I think that one was directed at me. I had been questioning the assumption or his calculations that the electrons in the original experiment were moving at non relativistic velocities. I had asked for a reference.
Unbelievable velocity mass variation!
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
I think that one was directed at me. I had been questioning the assumption or his calculations that the electrons in the original experiment were moving at non relativistic velocities. I had asked for a reference.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Everybody insisting in this? I can't believe.
Here I go.
Voltage in the accelerator plates: V = about 50 volts
Electric Energy of V volts = eV where e is the charge of the electron.
Classical formula for the Kinetic Energy used by Davisson and Germer K=(1/2)mv2
K=eV implies eV=(1/2)mv2 where m is the mass of the electron
Solving for v: v=root(2eV/m)
Sorry but I will not do the numerical replacements and computations to obtain the value of v. You can do it, isn't it?
If you don't believe in that you must look for another reference on your own because I don't have it and I will not look it for you.
Here I go.
Voltage in the accelerator plates: V = about 50 volts
Electric Energy of V volts = eV where e is the charge of the electron.
Classical formula for the Kinetic Energy used by Davisson and Germer K=(1/2)mv2
K=eV implies eV=(1/2)mv2 where m is the mass of the electron
Solving for v: v=root(2eV/m)
Sorry but I will not do the numerical replacements and computations to obtain the value of v. You can do it, isn't it?
If you don't believe in that you must look for another reference on your own because I don't have it and I will not look it for you.
Last edited:
And I told you that there were many more particles than needed for one of your trains even when LEP was being operated at 90 GeV. So why didn't the trains form then?
Because in modern accelerators the particles are accelerated in several stages, and it's only in the last stage (acceleration in the main accelerator) that something changes. So where would all the extra particles be coming from?
I'm saying that the people at LEP thought that they were making collisions at a CM energy of 90 GeV and they got data consistent with collisions happening at exactly that energy and no other. But the 90 GeV comes from the belief of the operators at LEP that they had accelerated the beams so that each electron or positron had an energy of 45 GeV. If that was wrong, then what was special about that energy level?
I said "You don't even have a comprehensive model that actually predicts particles forming trains or how trains should interact with one another.". Note the highlighted words. There's a difference between saying something happens and actually having a model that predicts that behaviour. Why and under what conditions do particle trains form? What's the (equilibrium?) distance between particles in a train? With regard to what you said above, why would trains of only a certain length form? Why would trains from a double slit actually align? (e.g. you would have to show that the forces were strong enough to cause them to align, but not so strong that they broke up the trains). Why don't they just align longitudinally, instead of being forced to travel only at certain angles? Why are they compelled to travel parallel to one another at all? A real model would predict all of this.
Instead, look at what you wrote above: you don't know much about the conditions in particle accelerators and the actual energy didn't seem to matter. You just felt confident trains of the right length were forming. You need trains of 90 million electrons? No problem! And if I'd told you the CM energy was 90 MeV instead of 90 GeV, you'd have said they were trains of 90 000 particles instead of 90 million. No matter what the data is, it's consistent with your idea. That's a symptom of the fact you don't really have a model and is typical of bad science in general.
I'm talking about the wide range of experiments that have been done involving quantum physics over the last century, all of which support the theory.
If quantum physics is so wrong, why does it keep working so well every time? Why is it you always playing a catch up game, trying to explain results that quantum physics could actually predict before the experiment was done?
I don't think you're qualified to judge that. You don't know most of mainstream physics in any detail at all and have absolutely no appreciation of how comprehensive and successful it is. How in the world would you know you have a "good start-point"? From my perspective you're trying to fix what isn't broken, and you're doing it poorly at that.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
How do you know the trains are not formed? May be you just didn't considered the possibilty.
The trains are formed in the source of the particles. Particles come from the source in trains. The source emit trains in "bursts". What are accelerated are trains not individual particles.
I think the special thing is that the observable events they are looking for just happen with that energy levels and not less. Special energy levels in the beams also implies special energy levels in the particles what is needed to produce special events.
That is at Chapter Three of the manuscript. At this time some sections are available at the web site, others in the printed version only reserved for those who really want to enter deeper in the theory and that I think would not mind to pay $25 for it.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 present the definition of the elementary particles (of course they differ from the quarks model). Their structure. They are available at the site.
Section 3.3 treat the two cases possible of magnetic forces between elementary particles (between equal charges or between opposite charges) which are very important since they determine hoe the particles interact at subatomic level. Later in chapter four one is proposed to be the currently called strong nuclear force.
Section 3.4 shows the two possible equilibrium states between equal and opposite charged particles. They would also determine how particles can align in trains.
These are not available on the web site.
Yes of course.
No it's a sympton that the theory I propose can explain those things and so has a chance to be true.
Martillo, you are assuming that the "approximately" 50 volts represents the total kinetic energy of the electron. This implies that while part of an atom an electron has no intrinsic kinetic energy of its own. The 50 volts contributes only by being the catalyst that knocks an electron out of an atom.
Go completely classical, which is not entirely the same but may demonstrate the issue, and say you have a satellite in a stable orbit. You add X velocity to the satellite and it then flys off into space with a velocity greater than X.
Electrons as components of atoms are not at rest. And when they are dislodged from an atom all or at least a significant part of their kinetic energy — velocity — remains a component of the total velocity when free of the atom.
Your calculation does not appear to account for the electron's initial intrinsic kinetic energy. Only for the 50 volts used to dislodge it from a stable relationship with an atom.
How fast was the electron moving before it was dislodged from the atom and how much of that velocity did it retain?
Only Me - I think you haven't got that right. When energy is added to a satellite it moves to a higher orbit but all of that velocity is removed by the conversion of Kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy. This results in the situation where even though you sped it up it actually slows down.
The same for the electron as I understand. You have to give it energy to escapes from the atom it is involved with but once it is free it is basically stationary.
I am asking why they are not formed. You seem to have lost track of the discussion. Remember that ultimately I'm asking you why they saw new events at LEP such as W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] production when they changed the energy. Both before and after there were billions of electrons and positrons passing each other at each possible collision event. So what changed to make W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] pairs possible?
You ignored my question. Why would there be more electrons in the accelerator when the operators thought they were increasing the energy? The initial stages of the acceleration don't change. Your answer also undermines your general response to the previous point I was making: if the trains are determined at the source, then what changed when when the operators at LEP thought they were increasing the energy.
This is getting really silly. Every time I point out a problem with what you're saying, you respond with some complete guess that has no basis in how the accelerators actually work. Is this really what you call science?
If you're basing all of this on some idea that electrons were accelerated between two charged plates with a potential difference of 45 billion volts (!), then think again: that's not how it's done.
But that's the point: according to you there's nothing special about the figure of 45 GeV associated with the beams, because that's not the real energy of the electrons. So you can't use it to explain the events observed. The 90 GeV figure is significant in one way (it's the mass of the Z boson), but Z production isn't the only thing that can happen when you collide leptons together so even that won't help you much with explaining the events observed.
And can you predict known results like the Hydrogen atom's energy spectrum or the $$e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$$ scattering cross section from this? Can you predict how far apart particles in a train should be using the same model? Because if not, you are way behind mainstream physics.
If I collide an electron and a positron with some given energy and I want to know how likely it is I'll get muons out of it, it's literally a calculation that in principle I could sit down and do (and I think I did do it as an exercise once). If I want to know the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom, I can use quantum physics to calculate that too. I don't know what's in your book, but certainly on your website there's nothing that comes close to even hinting you could do calculations like these and get the right results.
And that's bad. Because the mainstream theories you're competing with don't allow themselves that level of flexibility. They are much more detailed than this and they still work. Mainstream theories do have some adjustable parameters (e.g. in the Standard Model it's things like the masses of particles and the strengths of couplings), but generally not just any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with them.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I said in the prevoius post that some events need special energies to happen. The particles and the trains must have some special energy to produce such events. It's like electron-positron pair creation. Photons with enough energy are needed to produce a pair of elctron and positron. With less energy it doen't happen.
I don't know this, I don't know the details of the "apparatus". This does not mean is not possible.
I think that discussions like we are having is part of what a good scientist could do. We are not making a scientific article here. We are interchanging ideas, opinions, knowledge, etc. I think forums are made for that. A real scientific work could result in the future inspired someway by something of these discussions, who knows.
As I said above the special thing is the special energy the trains and their individual particles have to produce special events. You repeat the same question again and again. I don't understand how can't you get the point.
As I said I cannot make it all! You pretend that I should have solved and written all the subject the entire scientific world have studied since the begining of all. I have just a possible begining of something. I have worked some things but of course lot of things remain to be developed by otherones. You know De Broglie proposed a law and years later otherones made the experiment that confirmed his formula and after came Schrodinger inspired by De Broglie work and after... and after... You know science is made by steps. You can't pretend to replace the entire world scientific work of a century at once.
Only Me - I think you haven't got that right. When energy is added to a satellite it moves to a higher orbit but all of that velocity is removed by the conversion of Kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy. This results in the situation where even though you sped it up it actually slows down.
The same for the electron as I understand. You have to give it energy to escapes from the atom it is involved with but once it is free it is basically stationary.
I did say it was not entirely the same. The gravitational interaction extends out from its source such that even at escape velocity the satellite would eventually decelerate to an at rest point, at some infinitely distant point.
The same is not true when you are dealing with the electromagnietic and the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are greater than gravity over shorter distances. Once a particle.., an electron is knocked loose from an atom there is a point where the electromagnetic force is insufficient to affect the electron in the same way gravity affects a satellite.
For that matter the two situations are different also in that we do not think of electrons as point particles when part of an atom, while we do think of them as point particles when they are not associated with an atom.
The satellite analogy was a crude one and not completely comparable. However, the point I was making is that an electron has some kinetic energy which is not lost when it is separated from an atom and which was not being incorporated in martillo's calculations.
Yes, the reference I have seen to the original experiment does say the electrons were acellerated by a 50-54 volt charge. It does not say that they were at rest before that accelleration or what velocity they may have had prior to the acceleration. So there is no information as to what actual velocity was involved... That I could find in my limited search...
What you can find concerning electron velocities suggests instantaneous velocities which are all relativistic. The only reference to a non-relativistic velocity was for the drift velocity in a conductor but that involves an electron moving two steps forward and one step back, at relativistic velocities, resulting in a non relativistic motion in the direction of current flow. But the elctron itself is always moving with a relativistic velocity.
Martillo, you are the one who presented the idea that the electrons involved were non-relativistic. I have been asking for a reference that supports that claim and pointing out flaws and omissions in your calculations. You admitted you did not know where the free electrons came from and that implies you do not know what if any initial velocity they had. You are calculating only their accelleration .., not their velocity.
Show me any link to any reference that demonstrates an electron with a non-relativistic velocity, I have been unable to find any... And as I said the calculations you presented represent only how they were acellerated, not their velocity.
You still aren't explaining anything and you're ignoring the points I told you. Even when LEP was supposedly being operated at 90 GeV, if you allow multi-particle collisions then there was enough energy for W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] production many many times over even if you think all the electrons only had the nonrelativistically expected energy. So why didn't these events appear until the CM energy was at least 160 GeV according to the people operating LEP?
Then why don't you leave the interpretation of event data to people who do know the apparatus? This is a well established field we're talking about, and you're challenging the results based on ignorant guesses.
There's nothing to get. I'm pointing out specific problems with your idea, and you're responding with little more than handwaving. You simply haven't answered the question I asked you. Why didn't they see W[sup]+[/sup]W[sup]-[/sup] events at LEP while the CM energy was supposedly 90 GeV?
And it is up to actual physicists, and not you, to decide for themselves whether your work is actually worth developing. And when every physicist who sees your website says they think it's not worth it, that's something you should really worry about.
I'm not asking you to do a new experiment. I'm asking you, given how comprehensive mainstream physics is and the body of experimental data supporting it, why I should believe it can all be replaced with models based on your own ideas. The thing is, you need to have a good grasp of mainstream physics and a good understanding of just how successful it is to be able to convince everyone you can do better. How can you tell us you have an idea that's better than quantum physics, for example, if you don't know quantum physics, how well supported it is, and what people are using it for?
In case this helps, if you know the energy, it's very easy to know if a particle is "relativistic". The total energy of a particle according to relativity is $$E \,=\, \gamma m c^{2}$$ where $$\gamma$$ is the ubiquitous Lorentz factor which acts as an indicator of the magnitude of relativistic effects. So you can easily get the Lorentz factor by dividing the total energy by the rest energy.
To use the example I've been using with martillo, electrons were accelerated up to 45 GeV at LEP. By comparison, the electron mass is just 511 keV. So for the electrons at LEP, $$\gamma \,=\, 45\,\mathrm{GeV} / 511\,\mathrm{keV} \,\approx\, 88\,000$$, which is highly relativistic. At the LHC, the protons have an energy of 3.5 TeV while the proton mass is 938 MeV, so $$\gamma \,=\, 3.5\,\mathrm{TeV} / 938\,\mathrm{MeV} \,\approx\, 3730$$, which is still highly relativistic. Notice that it's still LEP that holds the speed record!
If martillo is right and the electrons in the experiment he's referring to were only accelerated to 50 eV, then they're well within the nonrelativistic domain.
This is in part my point. From what he presents and how I read the experiment, one can only say they were acellerated by 50 eV not to 50 eV. Perhaps I am reading the few references I have incorrectly, but that is how it reads to me, at best.
So I asked for a better reference, since all I can find concerning electron velocity suggests nothing less than relativistic velocities.
The assumption is that the experiment started with electrons essentially at rest, is that even possible?
martillo
Registered Senior Member
The answer you need goes beyond my expertisse.
I'm proposing a new theory and I solved the problems I could solve and they are presented in the manuscript. I think they are enough for the theory be considered as a possible new right theory by physicists. You don't think so. It's your opinion and your decision. I think your question does not invalidate it, just something that would remain to be answered properly within the new theory concepts. And there are many other things like this yet. Still much work remains to be done. I cannot make it all.
Last edited:
But I could turn that attitude around: mainstream physics can solve vastly more problems than you and can account for a lot of known behaviour in much more detail. Yet you don't care. So why should anyone care when you come up with just a few explanations of your own? You don't care what we've got; why should we care what you've got?
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Because there are big problems in current theories that couldn't be solved and it is because may be a more radical approach would be actually needed. To assume that current theories could be wrong and that a totally new theory would be needed.
For example, the "wave-particle duality" mystery. For me is like to be said that a new animal has been discovered and it behaves sometimes as a fly and sometimes as a whale. I can't believe physicists being satisfied with this explanation. But you do isn't it?
Last edited:
No there aren't. There are open problems that so far haven't been resolved, but that's always been the case thoughout the history of physics. There is nothing to indicate we're taking a fundamentally wrong approach. And you're still ignoring the general overwhelming majority of cases where everything works just fine.
But you have no way of evaluating how mainstream physics is doing and have no way of evaluating if a "radical" approach is really needed. So why not leave that to actual physicists to decide? You know, the people who actually know what mainstream physics can actually accomplish and what a new theory would need to be able to do? From what I've seen on your website, you don't even know how to formulate a theory.
You are judging quantum physics very superficially here. Wave-particle duality isn't an explanation. It's just a raw description of what we see. Quantum mechanics is a physical model that views nature as being built out of quantum states that behave and interact in a way described by the theory, and which, among many other things, predicts the behaviour that is sometimes called "wave-particle duality".
At the end of the day, quantum physics is just like Newtonian physics: it says that certain things exist and that they behave and interact in certain ways that we can test. The only difference is that quantum physics initially isn't intuitive... to people who have never seen it before and are only used to Newtonian physics.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
And my comment is just the raw according one.
Lot of time have passed and not any idea on how to solve it appears even in the horizon. Isn't it time to take another way?
May be someone "out of the box" is needed to bring the new very different new ideas that would be needed. And yes I think I can be one.
I know what you will say now: "Self deluded wishfull thinking..."
I don't think so. I think my ideas just didn't reach the right heads yet.