Do electrons absorb and emit photons?

I know I quoted myself. It was in response to the above.
You even disagree with my agreeing with you:bugeye:.

Or maybe its too hard to follow a conversation beyond one post?

Anyway, I see you haven't voted. Scared?

So, DO electrons store/conserve/contain Photons?

Genius. well schucks...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact you have to add in your own assumptions about me shows that you're the one who is insecure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

People are free to have ideas which disagree with mine, that's how science advances. The problem is that science advances when someone can provide evidence for their claims. Which you haven't. Ben and I have not said the things you claim and you're unable to provide evidence to back up your claims. So it would seem you are lying. And the fact you're having to resort to putting words in our mouth and assumptions about us which you have no evidence for. For instance, if you know what I look like, describe me in an accurate way, as someone describing me to a photo-fit person would. What colour are my eyes and my hair? If you cannot then saying I'm unfit, unattractive and the size of my genitals are causing me to be insecure is nothing but your assumptions. And given they are the first things you went to, perhaps they are something which weighs heavy on your mind? After all, I don't have to lie when I come online to discuss physics, you do. What does that say about your level of insecurity?

So you admit you lied about us?

So you contend something which is contrary to the last century of science. So the onus is on you to support your claims. If you come across an electron in free space, how would you work out how many photons it contains? Please explain in detail what measurements you'd make and how those measurements would lead to your result. Otherwise how can we test your claims?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can tel a lot about people by what they say of others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can tell a lot about people by what they say of others.

 

Well I can tell you myself.
I'm an asshole.

 

Certianly electrons do emit and absorb. They are known fundamental attributes and processes. The process is itself, analogous to how matter may accept a photon as a kinetic energy, as the photon itself is transmutated into matter itself by a similar process.

Steve100

You can tell a lot by what other people say yes?

How precise.

 

Again, I "claim" that an electron absorbs, conserves/contains and emits photons.
I care not how many. The debate is whether or not this happens at all.

The absorbtion and emmission aspects have been agreed upon. Your apology is accepted.

So, without resorting to n variables and open space, lets discuss the only remaining contention. An electron CAN under CERTAIN CONDITIONS temporarily CONTAIN at least one photon. If not more.

My evidence for this fact? de Broglie.
Electrons absorb entire photons. The conserve all this is that photon. At a later point in time they emit another. (or possibly the same one. YOU don't know)
Hence an electron can contain a photon. Twit.

 

Could someone else please quote this?
It gets funnier everytime I read it.

 

Is alphanumeric saying there is no conservation, because in effect, there MUST BE.

I read over quickly what he askes, and he askes how many photons does an electron contain.

In respone, i say it is a minimal of energy, as much as it is considered by the Mamoths of physics, such as Hawking, that our universe is in a ground state. (This would indicate a singularitarian point of spacetime).

If it is true, then the process of E=Mc2 begins to take place... for at sufficiently high enough temperatures, the kind found in stars, which produce artificial hydrogen bomb-like conditions, four \(H^{1}\) nuclei fuse to form together to form a \(He^{4}\) nucleus. But what is observed, is that the \(H^{4}\) nucleus has a less amount of mass than the four-step process of the \(H^{1}\), and this is because there is a superfluous amount of energy, converted and hence...

... conserved.

 

If it is a minimal of energy, three photons can come together at least, and a portion of that energy can result in the production of a single particle.

Einstein may have been completely correct when he stated that the inertia of a system depended on its energy.

 

You can claim you're the Lord Jesus Christ and you can travel through time but unless you provide some way of showing you're right over another view, people aren't going to just take your word for it.

And there you going with the lying again. I've never apologised for anything I've said to you. Obviously you realise you're wrong because you cannot provide any evidence Ben and I said the things you claimed we did and now you're having to back track your claims and also pretend I've apologised for being wrong. I was never wrong in what I said to you. Including the fact you're an idiot and a liar.

I notice you ignored my post commenting on your own insecurity about having to assume things about my appearance, self image and views. What's the matter, can't you apologise and admit you were having to be a hypocrite? Did I strike a little too close to the truth?

Ah, the "Let's forget about me answering your question and let's consider a strawman I've just made up".

An electron having energy and momentum doesn't mean it contains photons. It's absorbed them and it emits them, containing their energy and momentum but that doesn't mean it literally have a box of trapped photons within it. That is what Ben and I said when we said "You're wrong". And now you cannot actually back up your claims, you're having to lie about what we supposedly said and you don't even understand what I'm asking you to show.

Other than it moving at the speed of light or the photon existing within it. A car contains a gearbox. The gearbox exists within the car. A photon doesn't contain a photon, it has some of it's parameters altered by the emission and absorption of a photon. An electron is a perturbation in the electron quantum field. A photon is a perturbation in the electromagnetic field. An electron absorbing a photon involves the perturbations in the electromagnetic field mixing with the perturbations in the electron field and becoming no perturbations in the electromagnetic field and a different perturbation in the electron field. So the photon is gone.

Yes, I'm a twit because you don't know any physics and you have to resort to lying to try to avoid saying you're wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

May I add, that this superfluous energy can answer for 40% of all the matter known. This takes away a 40% error of the energy found to be 122 magnitudes.

 

Here is what I read:

Blah, blah, blah, blah

Energy can't be gone now can it. Energy cannot be destroyed, only changed.
In this case into an electron as you have just declared above...

" A photon is a perturbation in the electromagnetic field. An electron absorbing a photon involves the perturbations in the electromagnetic field mixing with the perturbations in the electron field and becoming no perturbations in the electromagnetic field and a different perturbation in the electron field. So the photon is gone."

Thanks again.
(and your apology is accepted)

 

Thus proof you are unable to respond to anything I said and you have to resort to quoting things out of context. I had a feeling you'd do that.

I didn't say energy disappears. I have said precisely the opposite. Didn't you even understand what I said?

Obviously you didn't understand what I said, since you just thanked me for proving you're a liar, a fraud and an idiot. And wrong.

And that's a very obvious attempt at trolling. Must be sad being you, having to resort to such pathetic transparent attempts to wind me up. You fail to back up your claims, you're caught being a liar and an idiot, you're unable to back up your vacuous claims and so all you can do is try to wind me up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How transparently pathetic.

 

Electrons absorb energy which travels around as fundamental quanta - this absorption depends on the electron's state and the energy of the propagating quantum.
If the photon instead makes the nucleus vibrate, since it's an IR frequency, then at some point the nucleus may lose vibrational momentum by emitting photons, or by transferring momentum to orbiting electrons, that recoil from the nucleus; the electrons may then lose momentum by emitting photons at other than IR.

Therefore electrons cannot be said to "contain" photons; rather it is charged particles that create disturbances, in a field (on a surface) that has a constant tension, and these excitations travel 'along the surface' as self-contained 'wave-particles' of momentum, or energy.

 

It can be said, that photons contribute to the mass of like systems. If you like,the electron now contains the relativistic energy of the photon, and converted it to rest mass.

 

You are right.
This isn't even difficult. This should be understood by the seventh grade.
These guys would rather believe a lie and think they are right than admit they are wrong and know the truth.
Thats why I keep pounding this issue. The more that they argue the fact that electrons absorb, contain and emit photons; the more they embarrass themselves. People who know better read this shit.
Its gets even sweeter the more they call me an idiot (which I concede).
Keep digging your holes.
You guys quote dribble like parrots. Stuff you've memorized but don't really understand. But beware- the little I do know I understand intimately.
You contain what you absorb. It becomes part of you. You can't emit what you don't contain. Ya, I know its just extra energy possessed by the electron. Thats what a photon is.
And electrons CAN be at least partially- if not cmpletely- composed of them.

 

Thanks for voting Vern.
It shows you are confident in what you know and are not afraid to make it public as a matter of record.
I also voted yes.
My detractors seem to officially avoid this poll.

 

NO, HE ISN'T "right".
The rest mass is an invariant; photons don't end up being "contained" by electrons as relativistic energy; electrons don't convert photons into rest mass.

And you claim, from out of the blue, that "this isn't even difficult". It is difficult (maybe not for gullible 7th-graders though), because it's bullshit.

Vern has yet to show "anything" despite your support for his non-existent theories.
When is he going to actually tell someone what they are, for instance?

 

I notice you haven't voted.
Put your money where your mouth is.

Edit: I retract any position on rest mass because I don't know what "an invariant" is nor the nature of "relativistic energy".
I hope this refocuses this thread toward its primary arguement:
May or may not an electron contain an electron as I claim based on the absorption, conservation and emmission of photons as described by de Broglie?
I'll need a stronger arguement than, "Its Bullshit" or "your an idiot". Please.