andrewgray Posted September 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2010 (edited) Watcher, A couple of things. First, the electron velocity is the normal velocity, not a phase velocity (which is associated with waves). The electron is not a wave. Here is a simple example. If an electron were pulsating at 1 Hz, and its pulsation length were 1 meter, it would definitely be moving with . No "phase velocity complications" in this theory. Just normal particle velocities in the normal sense. No QM "uincertainty principle", either. The electron may "turn OFF" and be almost undetectable, but its position is still well defined. So perhaps we will grant Heisenberg and his QM cronies a "nice-try" and a "we-understand-why-you-did-it,-but-it's-wrong" award. And yes, the electron "does not jump from one orbit to another" to generate radiation (no "quantum jumps"). Atomic radiation is generated by disturbing the orbits of electrons with resonant orbital frequencies. This is proven by the fact that hydrogen does not absorb UV light with frequencies just higher than the Lyman (1,∞) line. According to QM and Schrödinger, hydrogen should readily absorb all frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line because "energy levels become continuous there". But it does not. This is because the light absorptions are not from Schrodinger-style quantum jumps, but are resonant absorptions of resonant frequencies in the style of this new theory. Here is another example where this new theory is correct and QM is wrong. The frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line are simply not resonant orbital frequencies, simple as that. Quote 1. am i correct to assume that the electron's pulse is the the same spherical field imagine by lorentz and einstein and that the only difference is that instead of a spherical continuous field , it pulses? to me this is a welcome development Yes, and yay! Quote 2. does this pulse of spherical wave obey's huygens principle of wave fronts? since you have associated electron's the pulse wave to de broglie wave, this is might be a inevitable conclusion since de brgolie waves is associated with standing waves Yes, the pulses follows Huygen's principle within each pulse. Also, they follow Huygen's principle macroscopically, where trilliions of pulsed emissions sum to a smooth "normal" EM wave. And No, no electron standing waves. Electrons are particles. Quote 3. why do you still use plancks constant in your equation? doesn't this imply wave particle duality? Because Planck's constant appears in the photoelectric effect and the Bremsstrahlung cutoff experiment. Whether this constant is actually the same constant that appears in Planck's thermal radiation law is debatable. It was close enough, though, that Einstein used it to invent "photons" in 1921, even though Planck hypothesized absolutely nothing about "light particles" in his 1900 radiation law (matched to existing experimental data). "Wave particle duality?" No, no, no, and an italicized bold CAPITALIZED WITH EXCLAMATION red NO! No wave-particle gobbledygook in this logical theory. No! Quote 4, if the energy of the dissipating pulse is equal to that of the electron, why do you assume that the electron still exists when it is off pulse? iow, is it also possible that the electron only appears as a pulse? so that in no pusle here is also no electron? thereby making the motion of electron discontinuous (jumpy) Now this is a good question. Now we are getting down to the Nitty Gritty of our model for the structure of the pulsating electron. Yes, we assume that the electron exists while "it is OFF". It almost "disappears" in the sense that its charge "cannot get out" and would be almost undetectable in this state (kind of like detecting an ammonia molecule with a burglar alarm). But just because a detector can't detect it doesn't mean that it is not there. "Jumpy?" I wouldn't say "jumpy", I would say intermittent. If you are interested in the Nitty Gritty of our model for the structure of the pulsating electron, we can discuss it in the next round. Andrew Ancel Gray Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.