cyrek reply

Fortis, papa and Grey
I have always said that an electron is a particle always. It moves in a wave pattern. That does not mean it is a wave. In close proximity to other atoms, the electron is continually changing its poaition because of the interaction with other nearby electrons. This creates your orbital cloud. over an extended time period. But at all times, it is only a particle.
Here is some data on its physical size:

Classical Electron Size
Electron Radius
This data was taken from the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics,
Second Edition, page 460.

r(sub)e = 2.71894x10^-15 m

This is its actual physical size.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Then how do you explain quantum tunneling?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Then why can electrons form diffraction patterns when scattered off a crystal, just like X-rays do?
This is not an actual physical size of the electron. This is what the radius of a charged spherical shell would have to be to have energy equal to its rest-mass energy. This was back around 1913 or so when Abraham and others worked on a classical model of an electron. These ideas were pretty much junked with the advent of quantum mechanics.

Sometimes you will hear about the Compton wavelength of the electron, equal to h/m_e/c, but that is not a size, it is just an order of magnitude that turns up in quantum mechanical processes involving electrons.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

I know you've said this, but you're mistaken.

cyrek reply

Tensor
Then how do you explain quantum tunneling?

CR - I am familiar about this characteristic but there could be some other answer besides tunnelling. In this case, the electron cannot overcome a barrior, I believe?

Celestial Mechanic
cyrek1 wrote:
Fortis, papa and Grey
I have always said that an electron is a particle always. It moves in a wave pattern. That does not mean it is a wave.[Snip!]

CM
Then why can electrons form diffraction patterns when scattered off a crystal, just like X-rays do?

CR - The only answer I can give is that the electron interacts with the crystal outer atom electrons.

cyrek1 wrote:
Here is some data on its physical size:

Classical Electron Size
Electron Radius
This data was taken from the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics,
Second Edition, page 460.

r(sub)e = 2.71894x10^-15 m

This is its actual physical size.

CM
This is not an actual physical size of the electron. This is what the radius of a charged spherical shell would have to be to have energy equal to its rest-mass energy. This was back around 1913 or so when Abraham and others worked on a classical model of an electron. These ideas were pretty much junked with the advent of quantum mechanics.

Sometimes you will hear about the Compton wavelength of the electron, equal to h/m_e/c, but that is not a size, it is just an order of magnitude that turns up in quantum mechanical processes involving electrons.

Grey
cyrek1 wrote:
Fortis, papa and Grey
I have always said that an electron is a particle always. It moves in a wave pattern.

GR
I know you've said this, but you're mistaken.

CR - So be it but I believe in reality.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

That's a rather weak reply. How is it then that an electron, which to you is a particle and always a particle, interacts in the exact same way as a photon, which to you is a wave and always a wave?

I'll also go you one better. The infamous double-slit diffraction experiment isn't just for light, you could also do the experiment with a cathode-ray tube with the same results. How can this be, if electrons are particles and particles only?

By the way, please learn to use the quoting mechanism. It is very difficult to follow your posts. Only familiarity with who wrote what helps in figuring which parts are quotes and which are your replies.

I also like to play games with the quoting mechanism, such as the following:

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

cyrek reply

CM quote
That's a rather weak reply. How is it then that an electron, which to you is a particle and always a particle, interacts in the exact same way as a photon, which to you is a wave and always a wave?

I'll also go you one better. The infamous double-slit diffraction experiment isn't just for light, you could also do the experiment with a cathode-ray tube with the same results. How can this be, if electrons are particles and particles only?

reply
The photon is composed of a 'negative virtual charged particle field congregate'. Since it is much larger than an electron, its charge is close to equal with the electron. So it will react like an electron whether in space or a double slit experiment.

I answered this before. Repeat:
The electron will react to other atomic electrons that constitute the edges of the double slit material. Those slits are much wider than the electron.
The way it passes through the slit, determines the wave pattern. By that, I mean near the edges or centrallly through the slit.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

But you've never shown the math. I can (and will, if you'd like) demonstrate how treating the electron as a wave can account for the interference pattern we see, including the relative intensity and distance between the various maxima. You've given a handwaving explanation, but you haven't shown how your explanation can actually account for the observations quantitatively. Unless you can do so, your "explanation" is merely a vague description, and not actually a sound theory.

=D> =D>

Lovely word salad you have there cyrek. Too bad it means absolutely nothing.
Repeat after me: A photon never has and never will have charge.

Nor does it have a "virtual" charge (whatever that is). Please at least try to understand that.

[-X More handwaving. Show us the math!!

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Which is?

Nope. Non technical answer: Electron on one side of a barrier, call it side A. It shows up on the other side of the barrier (call it side B) with no interaction with the barrier. This is due to the electron's probability wave, for it's location, spread out enough that the wave is on both sides of the barrier, and when measured, it is found on side B. You say you believe in reality. Well, this effect has been observed, so that is reality. How can your idea of the electron do this?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Doesn't look like we're going to get an answer.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=417200#417200

I think that one of the things that Cyrek doesn't realise is that a theory has to be consistent with all (or at least a substantial number) of the available observations. You can't just construct a theory that tries to explain one phenomena at the expense of everything else.

Yeah, I saw that after my response. Ya think we were putting too much pressure on his "theory"?

Acutally, a lot of ATM types do the same thing. Most of them don't realize how interlocking mondern physics is with the different obsservations from different fields.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Or (in Cyrek's case apparently) how amazingly successful QM is with experimental evidence.

The double slit experiment is only really great when you tell me why this doesn't happen when you only have 1 slit... 8)

And it is truely amazing and aweinspiring to realize that none of these conclusions was born from a want to massage the data...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

here's one thing I can't grasp. From what I learned till now (of course could be wrong) is that photon is actually pure energy, which has (similar to other small particles) attributes of wave AND a particle. I also understand now why it must travel always at the speed of light and why anything can't accelerate to reach or even exceed this speed. So in my understanding things can move either with lower velocity or only exactly with the speed of light in case of photons or only faster in case of some experimental tachyons, which I don't know much about yet.

But back to my question: if photon is a pure energy, why it doesn't have any charge? This is somehow hard to grasp, although I already realized that in quantum world one has to be prepared to accept new ideas. I naively thought that energy always has to have some sort of "charge".

Any help?

Thanks again

Edit: typo

__________________
If we presume that we DO live in 11 dimensional space, it's obvious why I can't find my glasses every morning.

Can you explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

The photon has no electric charge.
On macroscopic scales, electrically neutral objects can have energy.


EDIT to fix typo.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks.

__________________
If we presume that we DO live in 11 dimensional space, it's obvious why I can't find my glasses every morning.