No it isn't "entrapped". A bound state means the electron experiences a potential that confines it, i.e. the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is insufficient to enable it to escape into free space. The electron is not "trapped" at all, in your scenario. It is free. Semi-classically speaking, it can move laterally in response to the electric vector of the radiation coming at it from both sides, and thus oscillate in sympathy with the two photons. It may move laterally and give rise to Compton scattering of both photons. So I think you are incorrect to suppose that the two Compton scattering possibilities are cancelled out. Don't forget that in Compton scattering the angle of the photon must change if any energy is absorbed by the electron. That implies the electron acquires some momentum in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the incident photon. And I feel sure you are quite incorrect to state that "there are no scattered photons therefore they are absorbed". In most cases, the photons will simply pass by and each will emerge unchanged at either side. So there are no scattered photons, but no absorption either.
-An electron besides potentials can be also bounded over photons. Do not forget that photons are EM Waves that may create Standing formations, where the latter (Standing Wave) is a Potential Distribution along its length (Antenna and Wave-Guide Theory). -Although I use just the Energies as arguments, in order to create such trap (electron entrapped between two photons) is required to synchronize the phase of both photons, otherwise you will not have a standing wave and it will give rise to a two photon Scattering, as you correctly mentioned. When both photons are in phase and strike simultaneously upon the electron, the electron will remain at rest and it is quite obvious. I do not argue about this. Think again when both photons are in phase coming from opposite directions and strike simultaneously the electron. This specific configuration cancels the Compton Scattering process. I am aware about this special condition when the angle is zero. I just can't accept an interpretation that may not make sense. In this case the photon just misses the target, meaning there is no interaction. My argumentation does not address this special condition (zero angle) because obviously there is no interaction. I speak about the scenario of non-zero angles with mirrored photons in phase.
What you say about an electron being "bounded over photons" makes no sense. It is just wrong. An electron, being a massive particle with an electric charge, can be bound by an opposing charge. It cannot be bound by light.
First of all since an electron may interact with photons through the transfer of momentum then it is absolutely feasible to trap an electron using the configuration I mentioned above, therefore it is not wrong. I would agree It is unusual but for this you have to blame the books or QM in general. Certainly a bounded electron in an atom makes sense because the charge of the nucleus is all the time present as also there is an electric force at play. What I claim with the two photons will last for a very short time therefore you need two sources delivering a constant flux of photons in order the electron to be bounded for longer period of time. All of the above requires just common sense based on logical consistency (something that QM lacks always according to my view. I have tenths of examples). My argument must be initially understood in its simplest form. The case of a photon flux is also covered on my paper where there I engage the Power Density that leads to practical applications. Having just two photons the effect will last some nanosec and that's it (for this reason it does not make sense since after the absorption of just two photons and nothing more, the electron will cease to be bounded).
No that does not logically follow. Really? Your conjecture conflicts with QM so we should assume there's a problem with QM? Are you joking? That sounds absurd. Do you have evidence that something like that is possible? It is not logical. A tenth of an example is not enough evidence. Sorry, I am not buying it.
None said that you have to buy it, just think on your feet initially and then justify why my conjecture conflicts with QM.
I knew about no I^2R effect of superconductors and unbound electrons of it(superconductor), so I knew photo electric effect on superconductors. My question is .... Are those electrons(unbound that they called) absorbing photons and gaining kinetic energy ?
No, superconducting electrons are not absorbing photons, nor are they unbound. They are in the conduction band of the conductor and, being paired in Cooper pairs, which are bosons, they obey Bose Einstein statistics which mean the Pauli Exclusion Principle no longer applies to them and thus any number of them can occupy the same QM state. This is what gives rise to the phenomenon of superconductivity. But this QM state is still a bound state. If they were not bound they would be able to escape from the metal - which they can't, obviously. In the photo-electric effect, yes electrons certainly do absorb photons. But, as per above, they do so from a bound state within the conduction band of the metal. P.S. It may be worth pointing out that the conduction band of a metal can be seen as a series of overlapping atomic orbitals which merge to form what is virtually a continuum of delocalised orbitals. It is the delocalised nature that creates electrical conductivity, because the electrons in it are not associated with any particular atom any more. You may perhaps be aware of the delocalised molecular orbitals in, say, a benzene ring. In a metal - and indeed in graphite, which is an infinite array of fused benzene rings - the same sort of thing is going on, on a larger scale. But all atomic and molecular orbitals are, by definition, bound states.
We're thinking on our feet OK, but we fail to to see the need to accept, merely on your say-so, something you assert, without evidence, when your assertion conflicts with theory. That is just being sensible, isn't it? Theory says a free electron will not absorb a photon because that would violate the principle of conservation of energy. You, however, assert without evidence that, on the contrary, a free electron can absorb a photon (or a pair of them)....and that therefore conservation of energy is violated. Can you not see the problem here? It is you that must provide observational evidence that you are right and that theory is wrong here, because your thought experiment does not lead anyone, apart from you, to think there is a conflict. But, in case it helps to give another reason why your assertion is wrong, here is another argument, developed from my previous theme about transition dipoles etc. Photons carry angular momentum. When a photon is absorbed this angular momentum must go somewhere, because angular momentum is another conserved quantity, like linear momentum and energy. When an electron in a bound state absorbs a photon, its angular momentum increases. For example, an electron in an s orbital (which has zero orbital angular momentum) is excited to a p orbital, which has one quantum of angular momentum. Thus, angular momentum is conserved. If a free electron were to absorb a photon, where would this angular momentum go? (Bear in mind the intrinsic "spin" of the electron cannot be changed, so it cannot go into making the free electron spin faster). An electron in a bound state, however, may be able to acquire the angular momentum, as in the example I have given of the s->p orbital transition. There is a bit about this subject here: https://e3.physik.uni-dortmund.de/~suter/lamr/background.html Of course, you can choose to dismiss the conservation of angular momentum, just as you appear happy to dismiss the conservation of energy. To do that would be the sign of a crank, but never mind, you can make that choice if you like - just don't expect anyone with scientific training to take you seriously. Sideshow Bob got it in one I think when he made his laconic comment on your thread, Towards a New Physics, by saying: "Step one: misunderstand the old physics". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a lot to understand here first, before you are in a credible position to challenge it all.
I would be extremely careless and silly to ignore the Energy and momentum conservation. I will reply to your questions in the next couple of hours.
exchemist, I think you do not have your attention on my argument and you seem to be hesitant to discard my claims for whatever reason. The reason I always insist to anyone to "think on your feet" is to be able to apply logical consistency without fear and without the influence by what you have already absorbed as knowledge all of these years. Below is what I already wrote and still you fail to acknowledge: On what we agree so far -A free electron cannot absorb the total Energy of a photon. I do not argue with that and as I pointed you earlier, the mathematical proof you shared is related to a single photon interaction with an electron. -Obviously, an unbounded electron cannot absorb entirely a single photon since during the interaction the electron starts to accelerate due to the momentum transfer towards the electron and not due to the non-conservation of Energy. The proof you shared makes the assumption that the electron will not move during the interaction, therefore it concludes the Energy will not be conserved. It is a small detail but it is very crucial in our conversation. On what you miss to acknowledge -What does it means a bounded state? It simply means the electron remains localized in a region of space under the influence of an electrostatic potential. -Why would not be possible a free electron to remain localized in a region of space under the influence of two photons (trapped in between)? IF the book does not mention such configuration, shouldn't be feasible? It is not my fault, actually. -In order the proposed configuration to work, it is required two photon sources in phase and of the same Energy as also the hypothetical electron must be located in the middle. -The momentum conservation holds without question -The Energy conservation must hold in any case. In order to prove this claim, I justify the outcome as follow (please take your attention to the following statements): Since the electron remain prior and post interaction (for non-zero scattering angles assuming a mirrored attempt for a Compton Scattering Interaction, see above) at rest then: i) Both photons were totally absorbed (since there was an interaction without doubt). ii) The electron now appears to have an increased total Energy (due to both photons absorption) however without having its kinetic Energy increased (see the corresponding equation on post #10). iii) The (ii) statement appears to violate the Energy conservation (due to the way I presented the argument having just Energies). iv) Based on on the Law of the excluded middle, we raise the following question: What is required in order the Energy conservation (it always hold whatever the case) to hold ? Since the electron did not raise its kinetic Energy, under these circumstances it will be forced to reduce its total Energy. How can we practically prove such claim? Of course over an experiment (we are not yet now. There are two experiments that can be done by any serious laboratory).
Since the angular momentum must be conserved (as the Energy too) then the electron will start to spin faster. What is the problem? Who told you the intrinsic spin of the electron cannot change when there are conditions that will force it to do such? Actually this is what I prove indirectly in my work using the increased angular velocity of the magnetic field (it is a long way till there). exchemist, the problem with all these is that there are not adequate experimental setups in order to prove my claims. Why? Because all the experiments so far are limited to their scope. This can be demonstrate by the following simple question: Does the Compton Scattering process excludes the possibility of a decaying speed of light on quantum level? (think carefully before you reply)
No the intrinsic spin of the electron is fixed. This is a well-attested observational fact. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html Again, therefore if you seek to challenge it you need to do experiments that show it is false. Good luck (and, as with your previous willingness to discard other fundamental findings of physics), welcome to crank status. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Angular velocity of the magnetic field is quite meaningless. What do you mean? As to your final question about "decaying speed of light on quantum level" this appears meaningless too. What do you mean?
I am very sorry exchemist, you seem you cannot afford real arguments as it usually occurs with QM supporters. Nothing is written in stone until all possibilities are explored. About the Compton scattering I mean could the known setup and used mathematical formulations to exclude the possibility of a decaying speed of light during the interaction? Now you can go to sleep having the nice feeling "another crackpot, another day". Good Night!
Look I do not need to argue about experimental facts, unless and and until someone comes up with facts than show something different. That's science, I'm afraid. So far you have shown a willingness to discard the conservation of energy, the conservation of angular momentum and the concept of intrinsic spin of the electron, based on no more than your misunderstanding of what would happen to a free electron in the presence of photons from opposite directions. This is crank territory. We often get perpetual motion nuts who do try the same thing: construct a thought experiment scenario that is beyond their knowledge of physics to analyse properly...and then hey presto the laws of physics have been broken.....not. You seem to be just the same. I've tried my best to explain the relevant physics to you, but you seem determined to insist that what I say is not "real arguments". You are welcome to your view, but all I can say is if this is your attitude, nobody will take you seriously. I don't think you and I are going to get any further. Perhaps we should leave it there, eh?
You seem to ignore post #91 where I clearly demonstrate that I respect the Energy conservation but you insist to ignore some facts in our conversation. If you have nothing to add on this then leave it just there.
You seem to ignore post #91 where I clearly demonstrate that I respect the Energy conservation but you insist to ignore some facts in our conversation. If you have nothing to add on this then leave it just there.
-Of course exchemist that is science, therefore in order to prove my claims I present in my work a very common Electrostatic Deflection Experiment that has some small but significant details. -In regards to my unwillingness it is totally untrue. Read post #91 where there I show you where we agree and where it seems you discard my argument because actually you do not have a counterargument beyond pre-heated food. "if this is your attitude, nobody will take you seriously. ". This is actually the problem, you are subjective (biased) and not objective. Forget about me and read post #91 and just imagine that it came out of a kid's head. What are you going to tell him? It is not written in the book, therefore it is invalid? Great! I just wanted to demonstrate you that known experiments involving a charge particle - photon interaction cannot justify that the speed of light is constant during the interaction since the experimental setup in case of the Compton Scattering process measures the angle post interaction, therefore there was nothing measured during the interaction since the experiment was not designed to do so. Certainly, it is obvious, however there are even "experts" (professional physicists) on the field who often use the Compton Scattering as an argument in favor for the speed of light constancy. My work explores such kind of possibility (decay of the speed of light) and in order to prove it (those above) , the proposed experiment could demonstrate a significant deviation from the expected Relativistic deflection while the charge particle is being accelerated inside a field. Of course, you will be hesitant to criticize "this is rhetorical nonsense. All experiments have shown to be consistent with relativity". I agree. My proposal predicts the same relativistic Energy on exit (field's exit), however on significant Field Intensity, the trajectory of the charge particle inside the field will be influenced from a local decay of the speed of light. I simply mean since the electron possess a dipolar magnetic moment that leads to a dipolar magnetic field, which is caused by intrinsic angular momentum it means there is a correspondence between the field and the spin. When one is able to control the magnetic field of an electron by increasing locally its angular velocity then he will be able to influence its effective spin.
Well I'm pleased that at least I have got you to take your books out and to start reading! Good luck.
You seem to be implying that the spin of an electron is a classical spinning of the electron like a top - is that what you are saying?
