Physical challenge question about electrons

[Basil]

Re: challenge question ..

i think a field is a human creation to make things and computations easier.i don`t think it exists.

I also do think a field is a human creation AND I also believe field, defined as defined it some days ago (i.e. a characteristic of space) is a real thing.

So field is a human construct that is amazingly coincident with reality, ...whatever it could be.

cheers
Basil

 

[tantoun2004]

Re: challenge question ..

Hello everyone,
I just have some points to say:

*First an electron can radiate energy in the form of photons or electromagnetic waves if u want but also it can absorb photons as we know for an electron inside the atoms, and through all its life it keep like this radiating and then going from high to low level energy then absorbing and gets excited and so on.
so it does not keep radiating continiously as u said.

*Also electric fields can exist by themselves without the need of sources. So if we have an electron which was accelerated and then radiated a wave, some energy is stored in the electric and magnetic fields of the wave and if the electron stops accelerating, the wave still exists and propagate by themselves so it's not the electron which maintains its fields. Fields are maintained by themselves.

I think this makes everything clearer,
Best regards,

 

[Basil]

Re: challenge question ..

Hello everyone,
I just have some points to say:

...

*Also electric fields can exist by themselves without the need of sources. So if we have an electron which was accelerated and then radiated a wave, some energy is stored in the electric and magnetic fields of the wave and if the electron stops accelerating, the wave still exists and propagate by themselves so it's not the electron which maintains its fields. Fields are maintained by themselves.

I can't grasp the idea of a field without source, i.e. a field proportional to nothing. Regarding your example the stopped electron is the source of the field. I agree waves exist by themselves (even where there are no electons) but if I have a wave I have to be able to find the source, or it has a source. If I get light it (probably) cames from star, if a I have radio it may came from a quasar, if I have background radiation... it comes from the big bang!.

BUT waves have a source otherwise we get energy from nothing.

 

[Harmasha]

Re: challenge question ..

The electron is stable giving its field only as long as it is within the atom.
So a free electron is ment to bind itself with an ion in its vicinity. All the more we say electron in classical sense, I mean it is considered to be in the form of a cloud, right. Please notify whether I am right or not.

 

[tantoun2004]

Re: challenge question ..

Hi Basil,
What I meant by no sources is what u agreed with which is fields can exist by themselves with no need of 'continious' sources like the example of an oscillating electron but of course a source must have generated fields otherwise we would get energy from nothing as u said...
Reagrds,

 

[melad]

challenge question ..

hi
i read your post and i say:
1. first one should know there are two types of energy kinetic and dynamic the first exist but you could not transform it to other type of energy like the dynamic one.

2. Secondly i say the the physics does not explain from where reasons came. it only describe things and rules that is why there is a magnetic field from electric current i has no answer but it could describe the situation and rules for it very well.
thankx

 

[Mr.Cool]

challenge question ..

i haven't the time to read all these responses, from what i have skimmed great discussion!!!!!

basis and xaris106, you have the answer. wow, and it didn't even require me to pull the teeth.

let me reitereate the important points raised

first, when an electron is sitting in space not interacting with anything (a near impossibility, but for now lets just assume it true) then is there a field? YES!! of course, that is the charge's job, to output a field. that's all it does, for the life of the partical. but does that field have mass? no, therefore it does not create a force.. it is just a "mass free" field. what does this mean? it means you have the field BEFORE interaction with charged mass (like another electron for example). you have a precurser, you have the CAUSE. this is the FIRST time this message board has found that starteling point.

next point, someoen mentioned that electrons radiate and/or carry EM energy - we know this because we can easily measure it. but they also stated (in recent post) that the electron absorbs "photons", and specifilly they were titled "virtual" photons. now we have the answer to the original question. the electron emits a field, does it have an input energy? the person stated it bluntly, the electron absorbs a virtual photon. well, call it like you want. virtual, photon.. whatever. the point is the same, the absorbed thing that electrons have is non-observable (can not be measured) and posesses energy which it delvers TO the elecdtron so that it can then emit that energy in a different form --> electromagnetic wave. i would propose that the electron which is "absorbing photons" does not need to be part of a material lattice to do this, even free electrons will exibit this behaviour.

the question given, the answer provided.

good work! fabulous.

so we are now in agreement, the electron is taking IN energy so it can pour OUT energy. this is well established in partical physics but is largely ignored in standard EE texts...

the next question we will tackle, and i know you are up to it, is why? WHY has this fundamental point been ignored? i will give you a hint, you must study the theories of oliver heaviside and john poynting circa 1900.

good luck!

Mr.Cool

Added after 3 minutes:

i just re-read my post, i should make the first point a bit more clear. a mass free field is the Source and when it interacts with charged mass becomes standard textbook transverse electromagnetic wave (the effect).

that "mass free" field is not observable, we can not measure it. all of our standard equipment built in 3-space depends on mass. "mass free" is pure energy, we can not measure that nor observe it as we exist in the material plane and all of the equipment we build resides there too.

Mr.Cool

 

[harsha_jois]

Re: challenge question ..

Hi
everyone.
I read most of the articles here and am intrigued.
Well Mr. Cool you're indeed cool. You've got a long chain here, one thats growing.
I'd like to join.
The question you've asked can only be answered if we assume that we exist in a labyrinth of universes linked bu blackholes of size and lengths varying infinitely.
i.e. every particle will be radiating and absorbing energy simultaneously via a blackhole. an infinite number of black holes are being opened and closed every second to maintain the process of energy exchange.
However I've no clue about how it all started. Because if it started it has to end. That means time must end and energy must also. Which is rather impossible to comprehend.

 

[Mr.Cool]

challenge question ..

hi harsha, thanks for the post.

i think you are getting the picture.. but don't let the "standard model" influence you too much or else you will get stuck in ad-hoc assumptions leading to black holes and dark matter.. there is of course no such thing.

but you are right about everything is connected and an energy exchange with "something" occurring all the time. this goes back to what tesla said ages ago.. and i paraphrase here .. "if the universe is static, then human kind is screwed, but if it is active - and we know that it is - then one day we'll connect our equipment to the very wheelwork of nature".

he was successful in doing this and know "we" know how, both mathematically and experimentally. this energy exchange is happening as you said, and we need to connect our equipment to it, or in other words, put our equipment inbetween this energy exchange so it can benefit from the flow of energy. maybe steal a little bit, convert it, and express the energy in our 3D world useful to a human.

energy still being conserved in 4D. so this is the gist of the conversation so far.

the equipment would have to be something indirect, since we being humans living in a 3D world can only build euqipment that exists in a 3D world (and folows the rules of a 3D world). so how to build equipment that has access to 4D?

as far as i know, there is only 2 things that can access space-time (the 4D world) and that is mass and electromagnetics.

eignstein put together the equation for mass interaction, E = m^2 as everyone knows... and this produces, from our view point, a curvature in space.

but did you know that electromagnetics can create a TWISTING of space? yes.. now you have regions of HIGH and LOW densitity of energy (that is active) and you can put a sharp gradient of potential (not voltage.. minor difference in definition here) which interacts with the twisting space-time.. and energy is extracted.

now you need somewhere to store it in the 3D world because this 4D energy is different than anything else so far experienced.

well, i guess i'll leave you with these thoughts.. too much of my own guiding. lets just say that it is sufficient to believe that there is more out there than is believed.

if you think that everything meant to be discovered already has been discovered the you have a very sad believe in humanity. remember, the wright brothers flew there plane when everyone said it couldn't be done... and everyone laughed when einstein said there is enough energy in the head of a needle to destroy an entire city - and then he did it.

this is the hall-mark of humanity.. our ability to adapt to our environment, remember our past, and look to the future. DON'T SELL YOURSELF SHORT.

Mr.Cool

 

[harsha_jois]

challenge question ..

Thanks Mr. Cool.
I was not refering to the dark matter as they state in Theoretical physics. Black holes as I said are assumed as just channels for high speed matter/ energy exchange. But every assumption leads to an end. That is causality. I think the concept of anti particles also creeps in to the scenario that we are discussing here. And sure EM always warps space-time. Otherwise we wouldn't be. Hope you can give us a bit more on the anti particles.

 

[snf280]

Re: challenge question ..

MAY BE THE INTRINSIC ENERGY

 

[laktronics]

Re: challenge question ..

Hi,
I have been a passive reader of all mails in this column. But some how when I found the discussions getting closed with a savage attribute to the elementary sweet particle viz., electrons being gulpers of phottons, that too to protect itself from an approaching rival charge, it hurt my feelings, afterall we are all made up of these elementary particles and we owe our existance to them.
So, I have decided to float a new theory as follows, atleast to protect the interest of these elementary particles:
I suppose that the field around an electron is like a spherical spring whose spring constant keeps on reducing as square of the distance from its centre. At the centre of this springy field is the electron core having a mass. This means the springy structure stores energy in the potential form. If you bring another charge with similar structure symmetrically to the field, the fields interrct, Newton's law of reactionary forces are generated and if the the first electron were free to move it moves away in opposite direction to the direction of approach of the second electron. If the approaching electron were to move in a direction assymetric to the field structure of the first electron, then, the first electron would move away at an angle to the direction of movement of the approaching electron.
Here the energy input has come from the person who brought the second electron into the field of the first electron and first electron simply obeyed only action-reaction law of Newton.
Now if you were to hold both electrons from moving, they should still experience the repulsive force and when once released, both will move away from each other because of this reactionary force.
As the elctrons move the mass gains kinetic energy and the field generates a kinetic field which we call as magnetic field. For a constant velocity the electric field maitains itself, when the particle is accelerated the field changes its shape and a portion of the energy stored in the field is propagated as electromagnetic waves. If ultimately the particle loses all its imparted energy, the kinetic field vanishes and the static electric field alone surrounds the particle.
All that said above are indeed questionable, but I suppose those basic paticles will be atleast thankful to me for supporting their intrinsic ability to guard themselves against an invading enemy into their home space!!!!
With best regards and waiting to here more from the enlightened members of this group,
Laktronics

 

[Element_115]

Re: challenge question ..

So we could postulate a condition where the particle is actually a closed system.
where at it's center it is connected to another dimensional particle (or Anti, Inverse
particle) where it's suppling one type of energy and in turn is being transfered the
"Particles Energy", That what we measure.(Like people giving CO2 to plants and
plants giving us O2).

Cheers

 

[Mr.Cool]

challenge question ..

element - exactly.

laktronics - thanks for paying attention. your theory is interesting to me.

but as we know, any theory is JUST A THEORY until you put it on the bench and prove it. then ask someone else to replicate it, and there you have it - proof is in the puddin.

Mr.Cool

 

[harsha_jois]

challenge question ..

Hello every one.
Happy new year. So far all the theories predict that an atom is self sustaining, but I think to be self sustaining it has to have an infinite source of energy. If it does then we must find a way to harness it.
And I don't think relativity is the best principle to explain it. Still we'll carry on the discussion. cheerio.

 

[Mr.Cool]

challenge question ..

yes yes and no

the principle of relativity is correct, that physics IS geometry, but it only explained half of it by saying only gravity (mass) has the capability to curve space.

anyway, the atom is most certainly capable of self sustaining because it DOES have an infinite source of energy (energy is conserved after all).

we need only to "directly connect to the very wheel work of nature" (tesla quote) and we can move forward into a new era.

Mr.Cool