 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / February 2008Any Known Similarities between the electron and the photon?
I am far from being a physicist; however, I am well-read with respect to a great deal of the infromation, not only that which is available to the lay-person, but also text materials that I have collected through the years. And, although I do admit that much of what we understand today in terms of a unified quantum theory, i.e., the String Theory, was not in existence when I attended either high school or college, receiving degrees in mathematics (associates only), history, philosophy and medicine (the first five year program for the physician assistant, in fact, in the United States. My interest vary, but I have read a number of Greene's books and all of what I know to be Hawking's materials. There are a few others, such as John Gibbin, etc. We know that if we attempt to observe the electron, it escapes us; it moves, it is no longer in the place where we most likely expected it to be. My question is such: considering light is both a wave and a particle (photon), it, too, must have some weight. The electron is always the same weight and mass, regardless of its position and other variables. What if the electron is acting like a photon? If so, it is moving at the same speed, or possibly a little less than that of light. And, this might explain why, when one attempts to oberve the electron, it is no longer in the same general area in which it was suspected to be. I cannot begin to come up with any form of mathematical manipulations concerning what is offered above; but others (well before me) have been able to provide clues using nothing more than the 'thought experiment,' or in this case, the 'thought hypothesis. I would like to know what others think. I am considering that there is a substantial amount of gravity at play within the atom, although most dismiss it as negliable. Of course, looking at the atom from the standpoint of the entire cosmos, it is relatively weak; but perhaps it plays a more important role in Quantum Mechanics than most are willing to accept. Thanks, Mark Abell, BS, PA Published Freelance Writer [snip] > We know that if we attempt to observe the electron, it escapes us; it > moves, it is no longer in the place where we most likely expected it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > plays a more important role in Quantum Mechanics than most are willing > to accept. Electrons are massed spin-1/2 fermions. They can be localized to arbitrary accuracy (static electicity). You are forbidden (Heisenberg) from exactly knowing *both* conjugate variables of any measurement. If you can play "Flight of the Bumblebee" on the extreme right end of a full piano keyboard you can equally well play it on the extreme left end. Heisenberg guarantees it will sound sound like mud in the latter case - time interval and frequency are conjugate variables. Squeeze one down and the other ine balloons. Photons are masseless spin-1 bosons. Photons in vacuum travel at lightspeed from all inertial observers' viewpoints. Photons and electrons are distinct. As has been eloquently outlined, gravitation has no discernable effect within an atom. From Igor, Gravitational Corrections to the Energy-Levels of a Hydrogen Atom Commun. Theor. Phys. Vol. 47 (2007), pp.658-662 http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1743 Quantum field theory knows what it is doing. Quantized gravitation is a disaster in all its flavors. Gold is golden and mercury is a liquid given Special Relativity effects on s- and d-orbital electrons. There is no gravitation within Special Relativity.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >You are forbidden > (Heisenberg) from exactly knowing *both* conjugate variables of any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mud in the latter case - time interval and frequency are conjugate > variables. Squeeze one down and the other ine balloons. While frequency has an upper and a lower limit at the piano keyboard, time and frequency are usually treated like conjugate variables that necessarily range without any limit between indefinitely large positive and indefinitely large negative or at least indefinitely small positive values. In other words, reciprocity and the exponential kernel of Fourier transform combined with the infinite limits of Fourier transform altogether demand border crossing between measurable finite values and the fiction infinity. Since Dedekind, Cantor, Hilbert, etc. the mathematical notion of infinity deviates from its original ideal meaning. Strictly speaking the problem is rather hidden within how 'two' relates to 'one', in other words within the relation 'exactly equal to'. While just a few experts including Galileo, Brouwer, Weyl, and Fraenkel dealt with such subtle metamathematics, one has nonetheless to be cautious when using relations between infinite quantities. Not just mediocre physicists tend to belittle the topic as did Einstein or put it into the wrong drawer of philosophy. Heisenberg wrote in 1927: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant." This was correct. However, in the same paper he added a meanwhile widespread believed speculation: " I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' can be formulated as follows: The path comes into existence only if we observe it." Please do not prejudice. Do not keep common speculations for granted in order to avoid worrying consequences. I do not speculate. I just managed to visualize the transition between the two conjugate variables of a Fourier transform pair: time and frequency. For details you might look into my recent posting, on Feb. 4, in comp.soft-sys.matlab, my 2006 IEEE paper, available at http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M283.html, and not yet published 10 pages, available on request. Incidentally, every mammal has ears that perform nearly the same. I am not the only one who considers Schroedinger's cat unnecessarily dramatized. Uncle Al wrote on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:19:16 -0500: > Electrons are massed spin-1/2 fermions. They can be localized to > arbitrary accuracy (static electicity). According to relativistic quantum mechanics they cannot be. Landau showed that. How do you suppose static electricity violates that? > You are forbidden (Heisenberg) > from exactly knowing *both* conjugate variables of any measurement. You seem to unnotice the differences between non-relativistic and relativistic Heisenberg relations. The non-relativistic relations forbid a simultaneous knowledge of both position x and momentum p. But each observable can be measured by separated. Thus a measurement of x with infinite precision is theoretically possible. In practice one is limited by instrumental at laboratory. The relativistic Heisenberg relations however forbid a knowledge of single position x with infinite precision. For instance for a electron at rest {DELTA x} is roughly {h/mc} That was one of reasons that relativistic quantum field theory substituted the position observable x_op by a *parameter* x. > As has been eloquently outlined, gravitation has no discernable effect > within an atom. From Igor, > > Gravitational Corrections to the Energy-Levels of a Hydrogen Atom > Commun. Theor. Phys. Vol. 47 (2007), pp.658-662 > http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1743 Neither that work nor Igor have proven such one thing. I have submitted some comments about gravitation at the molecular level in the relevant thread. If it is approved then you can read how Penrose and others claim just the contrary: gravity is fundamental at the molecular level. > Quantum field theory knows what it is doing. Mathematically it may lack foundation still. Physically, it only can study scattering processes for free stable fields in an atemporal world. Not enough! > Quantized gravitation is a disaster in all its flavors. Only the attempt to quantize (geometric) General Relativity is a complete disaster. Quantization of Newtonian gravity, of relativistic AAAD, of analog gravity models, and of field theoretic approaches to gravity has been a much more promising approach, is not? -- I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt In article <779ff48f-57ab-490b-a42d-c426e6a6562b@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> writes: > Neither that work nor Igor have proven such one thing. I have > submitted > some comments about gravitation at the molecular level in the relevant > thread. If it is approved then you can read how Penrose and others > claim > just the contrary: gravity is fundamental at the molecular level. I think you will find that Penrose claims that gravity has something to do with why macroscopic mixed states are not observed. His opinion is not shared by the majority of physics, but I think it's safe to say that this area (and others with which Penrose is concerned) is still unclear, even to conventional physicists. (In other words, even if people don't agree on the solution, most agree there is a problem.) However, IIRC the mass at which gravity influences QM was 10^{-5} gram or something like that---tiny by our standards, but way above the "molecular level". Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:37:17 +0000: > In article > <779ff48f-57ab-490b-a42d-c426e6a6562b@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I think you will find that Penrose claims that gravity has something to > do with why macroscopic mixed states are not observed. One of his thoughts is that gravity modifies quantum theory at the Planck scale and this is the cause of failure to quantize General Relativity. About "macroscopic mixed states" I think you mean observation of quantum coherence (e.g. Schrödinger cat). But then you are using a misleading term. We do not observe are macroscopic pure states. The cat is in some macroscopic mixed state. Thus he does not follow a Schrödinger equation. > His opinion is > not shared by the majority of physics, but I think it's safe to say that > this area (and others with which Penrose is concerned) is still unclear, > even to conventional physicists. (In other words, even if people don't > agree on the solution, most agree there is a problem.) Penrose is not continuing current paradigm but proposing one new. A look to the history of physics reveals revolutions (since Newton) were initially rejected by the _majority_ (the old-paradigm comunity in Kuhn sense). Planck famous quote may be relevant: {BLOCKQUOTE A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. } > However, IIRC > the mass at which gravity influences QM was 10^{-5} gram or something > like that---tiny by our standards, but way above the "molecular level". They claim gravity modifies QM at Planck scale and next compute different decoherence times T for different massive objects using Penrose model. T for single electrons is of order 10^19 years in that model. Therefore single electrons will be very well described using QM during all your life. However, T for a cat [#] is so short like 10^{-37} seconds. {BLOCKQUOTE [1] The Penrose-Hameroff proposal suggests that coherent superpositions of tubulin proteins are inherently unstable and subject to self-collapse under a quantum gravitational criterion Penrose objective reduction or OR ---------------------------------------------------- The previous post was posted truncated. Often I resubmit just for getting it truncated again. This gives a lot of extra work for both me and moderators. I get this problem only with sci.physics.research. My last post on velocity of relativistic electrons is also truncated. I submit new posts on research questions also to sci.physics.foundations. No problem there. I recommend readers to get the truncated part of my post " velocity of relativistic electrons" from that newsgroup. --------------------------------------------------- They claim gravity modifies QM at Planck scale and next compute different decoherence times T for different massive objects using Penrose model. T for single electrons is of order 10^19 years in that model. Therefore single electrons will be very well described using QM during all your life. However, T for a cat [#] is so short like 10^{-37} seconds. {BLOCKQUOTE [1] The Penrose-Hameroff proposal suggests that coherent superpositions of tubulin proteins are inherently unstable and subject to self-collapse under a quantum gravitational criterion Penrose objective reduction or OR.} Notice that their model is basically 'linear' (like most of current decoherence models). Strong nonlinear models will give different times and size scales. I already illustrated in the other thread how previous generalized claims about no importance of relativity and weak interactions at molecular level have turned to be in error. Both mistaken claims were based in naive arguments based in ratios. [1] Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility. 2002. Phys. Rev. E, 65, 061901. Hagan, S; Hameroff, S. R; Tuszynski. J. A. [#] On rigor i would say T for a hypotetical quantum object would decohere to that mostly classical structure we call cat. -- I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.