" to the conclusion: "This happens only by chance" is wrong.

Our lack of knowledge about a
possible reason for a phenomenon is never a proof that there is non. Instead of
saying it happens by chance we have to say "We don't know yet."

Ergo - we have to search for a reason:

According to the law an exited
electron must give up the surplus energy by emitting light and falling back in
the stable orbit of lower energy. But observations show it will often not
happen in time. Single atoms left alone in quasi empty space have often very
long durations of metastable states. They live without any influence from the
outside. The reason is unknown. This phenomenon is called
"metastable state".

If we would know the reason for
the existence of metastable states we would be able to determine why a single
electron emits light in a specific time and direction namely in the moment of
discontinuation of the reason for the metastable state. We would find the
reason while light is emitted just in this time and in this specific direction.

 

 

3. Observation of metastable state
and light emission

I observed metastable states in
the lab in a special spark chamber with inner light amplification. I observed
that the metastable state ended always, if the atom hit another one by the
thermal movement in the gas. (The number of collisions can be manipulated by
temperature and pressure of the gas.) It seems an exited electron waited of a
signal from another atom to emit light, but why?

The electrons of a gas has been
exited by a low energy alpha particle. The light of the electrons has been
amplified by an inner light amplification and the emitted light was measured by
an SEV (secondary electron amplifier). This signal triggered high voltage
sparks between both transparent walls of the chamber along the light and
ionization sources and a picture of the track of a single alpha particle could
be made. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show such pictures. The difference between them is a
time delay of 600 ns.

(While most physicist smash
particles with highest energy possible this experiment is on the other end of
this scale – to obtain a picture of a track from a single lowest energetic
particle possible. The problem is they are unable to penetrate an even very
thin wall of any counter. The source of alpha radiation must be put directly in
the spark chamber and a special trigger mechanism must be found. A detailed
description is in: http://www.wolfhartindustries.com/band1/kernphys.htm

This picture of Fig. 2 is taken
a "long time" after the alpha particle flew across the chamber. (600
ns are a long time for the atomic time scale and nothing should be found from a
passing particle 600 ns before.) Nevertheless there are some light emissions
indicating the track of the alpha particle even better. It seems some atoms
remember where the track of the alpha particle has been, which can only be
explained with the existence of metastabile states. There was a clear connection
between the duration of the metastable states and the frequency of occurrence
of collisions between the atoms in the chamber. The less the pressure in the
chamber, the less the collisions between the atoms, the longer the metastable
states exist.

The big question is: Why are the
electrons not able to emit light right away?

A possible answer: they have
an entirely free parameter, the direction of emitting light and they are not
able to decide by itself in what direction they should emit. They have not a free will, as Einstein said.

Only if the specific atom gets
hit by another one from a certain direction the electrons are free from making
a decision by itself and is able to emit the light with the now given
information from the outside. It seems nature is waiting of an information
which way to go, if there are a number of exact homogeneous ways to go in time
and space (for instance the direction in space).

4. Formulating a new law in physics

With this knowledge a new law in
physics can be postulated.

Metastable state (Old
definition): A metastable state defines a halted process which
according to our knowledge should start. (An electron remains longer in an
exited state as expected.)

New definition: Any physical process basically ready to start will be halted as long as more than
one of exact equal chose able parameters in time and space of the process exist.

As soon as any singular parameter distinguishes himself from all others the process will start with
these input (information) from the outside.

(Nature has no free will to
decide which way to go between total equal ways. Nature is waiting of
information. “God doesn’t play dice” as Einstein said.)

5. Test of this new hypothesis:

If this is right it should
be true not only in the quantum mechanic, but in the entire nature. And there
will be also practical applications, for instance a possible avoidance of
devastating tornados etc. (Einstein would be happy for these opportunity to
establish causality in nature again.)

5.1 Water:

 

Cocking clean water in a clean
container in labs lead sometimes to an metastable state, that overheated water
will not boil, because any point on the bottom has the same chance to create
the first steam bubble. There is no singularity. This is a free choose able
parameter for the first bubble. Chemist solve this problem simply by putting a
small stone on the bottom. Now exist a singularity - a point on the bottom,
what distinguishes itself from all other spots. An explosive boiling is
prevented. It seems also the more the normal boiling is delayed the more
explosive is the ending of the metastable state. The more extended the delay
the higher the difference in the temperature over the normal boiling point of
water, the more urgency exists for ending the metastable state and the smaller
differences in the parameters may trigger the delayed process. The greater the
delay, the more energy is suddenly released, the greater the water explosion,
but In the laser technique this effect is desirable.

On the other end very clean
water can also exist below the freezing temperature, what is also a metastable
state. The free parameter is the location, where the first crystal will occur.
Throwing in a small stone defines a certain value of the free parameter and the
crystallization begins and goes fast. Normally are there impurities which do
the same.

5.1.1. Tensile strength of
water:

A water column in a vertical
pipe has a certain tensile strength like rope, but only if the water is
extremely clean.(absolute clean water in the atomic scale is very expensive to
make.) Any contamination defines a breaking point along the column. A very
small phenomenon can trigger a big one.

Could a string be strengthened
only by making it very evenly - down to the size of atoms? A string with carbon
tubes may show it in the future.

5.1.2. Condensation:

If the humidity in clear air
gets over a certain point (dew point) it should condensate as water or fog, but
some times nothing happens. A high flying airplane starts the process of
condensation with particles in the exhaust and we see the well known stripes in
the sky. The free parameter of a
metastable state was the exact location of condensation, where the water
droplet shell be created. Every particle defines such a point. Every droplet
has a particle in it.

5.2 Inversion:

A similar effect exist in the
air called inversion: Cold air is moving over warm air and the warm air is not
rising and the cold air is not falling down respectively. But it should,
because cold air is denser, but any vertical wind is missing. The free
parameter in this metastable condition is again the location if there is not a
single mountain peak. (In a mountain area there was never a tornado, or does
somebody has data?) The warm air simply don't start upwards in a flat
landscape, because there is no location distinguishing itself from all others
and - like the case of the boiling water -
it ends up in a delayed, but violent event called tornado. The greater
the delay the greater the destructive power of a tornado.

Should this theory be right
there is a chance to avoid destructive tornados by punching vertical holes in
the lower warm air layer earlier in an inversion with it the warm air has a
chance to rise up or/and the cold air find a way to go down. On the end there
is the warm air over the cold one and no big tornados any more.

To pull the plug on an inversion
a vertical stream must be established - up or down. To start at certain points
strong vertical winds is a technical challenge, but not impossible.

High rising stacks, which are
open on the bottoms, on the right places could already help. A driven windmill
inside the stack could perhaps already trigger the stream. Later a steady
stream of air could also generate electricity as a byproduct. If it works there
are probably still great numbers of these stacks needed, to cover a great
country and it doesn’t look good.

Mobile units with bundles of the
greatest turbines available could also be tried to start an

vertical wind in the right
places.

If this itself generates
tornados they will be smaller in an early state of an inversion and not in
rural areas.

In Tornados the air goes
generally upwards, but it could also tried out the other direction. Several
strong helicopters stacked over each other though the entire warm air layer
could perhaps generate a stream of cold air down to the earths surface.

After a while this stream should
go on alone and enlarge itself. With
warm air going up and cold air going down
- and on the end - destructive tornados should be avoided.

 

5.3 Avalanche:

There may be more metastable
states in our daily live. For instance snow on a slope may under certain
condition run in a metastable state that it is getting that loose it should run
downwards, but nothing happens. Than a small outside event as a sound wave
(bang) may trigger the avalanche. A very small event is able to trigger a large
event, if there has been a metastable state involved.

 

5.4 Radioactive decay:

Radioactive decay seems to work
without any influence from the outside. It will be perhaps the center of the
debate, because we don't know yet the reason why a nucleus emits nucleons
or/and radiation just this time and just in a specific direction.

Some nucleus can be - as
electrons - in an exited state - and perhaps also in a metastable state. Then
there is the same problem: direction in space are not predetermined, but total
free - and a nucleus has no free will to choose a direction in space as long
every direction is equal. The micro-Brownian molecular movement (no plasma) has
no influence to the nucleus of an atom, but hard radiation, cosmic rays,
neutrinos and high energetic particle could react with the nucleus to determine
time and direction of the decay. According to this new law radioactive decay
needs outside help.

In an absolute empty space
without any radiation and without any particles like neutrinos radioactive
decay should stop. Experiments must decide about this theory.

(The
recently discovery of a certain dependency of the radioactive decay from the
distance from the sun seems to support this theory.)

6. Conclusions

Nature is unable to choose
between equal ways and is waiting of an information input. Nature has not a
free will or as Einstein said: "God doesn't play dice."

Causality is established
again.

 

7. Perspective

Metastable states will likely be
found everywhere if nature is waiting of the necessary information which way to
go, ergo not only in physics, but also in chemistry and perhaps even in
electronics, societies etc.

it seems that the ending of a metastable state is often violent and even more so
if the release of a metastable state is more delayed. What about the most
violent processes in the cosmos? Are some of them the result of a metastable
state? The most violent event was the big bang. Was before the big bang some
sort of metastable state? There must have been a priori some exact equal
parameters for a free choosing.

 

References

[1] W. Isaacson, ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-6473-0, page
324, 2007

[2] N.
Bohr, Schilpp, page 205-206,1920

[3] A. Z.
Devdariani und E. A. Chesnokov, Optics and
Spectroscopy, Vol. 99 page 858-865, 2005

Picture by Wolfhart Willimczik

Fig. 1 shows one of the first pictures of a track of an low energetic alpha particle
in my special spark chamber. The alpha particle moves from left to right.

Picture by Wolfhart Willimczik

Fig. 2 shows a track of the same sort of alpha
particles, but taken 600 ns (nanoseconds) after the occurrence of the alpha particle.

[Bill Angel]

Here is a little food for thought:

Spontaneous transitions were not explainable within the framework of the old quantum theory, that is a theory in which the atomic levels are quantized, but the electromagnetic field is not. In fact, using the machinery of quantum mechanics and computing the probability of spontaneous transitions from onestationary state to another, one finds that it is zero. In order to explain spontaneous transitions, quantum mechanics must be extended to a quantum field theory , wherein the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space. The quantum field theory of electrons and electromagnetic fields is known asquantum electrodynamics . In quantum electrodynamics (or QED), the electromagnetic field has a ground state , the QED vacuum , which can mix with the excited stationary states of the atom (for more information, see Ref. [2]). As a result of this interaction, the "stationary state" of the atom is no longer a true eigenstate of the combined system of the atom plus electromagnetic field. In particular, the electron transition from the excited state to the electronic ground state mixes with the transition of the electromagnetic field from the ground state to an excited state, a field state with one photon in it. Spontaneous emission in free space depends upon vacuum fluctuations to get started.[2] [3]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission#section_2

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Bill Angel,

 

Here is a little food for thought:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission#section_2

 

sorry, but this is not food, but poison.

I waist no time on this any more.

In wikipedia making soccer players etc antiscience.

I have it tested and can only say: Stay away from Wikipedia!

Wolfhart

Edited April 10, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Stay away from Wikipedia!

 

Wikipedia is just showing current state of physics.

Regardless if it's correct one or not.

You can read it, analyze formulas, recreate experiments, and make your own conclusions and different interpretations if you feel such need.

[Klaynos]

What falsifiable, numerical predictions does your idea produce? Can you mathematically show where these predictions come from?

[Bill Angel]

Bill Angel,

 

 

sorry, but this is not food, but poison.

I waist no time on this any more.

In wikipedia making soccer players etc antiscience.

I have it tested and can only say: Stay away from Wikipedia!

Wolfhart

The famous physicist Richard Feynman also made some videos explaining Quantum Electrodynamics. Most physicists believe that HE knew what he was talking about.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Bill Angel

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

What falsifiable, numerical predictions does your idea produce? Can you mathematically show where these predictions come from?

1. non

2. no

 

I made only experiments shoing that my theory is right.

But you are free to prove otherwise.

[swansont]

sorry, but this is not food, but poison.

I waist no time on this any more.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This attitude is not going to fly.

 

The rules demand that you not simply preach. Posting in speculations carries with it the burden of proof: data or a testable model

 

You will be afforded an opportunity to comply with the rules before this is locked

 

 

As an aside: metastable states aren't understood. Really? Also: Einstein is not the final word on anything. Things are not true simply because he said so. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

[pwagen]

1. non

2. no

 

I made only experiments shoing that my theory is right.

But you are free to prove otherwise.

But you did suggest experiments in section 5.2. I have no idea if that has anything to do with your theory (and if it doesn't, why include it?), but I assume it does. In what way would doing what you suggest in that section support your ideas?

 

Reading through it, you make a lot of claims without backing any of it up with anything other than "I observed this, ergo it's true". Also, it seems your third source isn't referenced anywhere in your text?

[Klaynos]

1. non

2. no

 

I made only experiments shoing that my theory is right.

But you are free to prove otherwise.

But these are the foundations upon which modern theories sit.

 

How can you possibly claim the experiments show the idea correct without an accurate way to compare the two?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

But these are the foundations upon which modern theories sit.

 

How can you possibly claim the experiments show the idea correct without an accurate way to compare the two?

 

 

But you did suggest experiments in section 5.2. I have no idea if that has anything to do with your theory (and if it doesn't, why include it?), but I assume it does. In what way would doing what you suggest in that section support your ideas?

 

Reading through it, you make a lot of claims without backing any of it up with anything other than "I observed this, ergo it's true". Also, it seems your third source isn't referenced anywhere in your text?

 

I am happy that I got such much text in English together.

 

 

I found a clear correlation between the length (duration)

of the metastable states and the number of hits in the gas; meaning the hits

between atoms shorten the duration of the metastable states. I measured the

length of the metastable states with a delay of the spark and counting the

numbers of points in the trace etc...

 

I changed the number of hits of the gas atoms by changing

the pressure and temperature, but this is not all…

 

 

The data are many pages and not easy understandable. How

many physicist are there?

 

 

I don’t know that this will “fly” in this forum, because a

man with a pistol gave me already a warning, only because I warned before

Wikipedia, which I tested and found out it is a source of false scientific

statements made by anonymous people with or without any education.

 

 

This man with the pistol has also something against

Einstein, what shows that he is not a physicist…

 

 

I say listen better to people like Einstein. It takes a

long time – sometimes 50 or even 100 years - to see he was right.

 

 

Everybody can easily prove me wrong by showing only 1 sample of metastable state without the presence of a

free parameter. Then it can go in the trash.

(I explained what I understand under "free parameter".)

Edited April 10, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[swansont]

 

I found a clear correlation between the length (duration)

of the metastable states and the number of hits in the gas; meaning the hits

between atoms shorten the duration of the metastable states. I measured the

length of the metastable states with a delay of the spark and counting the

numbers of points in the trace etc...

 

Did you rule out the possibility that an interaction induced the transition?

 

 

 

I don’t know that this will “fly” in this forum, because a

man with a pistol gave me already a warning, only because I warned before

Wikipedia, which I tested and found out it is a source of false scientific

statements made by anonymous people with or without any education.

 

Wikipedia has its shortcomings, but that's to be found in the details. Ignoring the existence of QED because there's an article on it is not a reasonable position to take.

 

 

 

This man with the pistol has also something against

Einstein, what shows that he is not a physicist…

 

Boy did you read that one wrong. This is a science site. Science isn't generally accepted until it has been experimentally confirmed. Quotes from Einstein, in and of themselves, do not constitute experimental confirmation (or even hypotheses, in many cases). Neither does that observation constitute having something against Einstein.

 

My diplomas say physics, and so does my job description paperwork.

 

 

 

I say listen better to people like Einstein. It takes a

long time – sometimes 50 or even 100 years - to see he was right.

 

He was, however, wrong in some very notable cases.

 

Everybody can easily prove me wrong by showing only 1 sample of metastable state without the presence of a

free parameter. Then it can go in the trash.

 

What do you mean by free parameter? What is the free parameter for the 2S_1/2 state in Hydrogen?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

But you did suggest experiments in section 5.2. I have no idea if that has anything to do with your theory (and if it doesn't, why include it?), but I assume it does. In what way would doing what you suggest in that section support your ideas?

 

Reading through it, you make a lot of claims without backing any of it up with anything other than "I observed this, ergo it's true". Also, it seems your third source isn't referenced anywhere in your text?

I found some material in my garage and scanned it for you, but I can't find any button for the upload. In "help" is nothing. I waisted so much time...It is frustrating.

I can't believe that I have to post it first on the internet.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I found some material in my garage and scanned it for you, but I can't find any button for the upload. In "help" is nothing. I waisted so much time...It is frustrating.

I can't believe that I have to post it first on the internet.

 

Attach files option is appearing when you're using Full Reply Editor, not quick one.

Press More Reply Options first.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

But you did suggest experiments in section 5.2. I have no idea if that has anything to do with your theory (and if it doesn't, why include it?), but I assume it does. In what way would doing what you suggest in that section support your ideas?

 

Reading through it, you make a lot of claims without backing any of it up with anything other than "I observed this, ergo it's true". Also, it seems your third source isn't referenced anywhere in your text?

This picture shows the track from a single alpha particle without delay of the spark.

I can proudly say that I was the first successful physicist to obtain such a picture.

More tomorrow.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

trace1.JPG

This picture shows the track from a single alpha particle without delay of the spark.

I can proudly say that I was the first successful physicist to obtain such a picture.

More tomorrow.

 

 

Good Stuff WOLFHART. ! Well done !

 

Keep going !

.

Mike

 

 

 

BeWare ! Watch out for " the man with the pistol "

. He shoots cool, mean and straight.

 

. And I should Know , I have wounds to prove it !

Edited April 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

 

 

trace1.JPG

This picture shows the track from a single alpha particle without delay of the spark.

I can proudly say that I was the first successful physicist to obtain such a picture.More tomorrow.

You'd need to show that any correlation was due to what you claim to do that you'd need to make accurate falsifiable predictions, that requires maths and numbers.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

You'd need to show that any correlation was due to what you claim to do that you'd need to make accurate falsifiable predictions, that requires maths and numbers.

 

Be patient, we go slowly step for step that everybody know what is going on.

Firstly there is a new spark chamber for low energy particles, that low that they are unable to penetrate any thin wall called “selbststeuernde Gasentladungsspurenkammer mit innerer Lichtverstärkung” (I don’t know the translation – perhaps: “self adjusting spark chamber with inner light amplification” )

Pic: the spark chamber

The inner parts of the windows are made electrically conductive.

 

 

A Wilson fog chamber can only show many traces from alpha particles simultaneously – never a single one.

This chamber must be triggered by outside sensors. Then the chamber is ready by a fast expansion of water vapor, what runs in a metastable state…

My spark chamber is always ready. That means every time a single particle is flying though the chamber a picture from the trace can be obtained automatically. Traces from strong ionizing alpha particles and cosmic particles as well.

Pic: This is the setup

 

An extremely weak radioactive Po/Be material is in the chamber releasing one single particle any few seconds. This particle generates such a small lightning or flash light that even the most sensitive SEV (Sekundärelektronenvervielfacher – photo multiplier or electron multiplier tube EMT…) can’t see it. That means the point in time to release the high voltage spark to see the trace is missing. The trick to overcome this problem is a “inner light amplification”. Besides a few photons generates an alpha particle a lot of free electrons. These electrons get now (by supplying a certain voltage between the two windows) accelerated in the electrical field and excite other electrons in other atoms, which generate new photons. Under the right conditions these light can be seen by the SEV or EMT,

Which will trigger the high voltage spark to see the trace.

 

Pic; You see how the guilty person did it

 

Most physicists – actually all – said it will never work, because the free electrons are all long sucked up by the constant electrical field if the spark is released and nothing can be seen…

Why do you thing it works against all odds?

And why could I obtain such well defined traces like these one?

Pic: traces from single alpha particles

Edited April 11, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[arc]

There is nothing as cool as an old picture showing a young man doing something that everybody told him couldn't be done. The Wright brothers would be proud.

 

Keep going wolfhart, DAMN THE TORPEDOES FULL SPEED AHEAD!

[Klaynos]

There is a big difference between showing pictures/data and showing they support your claim.

 

Without numerical predictions you cannot do the second part.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

There is a big difference between showing pictures/data and showing they support your claim.

 

Without numerical predictions you cannot do the second part.

Nice to see that you are still interested. If somebody had an answer of my last questions we would be already on the way. It seems I have to give the answer by myself.

The critics has been right that after only few ns (nanoseconds) the chamber is emptied from free electrons by an electrical field – for instance of 300V/cm.

If there are microseconds after the alpha particle new free electrons must have been generated somehow. Only metastable states can do it – for instance in the following way:

If there are electrons from a gas atom in a metastable state the emitting of the photon is delayed. Some of these delayed photons will hit other gas atoms near by and free again electrons under the right condition. Each of these new electrons generate a bright point if the high voltage spike is released – (the lightning strikes).

One can actually count them – what I did.

 

Pic: page 44 shows the greater the delay the fewer free electrons are available and the fewer light points are there for the trace.

There are less light points as longer the delay is (time between the alpha particle and voltage spike), what is logical. It is firstly the same function as for the radioactive decay, but at longer delays (more than 5us) there are almost the same numbers. This is remarkable. It is expected that this curve gets to zero, but it stays in the same level and runs almost parallel to the abscissa. How is this possible?

Pic: these measurements on page 45 show the connection between N - the numbers of light points per cm trace and T - the time delay of the high voltage spike in microseconds.

 

Now we coming to the point:

I could make pictures from traces even after a longer delay. This is proof that it is only possible by metastable states, as described above. (Other ideas?)

In the “modern physic” there is no connection between processes within an atom and the thermal movement of them by low temperature – or is there? This is the next question.

After some further research and testing I found only one solution for this phenomenon:

Only a hit between atoms in my spark chamber will end a metastable state.

But why?

Now we are that close to the end of this way that you may go the last steps alone if you have read my article.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Now is established there are metastable states.
What will end them?
What happens during these metastable states: nothing, except that the gas atoms moving around and hit each other. Measurements show the more hits the shorter the metastable state.
(There are gently hits only, because the temperature is low.)
Such a collision between atoms is the main suspect – actually the only suspect ending a metastable state, if at least one of the atoms have an electron in an exited state.

Some suggest the excited electron needs more energy to get out of the metastable state. But why would the electron need more energy in a state with already too much energy to get out of it? (There is no answer – or do you have one? Please post it)
In addition the right solution must be applicable to all metastable states.
Believing on causality in nature (not in humans) everything – ergo also the exited electron must follow strict physical laws. In other words it can’t go out of it’s metastable state simply by “chance”. There must be a reason.
The solution needs a fundamental new idea. It is well known that any physical process can’t go on if there is an obstacle. (You can’ even go on reading this, if your device lost its electrical power etc.)
But can nature go on if there are different, but exact equivalent ways?
Obviously not, because there would be a conscious decision necessary to choose one.
Since an electron can’t think it has simply to wait until there are no more several equivalent ways in front of it. It waits practical of something, what we call “information”.

The excited electron wants to emit a photon, but – as long the atom is alone – any direction in space is exact equal (I call it free parameter). It waits until one direction is different. This happens for instance if another atom hits this atom with the excited electron, because it must come from one specific direction. It can never com from all direction simultaneously. Now the electron has not to make any decision by itself anymore and send a photon on its way.

We humans react sometimes in a similar way. On a closed door we have to stop. If we standing before several equal open doors (without numbers etc) we stop also, because we don’t know which door to choose. But we can think to solve this problem – nature not. Or somebody else walks in and goes to a specific door - we simply follow him etc.
Your computer is able to print any letter, but you have to show him/it which one.
(In the future, if he prints out his own words, he thinks.)
Now – start thinking about these new law in physics.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You did it Wolfhart. You Published. Its out there now.

 

May I be the first to Congratulate you!

 

Mike

Edited April 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

You did it Wolfhart. You Published. Its out there now.

 

May I be the first to Congratulate you!

 

Mike

Thank you for the flowers.

It seems you are the first one understanding my thought. Therefore, congratulation to you!

 

 

- If the vodka martini drinking man with the pistol will allow it. -

[swansont]

Now is established there are metastable states.

What will end them?

What happens during these metastable states: nothing, except that the gas atoms moving around and hit each other. Measurements show the more hits the shorter the metastable state.

(There are gently hits only, because the temperature is low.)

Such a collision between atoms is the main suspect – actually the only suspect ending a metastable state, if at least one of the atoms have an electron in an exited state.

Some suggest the excited electron needs more energy to get out of the metastable state. But why would the electron need more energy in a state with already too much energy to get out of it? (There is no answer – or do you have one? Please post it)

 

Yes, there is an answer. It is incredibly presumptuous to claim there is no answer. You can only claim that you have no answer.

 

Atomic metastable states happen because energy is no the only conserved quantity involved in a transition. Systems "want" to be in the lowest energy state, but electrons in atoms get there by undergoing transitions that typically involve the electromagnetic interaction — the release of a photon. Photons have 1 unit of angular momentum, and angular momentum is a conserved quantity — it has to come from the atom.

 

So lets say we have an atom whose ground state is an S state — zero angular momentum — and the next lowest energy state is also an S state. If the atom is in that excited state, there is no way for it to release a photon, because there is no angular momentum the atom can lose. That would be a metastable state. The reason that adding energy can allow it to decay to the ground state is that at higher energy levels, it's possible that there will be a P state below it, which has one unit of angular momentum. That transition is allowed.

 

Collisions between atoms can cause electron transitions and spin exchanges, even at low energy, which allow the transitions to occur.

 

In addition the right solution must be applicable to all metastable states.

 

In a general sense, yes. Metastable states occur because there is no immediate channel for which a spontaneous decay is possible. Often in QM a spontaneous decay of a metastable state will involve second-order interactions, i.e. coupling via an intermediate state. Chemically this is a similar concept to an activation potential or a catalyst.

 

Believing on causality in nature (not in humans) everything – ergo also the exited electron must follow strict physical laws. In other words it can’t go out of it’s metastable state simply by “chance”. There must be a reason.

The solution needs a fundamental new idea.

 

No, really, the existing ideas are sufficient.

 

The excited electron wants to emit a photon, but – as long the atom is alone – any direction in space is exact equal (I call it free parameter). It waits until one direction is different. This happens for instance if another atom hits this atom with the excited electron, because it must come from one specific direction. It can never com from all direction simultaneously. Now the electron has not to make any decision by itself anymore and send a photon on its way.

 

There's some truth to this, in a crude sense. Space is isotropic, so there's a symmetry, and there will be no preferred direction. But that's true for normal states as well, that readily decay — not just for metastable states. And we see that decays happen with symmetric distributions.

 

 

Now – start thinking about these new law in physics.

 

No new laws necessary. Not from anything you've brought up, at least.

 

- If the vodka martini drinking man with the pistol will allow it. -

 

"Allow" is not the issue. Challenge? Yes, because it's based on an incorrect premise.