Don’t be so negative about the electron

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Pivot on October 6th, 2017, 3:03 am 

The humble electron is arguably the most important sub-atomic particle to mankind, and yet we attach so much negativity to it. The attached article, ‘Energy to Matter’,
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0ZxZwERJu2OY2QyeV8wRlF0ams
challenges much of what you believe you know about the electron. Hopefully you will be less negatively inclined to the little critter after reading this 9 page article. Enjoy the read!!
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Watson on October 6th, 2017, 9:29 am 

Saying it is an article is a bit miss leading. Might be more appropriate in personal theories.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Sticky Wickit

Postby Faradave on October 7th, 2017, 12:23 pm 

Handsome document! (albeit personal theory)

We are left to wonder about "core energy" as a tacky plasma-like fluid. That is not a simplification as "fluid" implies particles of its own, with cohesive forces of their own. These provoke, rather than answer questions.

The physical size of this core droplet will also be problematic in that it imposes real constraints (i.e. universal speed limit c, tangentially) on the spin permitted of such an object. This is why an electron is currently considered a point particle (located within a wavepacket of uncertainty).

"Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket is in fact a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. … The 'size' of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero."
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Pivot on October 8th, 2017, 3:53 am 

Hi FaraDave

The physical scale of the electron is very small, but it is far from the smallest of particles. Although mathematically it can be represented by a probability and allocated a wave-package of non-zero probability and be called a point charge by those in plasma physics, in the real world the electron exists and has demonstrable properties relied upon by many technologies that are far from probabilistic (e.g. photo-electric experiments and theory, Photo copiers, CRTs, electron microscopes etc.).

The E2M model for the electron is a small concentration of energy that is rapidly spinning (everywhere in the Universe energy seems always associated with rotational spin). Associated with that spin is escaping energy and the most likely place for any such leakage is at the equatorial area. E2M postulates that the escaping energy is what we perceive as magnetic energy. That is the model pure and simple.

The article is about how such a simple model can explain observable phenomena. It claims to provide feasible explanations for :
1. Why magnetism (considered by conventional science to be a separate force) mysteriously appears whenever an electron moves within a conductor wire.
2. How electrons are induced to move as an electric current when a wire conductor is moved through a magnetic field.
3. Why a wire carrying a current creates a magnetic field around the wire and why the associated flux rotates in a particular direction dependent upon the current’s direction.
4. Magnetic attraction and repulsion in a variety of situations.
5. Electrostatic electricity.
6. The formation of lightning.

That isn’t a bad initial log of claims for such a simple model.

Nobody knows what energy is or what it looks like. E2M suggested that energy, in its less than concentrated form, may have a viscous tacky (sticky?) nature to explain why it didn't just fly off at the equatorial regions of the core energy and keep going. It certainly was not intended to open a war of word semantics or to suggest structure (fluid particles?) within energy. Most likely there are other reasons, which may become apparent further down the track, to explain why the leaked the energy stays to form the magnesphere.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby socrat44 on October 9th, 2017, 5:10 am 

Pivot » October 6th, 2017, 3:03 am wrote:The humble electron is arguably the most important sub-atomic particle to mankind,
and yet we attach so much negativity to it. The attached article, ‘Energy to Matter’,
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0ZxZwERJu2OY2QyeV8wRlF0ams
challenges much of what you believe you know about the electron.
Hopefully you will be less negatively inclined to the little critter after reading
this 9 page article. Enjoy the read!!


We don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas
E=h*f and e^2=ah*c ,
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 ,
E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞

And an electron obeys five Laws :
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) Dirac - Fermi statistic
e) Maxwell - Lorentz EM theory.

We don't know: what are interactions between these formulas and laws.
As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is''
================================.
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Pivot on October 9th, 2017, 6:11 am 

Hi Socrat

As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is''

E2M is an attempt to make a hypothetical model as to what an electron is, and to see how well it lines up with what it does. If the model does not match the observable, measurable known about the electron, the model needs modification or scrapping.

We don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas

Assuming all the maths formulas are correct (I take it that you are not challenging their correctness), like all maths it depends which variables you wish to remove, and do so by substituting expressions from related formula. Then there are the units that you are working with, the constraints you wish to apply, and factors related to the discipline you are working on : electrostatics, electricity, magnetism, plasma physics, relativity – many of which are not directly related. Put this all together it is surprising that you can find only 6 formulae.

What did you think about the explanation of E2M of the observable behaviour of magnetism and electricity?
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby socrat44 on October 9th, 2017, 10:51 am 

Pivot » October 9th, 2017, 6:11 am wrote:
We don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas


Assuming all the maths formulas are correct
(I take it that you are not challenging their correctness),
like all maths it depends which variables you wish to remove,
and do so by substituting expressions from related formula.
Then there are the units that you are working with, the constraints you wish to apply,
and factors related to the discipline you are working on :
electrostatics, electricity, magnetism, plasma physics, relativity –
many of which are not directly related.
Put this all together it is surprising that you can find only 6 formulas.


And assuming all these maths formulas and laws are correct
and they depend only on the discipline physicists are working on
(electrostatics, electricity, magnetism, plasma physics, relativity,
laser physics, superconductivity . . . etc) then it is possible that
an electron can have more than only six formulas and five laws.

As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is''
================================.
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Much Ado About Nothing

Postby Faradave on October 9th, 2017, 1:53 pm 

Pivot wrote:The physical scale of the electron is very small, but it is far from the smallest of particles … called a point charge by those in plasma physics. … The E2M model for the electron is a small concentration of energy that is rapidly spinning…

Neutrinos are less massive than electrons, but all the fundamental particles are necessarily considered to be sizeless points. The two main reasons for this are electric force and universal speed limit c.

As electric field strength follows the inverse square law, it increases with proximity. If an electron is composed of anything (especially a fluid), negative charge would immediately disperse it by repulsive forces at any feasible diameter. The simplest solution is to posit the electron as merely a location in a field, with nothing there to disperse.

"At the present stage of knowledge, the electron is considered to be a particle with no spatial extension, and the same is true of the other leptons as well as the quarks."

"The electric field associated with a classical point charge increases to infinity as the distance from the point charge decreases towards zero…"

Electron spin, as derived from measurable angular momentum, would violate speed limit c, tangentially at the equator of any feasible radius. This is prohibited for mass, energy and information.

"The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity."

The size of particle fields of course, is a different story, having indefinite extent.

"The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space…"

Pivot wrote:…rapidly spinning (everywhere in the Universe energy seems always associated with rotational spin).

Agreed! As with a spinning top, this is classically, nature's way to manifest energy, while translationally at rest. However, the quantum "spin½" attributable to fermions (e.g. an electron) is widely acknowledged to be different, specifically inexplicable as spin about any spatial axis.

...spin is an intrinsic property of a particle, unrelated to any sort of motion in space.

Thus, in my own personal theory, I resort to "chronaxial spin" (spin about a temporal axis), to get the job done. This nicely accommodates numerous other aspects, currently designated as "quantum weirdness".

Pivot wrote:The article is about how such a simple model can explain observable phenomena. … That isn’t a bad initial log of claims for such a simple model.

Good. I admire your efforts and the quality of your presentation. I'm sure you learned a great deal of electromagnetism along the way.

Pivot wrote:Nobody knows what energy is or what it looks like.

Some of us think we do. The question becomes, how well such models agree with observation, provide additional explanatory power and if there is some aspect falsifiable by experiment.

Pivot wrote:energy …may have a viscous tacky (sticky?) nature to explain why it didn't just fly off at the equatorial regions

OK but viscosity has certain requirements. It implies fluid structure, substructure and attractive relations within that structure. What is this energy substance made of? To define objects (e.g. particles) in terms of yet smaller objects is ultimately self-defeating, until you get down to first principles. Those exhibit the simplest possible aspects of existence, identifiable by possessing the fewest possible properties.

The energy substance your model requires is to me, more complicated than just saying the EM field exits as an object unto itself (though, I personally resolve to first principles).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Pivot on October 10th, 2017, 5:25 am 

Electrons are attributed with holding a negative charge. Classical Physics portray an electron as a negatively charged particle. Atomic/Plasma physics models represents it as a mass-less point charge whose position is represented by a probability function. E2M represents it as concentrated core energy with intrinsic spin plus spin-off energy (i.e. its magnesphere). No +ve and –ve charges (hence the title of this thread “Don’t be so negative about the electron”), no gravitons and no special forces. ‘Energy and spin alone are all there is’ is the E2M punchline.

The negative charge characteristic attributed to the electron would seem a historic artifact of physics theory development over the past couple of hundred years. It was, and continues to be, very convenient to attribute electric charge to particles to explain attraction and repulsion forces, and to measure such forces between particles (such as electrons and nuclei) in terms of voltage. And linking mass to energy via ’c‘ is brilliant. However, the convenient analogue of an electron being a negatively charged particle comes unstuck when considering an electron moving as electricity, in electrostatics (e.g. lightning), and in atomic/plasma physics where a host of adjustments (e.g. half-spin, strange ‘spdf’ orbitals etc.) have to be made to make the maths work.

E2M is an early maths-free (or more accurately, maths-to-follow) exploration of the ‘energy and spin alone are all there is‘ concept, with part 1 concentrating on electromagnetism. So finding observational physical facts (i.e. evidence based) that E2M cannot adequately explain is probably a better way to debunk E2M than finding where it contradicts a particular maths model (theoretically based) that is full of assumptions and constraints.

I spent many years computer modelling ore reserves geostatistically from borehole and underground ore sampling to plan and guide mining operations. However we never knew how good or bad our mathematical model was until the ore was mined. We could vary and tweak the model as much as we liked, but our model was purely indicative and only sometimes close to accurate. A mathematical model is just that : a series of equations that best fit a series of observations that can be used, at your own risk, to make predictions. So I am not against mathematical models (I am a true believer), but am most suspicious about the assumptions, the constraints and how people interpret and use them.

So forgive me if I am skeptical of the statement “
all the fundamental particles are necessarily considered to be sizeless points
” and "
The electric field associated with a classical point charge increases to infinity as the distance from the point charge decreases towards zero…
". While a reasonable generalization mathematically, a size-less point is nothing. What is really meant is that the charge is considered for mathematical purposes to exist at a point. And a mathematical asymptote indicating an electric field increasing to infinity will never happen (except in theory) or some other process will take over (e.g. the approaching point charges will merge).

And I think your quote "
The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space…
" needs finishing along the lines ‘unless combined or modified by other fields and/or absorbed by some other energy source’, if for no other reason than for the laws relating to the conservation of energy.

As for your “Some of us think we do” know what energy looks like comment, please send me a photo (no photo bombing please). But on the more serious side, I fully agree that “
the question becomes, how well such models agree with observation, provide additional explanatory power and if there is some aspect falsifiable by experiment
” I would also add an over-rider that it should also pass the reality check, which, for concepts such as spacetime, I believe is a big ask.

When referring to viscosity I mean only to describe that it has a stretchy spreadable nature analogous to that of a fluid. It is purely an analogy to describe behavior (i.e. spreading and dilution without separation), rather than imply a lower-level structure. Energy is definitely considered the baseline substance (does the word substance also imply structure?) from which everything else is built.

Regarding your statement “
The energy substance your model is to me, more complicated than just saying the EM field exits as an object unto itself
” EM fields are considered by E2M to escape from and be recovered by concentrated energy. EM fields cannot readily be disassociated or disconnected from their core energy. To say it is ‘an object unto itself’ would be inappropriate, although being a child of the concentrated core energy object (i.e. has some of the parent’s properties plus some of its own related to its more fluid-like properties) would be acceptable if it would clarify things.

In conclusion, Kurt T. Bachmann (BSC) states “spin is an essential property influencing the ordering of electrons and nuclei in atoms and molecules, giving it great physical significance in chemistry and solid-state physics. Spin is likewise an essential consideration in all interactions among subatomic particles, whether in high-energy particle beams, low-temperature fluids or the tenuous flow of particles from the sun known as the solar wind. Indeed, many if not most physical processes, ranging from the smallest nuclear scales to the largest astrophysical distances, depend greatly on interactions of subatomic particles and the spins of those particles.” E2M is just probing interactions of subatomic particles and the spins of those particles from an energy perspective.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Fluid Dynamics

Postby Faradave on October 10th, 2017, 2:41 pm 

For the record, I rarely underline for emphasis. In my posts, it's usually a supporting reference link.

Pivot wrote:Atomic/Plasma physics models represents it as a mass-less point charge.

The standard model ascribes mass (a.k.a. "rest mass") to all fermions. This is often given in energy units, as per E = mc². For example, an electron has mass ≈ 511 keV.

Pivot wrote:E2M represents it as concentrated core energy with intrinsic spin plus spin-off energy (i.e. its magnesphere). Energy and spin alone are all there is’ is the E2M punchline.

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? (Don't feel bad. No one knows, except to say "not extrinsic" or "not explicit".)

Your "spin" appears to be classical, about a spatial axis. The "spin½" of a fermion is not at all like that, after being extensively tested. For example, it's magnitude is the same in every direction tested, though sign(±) varies probabilistically.

Pivot wrote:…a host of adjustments (e.g. half-spin, strange ‘spdf’ orbitals etc.) have to be made to make the maths work
.
Agreed! "Spin½" is an oxymoron as a quantum of anything, including spin, is defined as indivisible. In my personal view, the problem lies in the way Planck's constant is reduced.

"In applications where it is natural to use the angular frequency (i.e. …in terms of radians per second…) it is often useful to absorb a factor of 2 pi into the Planck constant…called the reduced Planck constant…equal to the Planck constant divided by 2 pi, and is denoted ħ (pronounced 'h-bar')"

If spin is chronaxial (about time) then reduction by 2 pi radians is not sufficient. Chronaxial spin occurs in a 3-plane (i.e. is solid-angular), requiring reduction by 4 pi steradians. Then it all works out fine. No "half quanta" of spin to deal with.

Pivot wrote:‘energy and spin alone are all there is‘

I'm all for reduction to first principles. My problem with your model is in selecting energy as an object* rather than a behavior.
*And a fairly complex object at that.

I attribute energy to spin behavior. That leaves selection of a fundamental object to do the spinning. For my theory, that's a tiny wormhole (a "pinhole"). It's hard to get simpler than a hole. In this case, a hole in the 4D continuum, bypassing space and time.

Pivot wrote:a mathematical asymptote indicating an electric field increasing to infinity will never happen

Your skepticism is well taken. Rather than wrestle with infinity, let's restate: At any diameter attributable to an electron, the electric repulsion would be sufficiently strong to disperse any material with intrinsic electric charge. This is one reason the Standard Model requires a point particle.

This doesn't seem to matter to E2M, as you see charge as resulting from the material’s behavior rather than being inherent to the material itself. My theory is similar, in that respect, but relies on pinhole spin rather than a spinning fluid-like material.

Pivot wrote:your quote "The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space…" needs finishing along the lines ‘unless combined or modified by other fields

Gravity holds galactic clusters together across billions of light-years. Similarly, for recently detected gravitational waves. EM is on the order of 1040 stronger than gravity! It's reach must be at least as far.

Some like to think of the universe as electrically neutral. I prefer to think of it as equally positive and negative. The difference is that dark matter, such as a neutrino, is fundamentally neutral, while a neutron is an equally positive and negative composite of quarks.

Pivot wrote:your "Some of us think we do" know what energy looks like comment, please send me a photo

I think I already did above. Energy in my model ("Phyxed") is specifically the effective chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole. More spin is greater mass-energy.

Pivot wrote:concepts such as spacetime, I believe is a big ask.

I share a concern here, preferring Euclidean interval-time coordinates to the conventional non-Euclidean spacetime of Minkowski. Suffice it to say, we have 4 well-recognized, independent means of distinguishing two events relative to each other (thus, 4 coordinate specifiers).

Pivot wrote:viscosity… an analogy to describe behavior…Energy is definitely considered the baseline substance (does the word substance also imply structure?) from which everything else is built.

Yes, it does. How else can we distinguish it from an empty region?

I find it helpful to define:
system – that specified by more than one coordinate location.
object – any movable system.

These are nearly interchangeable, since motion is relative. It means that if motion is detectable, there are at least two objects, effectively measuring each other (i.e. interaction is always mutual, or Newton’s 3rd Law).

Pivot wrote:EM fields are considered by E2M to escape from and be recovered by concentrated energy.

Like I said, that's a complicated fluid object, begging for deeper explanation.

Pivot wrote:E2M is just probing interactions of subatomic particles and the spins of those particles from an energy perspective.

Have fun!
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Don’t be so negative about the electron

Postby Pivot on October 12th, 2017, 2:54 am 

At any diameter attributable to an electron, the electric repulsion would be sufficiently strong to disperse any material with intrinsic electric charge.


Electric charge is a very convenient way to explain attraction and repulsion forces in electrostatics, and to measure such forces between particles (such as electrons and nuclei) in terms of voltage. For E2M ‘energy and spin alone are all there is‘. Thus for electrons the -ve charge is considered to be notational only, meaning that there is no ’intrinsic electric charge’ to be dispersed. The lines of flux would however have very steep gradients.

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? .. Your "spin" appears to be classical, about a spatial axis.

I'm all for reduction to first principles. My problem with your model is in selecting energy as an object* rather than a behavior.


I would be happy with classical spin or rotation around an axis. With that in mind, below is the best behavioural description I can provide of the E2M model of an electron is …
The structure of a concentrated energy source, such as the electron, is postulated to consist of a central core of energy that acts like a solid (not implying that it is a solid) rotating around a spatial axis (analogous to a spinning ball bearing or the Earth’s central core). When the tangential speed in the core’s equatorial plane gets close to the speed of light, the surface energy of the sphere behaves fluid-like, streaming out from around the equatorial plane. The escaped energy acts like a stretchy viscous fluid (not implying it is a fluid), as it spirals to form the magnesphere rather than breaking free from the core energy.

I think that the above description of the electron is as behavioral as I can get. It is just energy with no composition or underlying structure implied but with behaviors similar to those observed for both solids and fluids. Diagrammatically the model for a concentrated energy source is very simple, with less than simple behaviors in terms of magnetic fields and angular momentum. It certainly does not require belief in hyperspace or worm holes.

More spin is greater mass-energy


We are in agreement on more spin, which for E2M means more angular momentum and a larger (possibly stronger) magnesphere. Greater mass-energy is increased energy and/or angular momentum.

The difference is that dark matter, such as a neutrino, is fundamentally neutral, while a neutron is an equally positive and negative composite of quarks.


No argument here. E2M considers the neutrino to be an energy source whose tangential speed in insufficient to induce energy escape at its core’s equatorial plane. Thus it has no magesphere and thus no magnetic fields associated with it that could be considered an electrostatic charge. And agreed about the neutron except that is neutral in terms of balanced magnetic fields rather than positive and negative charge.

To date we have been bantering around definitions and terminology. What could be most useful from hereon would be critiques of the explanations E2M claims for the model, namely :

1. Why magnetism (considered by conventional science to be a separate force) mysteriously appears whenever an electron moves within a conductor wire.
2. How electrons are induced to move as an electric current when a wire conductor is moved through a magnetic field.
3. Why a wire carrying a current creates a magnetic field around the wire and why the associated flux rotates in a particular direction dependent upon the current’s direction.
4. Magnetic attraction and repulsion in a variety of situations.
5. Electrostatic electricity.
6. The formation of lightning.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests