Matter made of space not energy?

[WebFeet]

This is where I fall of. Sorry, WebFeet, I don't follow your reasoning. It sounds like a contradiction in terms.

There is a common perception that an electron when described as a particle is in some way a solid object, with an outer casing and whatever resides inside. If this were the case, then most of its energy should reside within the outer casing.

 

From the article about de Brogle, it is suggested that an electron is in fact a wave rather than a particle.

 

Imagine, if you will, a Polygon of n sides. If this shape absorbs an additional side, it's still a Polygon, although now its properties have changed somewhat. It now has n+1 sides, its area has increased, the angles between each of its sides has increased.

 

The side that was added doesn't live inside the Polygon, it is part of the Polygon. If it were to be removed leaving a gap, there would no longer be a Polygon.

 

I know this is maybe not the best analogy, but I hope you get the idea.

[lindagarrette]

This is too confusing for me. I need a more simple explanation. Per Feynman, an electron emits or absorbs a photon. http://www.feynman.com/diagrams.htm Electrons move through time/space. Photons are something else.

[Tormod]

Webfeet, I have never claimed that an electron is a pointlike particle. The wave/particle duality suggests that a particle is only a point when it is emitted and again when it is absorbed (which is how photon detectors work, for example).

 

I also wrote this earlier in this thread:

 

The "solar system" model of the atom is long since outdated. Rather, the electrons form shells around the nucleus at distances dictated by the energy levels of the electrons. The electron cannot be observed in orbit but the electrical charge of an atom can be easily measured (unless it is an ion, it is most likely to be neutral).

 

My point was of course that the electron is not a particle that resides at any point around the nucleus, but instead behaves like a wave which encapsulates is at a certain distance (given by the energy level related to EM quanta).

[pgrmdave]

I think I understand what you mean in theory, webfeet, though I disagree. I think that the current model of it goes something like this, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

When a photon strikes an electron, the energy (thus the photon, because it is pure energy) is changed into a different form, which allows the electron to move further away from the nucleus. The electron will eventually lose it's energy, which changes back into a photon, and 'fall' down to its original energy level.

 

However, what you are suggesting is that photons and electrons are very similar, perhaps even the same, and so when it strikes the electron, they fuse, and become a higher energy photon/electron. When that photon leaves, the photon/electron 'falls' down to its original energy level. Thus the individual photon would always exist, and never need to be created, or destroyed.

 

I don't know of any experiment that could test that theory, do you know of any, webfeet?

[WebFeet]

My point was of course that the electron is not a particle that resides at any point around the nucleus, but instead behaves like a wave which encapsulates is at a certain distance (given by the energy level related to EM quanta).

As you point out it doesn't exist in one position in an orbit, but rather the entire wave exists within a circular track at a certain distance from the nucleus.

The wavelength of the electron wave must fit an exact number of times within this track. If any energy is absorbed into this wave, the total still has to be multiples of the wavelength, hence why only photons of certain frequencies can be absorbed.

 

Everything here, so far, is more or less accepted theory.

 

Where I think my ideas stray from the accepted line is that it is assumed that when the photon is absorbed into the electron wave, that it effects the wave as a whole. In other words, the wave is a pure wave with no variations in it. Yet when the next photon is emitted it does not conform to a single wavelength, but usually to the exact size of the last photon to be absorbed.

Now I know that just happens to be the right amount of energy to take it back to a lower energy level, but why not loose one complete wavelength? The whole wave would still fit into a smaller track.

 

My view is that when the photon is absorbed, it becomes part of a larger system. This system must be viewed as a whole. The overall energy of the electron wave would have a definite wavelength, but maybe what we have is an average wavelength.

 

However, what you are suggesting is that photons and electrons are very similar, perhaps even the same, and so when it strikes the electron, they fuse, and become a higher energy photon/electron.

 

It's a bit like object orientated design.

The photon is the base class. All other classes are built from this one class and with it, they inherit all the properties of the photon, such as its invariant velocity.

The electron is a class containing a sub-class of photon. The class of electron can have its own attributes, but without any photons, there is no electron.

I hope that makes sense.:(

[Tormod]

Webfeet, if the photon is the basic building block, where does electric charge come from? I asked that earlier but I don't think you responded to it.

[Buffy]

As you point out it doesn't exist in one position in an orbit, but rather the entire wave exists within a circular track at a certain distance from the nucleus.

Actually its a shell-3D, not a track-2D, and its not really "orbiting" in the conventional sense. The shell that its in relates to the energy level (or momentum) of the electron. When the photon hits the atom, one or more electrons can be excited into higher shells that represent the increase in energy from the absorption of the photon.

The wavelength of the electron wave must fit an exact number of times within this track. If any energy is absorbed into this wave, the total still has to be multiples of the wavelength, hence why only photons of certain frequencies can be absorbed....Now I know that just happens to be the right amount of energy to take it back to a lower energy level, but why not loose one complete wavelength? The whole wave would still fit into a smaller track.

I'll leave this one to someone who knows what they're talking about, but I was under the impression it had to do with the total number of electrons and occupied shells....If it is then it has nothing to do with the wavelength implied by any "orbit time". Note that electrons definitely do not obey orbital mechanics: the higher energy states are at the outer shells, meaning they're moving "faster" there!

It's a bit like object orientated design.

The photon is the base class. ... The electron is a class containing a sub-class of photon. The class of electron can have its own attributes, but without any photons, there is no electron.

I think the physisict/computer scientists would disagree: I don't think each electron contains an instance of a photon....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[maddog]

The comment was to do with the experiment that apparently slows light. The delay being due to the refractive index of the medium being used.

Classically, then I would agree with you on that. In QM, photons interact with other particles

constructively and destructively (created/destroyed).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that photons are detected rather than created. There is no proof either way that when the photon is absorbed into the eletron that it is destroyed, and it would have to be if it were later to be created.

No. The theory of QED as created by Feynman (1947) describes the interaction in Feynman diagrams.

An electron interacts with a photon constructively or destructively by emission or absorbtion. This is

total. As Tormod said the energy of the photon imparts that energy to the electron increasing or

decreasing the energy of the electron. This gets expressed in kinetic form.

The speed of light is the speed of energy. There is nothing to say that the energy absorbed by the electron doesn't continue travelling at the speed of energy while it is part of the electron. It has simply lost its individual identity as a photon because it has become part of system that is an electron.

To claim this would imply an electron is NOT a point particle. Something I speculated about. There

is no proof or evidence at the moment down to a resolution of 10^ -18 cm. You would need some

evidence to back that claim up. :(

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Mad dog what is ludicrous is your inability to grasp a simple concept. The fact that you might of miss interpreted the equations through a lack of conceptual ability and are hiding behind the belief that you understand the math and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense in the real world. I bet you think the big bang theory is perfectly logical. HAHA fool.

Don't sound so humble to me at the moment.

 

You had no equation to validate. Just a bunch of pompous statements of no value. :(

I don't see me as the fool, though I am not laughing. I just think it is pathetic. :( :(

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I missed this one. :(

A 0.511-MeV photon has the same amount of energy as an electron, or for that matter a positron. In fact when an electron and a positron mutually annihilate each other, the result is two 0.511-MeV photons.

No matter what particle you are playing with, when you annihilate it you end up with a handful of photons. All the mass, charge, and other properties are gone - if they haven't, you haven't completely annihilated it.

The quantities aren't fixed. You are speaking of the rest mass of the electron. So two Gamma Rays

come out as you describe. The energy depends on the initial conditions of the electron & positron (initial

energy) as they anihilate.

If you view the electron itself as a system, rather than as a component of an atom, you will see that based on above annihilation example the only component to the electron is energy (photons). There are no other mythical particles that appear after this annihiliation, only photons.

Within the realm of this electron system there are additional properties. Additional to those imparted on it by the photons. These include mass and charge. The amount of energy remains constant.

All of the components loose their individual identities and become part of the system. This doesn't mean that the components have been destroyed, just that they become part of a larger system. When they exit from the system, they regain their individual identities, and the system looses something of its properties.

To say photons are the only fundamental particle doesn't fit with the Standard Model. So you will have to

let Fermilab and CERN know of your theory to get them to change it. :(

If energy (photon) is the one and only fundemental building block of our Universe, then it can only be built upwards. It can't be destroyed - conservation law. It can't be created - same law.

It also provides the most basic set of rules to which everything else must conform.

Conservation Law = neither created/destroyed is correct. Nothing was said about Transformation.

Energy converts form all the time. I think this is what you are missing.

Why is the speed of light so fundemental, even when we are not actually dealing with light?

This is you conjecture, why do you expect someone else to explain it when it is your idea ? I don't see

"light" as "the" fundamental particle (if even there is a single one). The biggest problem here is electrons

are Fermions of integral half spin. Photons are Boson of Integral spin. Very different critters. I don't

see how you could make one from another. Second Boson are the force carriers (they represent force)

whereas Fermions are the particles getting "forced" upon. How you create a system only one particle

to do all that is beyond me. :( :(

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I've never said that the photon lives within the electron, I'm saying that the photon IS the electron, albeit a part of it. ...

I think that doing this would have serious consequences to SR. A photon (Integral spin Boson) traveling at

c (speed of light in vacuum) is a constant and massless (no rest mass). An electron has a rest mass (already

mentioned), spin 1/2 (Fermion) and therefore must travel speed less than c. How do take a number

(unspecified) of photons and turn the supposed conglomeration into an electron. How ? :(

 

Maddog

 

ps: BTW, the Standard Model assumes that an electron IS a pointlike particle. Something I think may bite

those physicists in their proverbial arse!

[maddog]

Webfeet, if the photon is the basic building block, where does electric charge come from? I asked that earlier but I don't think you responded to it.

I would also say how do the mass, spin properties get changed to something else as well.

 

======= Photon Electron

Charge 0 -1

Spin 1 1/2

rest mass 0 ~5.11 Mev

 

I don't see how one can make an electron from a collection of photons.

 

Behavior problems: Dirac's Law states only two electron can be in the same state at the same time

{+1/2, -1/2} where an arbitrary collection can be in the same state and time. State means both position

and momentum (HUP).

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

Where to start ?

So many questions !

 

Webfeet, if the photon is the basic building block, where does electric charge come from? I asked that earlier but I don't think you responded to it.

 

Let's deal with a free electron rather than one within the atomic structure.

 

 

We know that matter that possesses a charge is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields. We also know that the energy in any electromagnetic field is made up of photons.

Which came first ? Does the presence of a charge produce an electromagnetic field, or does the production of an electromagnetic field consitute matter having a charge.

 

The interaction of an electromagnetic field with an electron's charge is actually the result of the interaction of this field with the quantum field of the electron.

 

So it's not so much that the electron has a charge, but more that it produces a field.

 

Free electrons do not absorb or emit photons unlike their counterparts in the atomic structure. After all there's no higher energy level to reach once outside the atom. But the free electron does produce an electromagnetic field - photons.

 

How does the electron, with a finite amount of energy, maintain a constant field?

The only way that an electron could maintain such a field would be if its energy were getting replenished. This implies that there is a process involved here with inputs and outputs.

The conclusion that I have drawn from this is that the electron is far from just a lump of matter, or a wave. It is a complex construction and the only things going in or coming out of it are photons.

 

 

I think that doing this would have serious consequences to SR. A photon (Integral spin Boson) traveling at

c (speed of light in vacuum) is a constant and massless (no rest mass). An electron has a rest mass (already

mentioned), spin 1/2 (Fermion) and therefore must travel speed less than c. How do take a number

(unspecified) of photons and turn the supposed conglomeration into an electron. How ?

 

If you have an oval race track with 50 cars hurtling around it at 200 mph - how fast is the race track moving ?

Similarly with the electron. The photons are all travelling at C within the confines of the system that is the electron. The electron doesn't have to move at all. When it does move though, because it has inherited those properties of the photon, it cannot travel faster than its component photons.

As for the issue of spin. A photon with an integral spin of 1 can exist in the same space as other photons with the same spin. As for the electron it will have its attributes, one of which would be a spin of 1/2.

 

Webfeet

:o

[WebFeet]

I don't see how one can make an electron from a collection of photons.

 

You can make an electron and a positron out of a couple of Gamma ray photons.

 

How is what I'm suggesting any different ?

[Tormod]

AFAIK this happens due to the photoelectric effect - and only because the photons know electrons out of a solid.

 

But again, if you have evidence to the contrary please post it!

[IDMclean]

Ha, Brilliant!

 

I suck at the whole proofs thing. Webfeet is right though.

My physics book taught me the bit about two gamma rays annihilating into a Positron and an Electron.

 

It's like this.

Photon is a "packet" of Energy and Electromagnetic Charge. A photon it's self has no rest mass but a collection of Photons would be easily mistaken for a rest mass. The electron asorbs the Photon of appropiate frequency and jumps or "spits" a photon and drops a shell.

 

If it asorbs the photon then it's total energy increases (also it's charge increases but in a +1-1=0 manner). you keep adding Photons all you'll get is higher and higher energy Electron because only it's energy increases (it's net photons) now if you remove photons (remove energy) you'll get lower and lower energy electrons till the electron is no longer stable? and breaks down into something eles?

 

Ha Webfeet your Brilliant :o

[maddog]

Let's deal with a free electron rather than one within the atomic structure.

We know that matter that possesses a charge is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields. We also know that the energy in any electromagnetic field is made up of photons.

Which came first ? Does the presence of a charge produce an electromagnetic field, or does the production of an electromagnetic field consitute matter having a charge.

Good question. Though this is not a chicken or egg type question. For EM one propagates the other.

A friend of mine feels the magnetic field potential is fundamental as the electric field can be derived from

it. Pick you poison. The simplest way to think of it is the electric field has a static potential (no motion),

whereas by Induction the B (magnetic) field is generated when the electric field of electron is in motion.

By QM you always see an electron in motion (thus both).

Free electrons do not absorb or emit photons unlike their counterparts in the atomic structure. After all there's no higher energy level to reach once outside the atom. But the free electron does produce an electromagnetic field - photons.

Wrong. Free Electrons can absorb/emit photons -- check Bremstralung or Synchotron Radiation. This is

typically an emission of a free electron trapped in a magnetic field (Van Alan Radiation belt, solar flare,

Jupiter's magnetic field as evidenced by Io).

How does the electron, with a finite amount of energy, maintain a constant field?

From QM.

The conclusion that I have drawn from this is that the electron is far from just a lump of matter, or a wave. It is a complex construction and the only things going in or coming out of it are photons.

As a conjecture that the electron is not a fundamental particle (pointlike as thought in Std Model), I would

agree with you. It is your claim that electrons are composed of photons that I challange and feel you do

not have sufficient "proof" to corroborate it.

If you have an oval race track with 50 cars hurtling around it at 200 mph - how fast is the race track moving ?

Similarly with the electron. The photons are all travelling at C within the confines of the system that is the electron. The electron doesn't have to move at all. When it does move though, because it has inherited those properties of the photon, it cannot travel faster than its component photons.

As for the issue of spin. A photon with an integral spin of 1 can exist in the same space as other photons with the same spin. As for the electron it will have its attributes, one of which would be a spin of 1/2.

You do not properly account for spin period. You not really account for (rest) mass either unless in some

supersymmetric way you do not mention. I will acquiece for the moment about charge while I do some

research.

You can make an electron and a positron out of a couple of Gamma ray photons.

How is what I'm suggesting any different ?

This is called for from the valid Feynman diagrams already mentioned. You can run time either way so

that this could be a creation or an anihilation. So I infer from this you do not fully understand QED by

Richard Feynman. Since we are only discussing the electron I hazard to guess what other Leptons

you consider them to be. See an electron being a Lepton so is the Muon, Tau being of the same type,

just different generation; so are the three types of Nuetrinos (electron, muon, tao). What puts them

together so well is the Electroweak theory by Weinberg, Glashow, Salam. See Photon carries force

for (and interacts with) the electron while Z0, W+, W- carry the weak force and interact with a lot more

types (electrons, nuetrinos, quarks, photons). I gather you are claiming they are all photons and that

no other force really exists... :D :o :o :o

 

Maddog