Do electrons absorb and emit photons?

It's pink unicorns, because some of them have purple dots...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oooooh.
Why didn't you just say so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except the rest mass of an electron before and after a photon emission or absorption doesn't change.

I've asked you repeatedly how we can test your claims. You couldn't provide a manner. You cannot even provide a working model. So whose lying?

Except we aren't arguing all of those. We're arguing with only one of them. The fact you continue to resort to lying shows you only embarrass yourself.

So which bits of quantum mechanics do you know? Want to be put to the test?

So how does an electron, which has a rest mass of 0.5MeV emit a weak boson, which can have a rest mass of 90,000MeV?

And yet Ben and I are both here. We don't need to resort to voting in the poll, we can beat the crap out of your lies here, for all to see. Science isn't about public opinion, it's about backing up your claims. And you cannot.

I am willing to deposit $1000 into the account of a trusted 3rd person (or just to write an undated cheque), as you should do too, and then to wait for you to type up your work into a paper and submit it to a reputable journal like JHEP. If your work is rejected, I get your money. If it's accepted and published, you get mine.

That way we can put your claims to the test of "People who know better".

I don't think I have anything to fear and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?

Is this one of the things you don't know "intimately"? You talk about having people who 'know better' reading this, yet you don't even know the basic terminology which 1st year students know. Even people who read pop science books know better. I teach this stuff to kids! So I know better.

I've explained why. You've done nothing but say "Because I say so". I've asked for evidence, a working model, a way of testing your claims in experiments. Nothing. And now you admit you don't even know what basic words from physics mean!

We're going to need a better argument from you too.

So, who do you trust enough to send the undated cheque to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. That's a lot of writing.
The question, again, is: can an electron contain a photon?
Not about n variables, or any of the other side tracks you keep trying.
Not whether I can write and publish a scientific work. Which I can't. So I don't accept your challenge as I've never claimed I could be published.

My assertion that an electron can contain a photon is based not on my original theories (which I have none),
but on the work and interpretations of de Broglie. THATS MY EVIDENCE.

Now, if you want to accept a counter challenge based on the actual arguement here goes...
I say that during the process of absorbtion and emmission of photons by electrons:
At some point, the electron contains all components necessary to fully compose a photon. I'm not saying that the electron has to store the photon in unchanged fully assembled photon form. I don't claim to know the precise mechanisms of the conservation.
With the above reservations, stipulations and considerations, I state that an electron CAN contain a photon.

I will allow a trusted third party to hold a $250.00 money order against yours.
I say $250 because I will actually do it.
Please present your suggestion as how to judge the debate objectively.

 

Try this out for a ride:

A surfer is paddling out into oncoming waves, and gets lifted up and lowered back down each time a wave interacts with the board plus the surfer's weight (a section of each wave crosses the entire surface of the board, and parts of the surfer's arms and legs dangling over the sides).

Does each rise and fall of the surfboard mean a section of each wave is stored somewhere?

The only change is in the vertical position, so the potential energy of the surfer goes up as the board rises up each wave, and back down to where it was as the wave recedes. Nothing gets stored at any time - except in a potential sense.
This analogy is like the way quantised energy moves around between electrons - a bigger wave will lift a surfer up higher, a bigger frequency wave-packet does the same kind of thing to an electron.

 

Thanks for that patient and sincere explanation. I mean that.
Please don't take offense as I would like to question it respectfully.

The wave is traveling kinetic energy. Not water. The water is merely a medium.
I would have to say that yes, a portion of that wave IS converted to potential energy and stored temporarily in the mass of the surfer. When that surfer descends to the next trough, he releases that stored energy kinetically. Potential energy is very real.
On the quantum level of course this analogy takes on much different properties.

I hope you don't think I'm intentionally trying to be pig headed or thick.

I guess you could say that, by my own arguement, I am claiming a surfer may "contain" an ocean wave. Well in this macroscopic analogy, only a fraction of one.

 

Does it make your brain hurt to have to think for more than 20 seconds?

You fail to grasp that the 'n' I'm talking about is the photon count of the electron. If an electron contains a photon, then it must have a 'photon count', like a registry of the number of photons within it. As such, the quantum mechanical description of an electron should have, as well as variables like E and p, an integer count n which says how many photons it has absorbed minus the number it has emitted.

You don't even understand the notion of your claims!

Then how are we to check your claims with 'people who know better'? If you're so sure and we're just embarrassing ourselves, what have you to fear?

So why has noone, in the approximately 100 years since DeBroglie published his work, constructed working models like yours? You don't know the details of DeBroglie's work, you don't know the details of quantum mechanics or relativity and yet you're claiming his work definitely backs you up?

Now you're changing your claim. So it doesn't contain a photon, in the literal sense, it contains the energy and momentum of a photon which it then turns into a photon, in the literal sense.

That's what Ben and I have been saying all along! Energy and momentum are conserved so when a photon hits an electron and is absorbed, it's energy and momentum go into the electron. Then, when it's emitted, the energy and momentum the photon goes away with is directly lost by the electron.

Sounds like you've realised you've dug yourself into a hole you cannot get out of and now are trying to change your claims.

Judge what? A completely different claim of yours?

Must be embarrassing to have made such a big fuss, whined so much about people like myself and Ben being so wrong and now that I've told you to put up or shut up (after you said it to someone else first!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), you realise you cannot put your physics where your mouth is so you're having to back peddle.

:roflmao:

 

No Alphie, you are wrong.
"Energy and momentum are conserved so when a photon hits an electron and is absorbed, it's energy and momentum go into the electron. Then, when it's emitted, the energy and momentum the photon goes away with is directly lost by the electron."

I said electrons can contain photons and now you are agreeing with me to avoid a $250 loss and more embarrassment.
What else comprises a photon in addition to energy and momentum?

"Judge what? A completely different claim of yours?"
No, Please read the poll.
I notice you STILL haven't voted.
Anyway, I love you and your apology is accepted.
Now go suck a tit.

 

And yet you can provide no experimental method of backing up your claims, no working model and you don't know the mainstream models you claim back you up?

No, I said that electrons contain the momentum and energy of the photons they have absorbed (minus that which they have emitted). That doesn't mean they literally contain photons any more than the fact I've eaten chicken means I'm a bag of chickens.

And it's funny how you start talking about how I'm supposedly backing away from a monetary challenge. You kept smack talking about how Ben and I were embarrassing ourselves and when I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is, you run away and start altering your claims. :shrug:

If you're so right and we're so wrong, why don't you put it to the 'people who know better'? Can't you type a coherent page or two on your claims and get it published? If you can't manage that their either you're wrong or you're unable to be coherent for 2 A4 pages.

Neither of which say much about you.

The variables in a photon system are 4-momentum, spin and polarisation.

Don't you know this?

It says I cannot vote, I clicked the "See results" button. And as I said, I don't need to vote. Embarrassing you in this thread for all to see is enough.

The fact you cannot put your claims where your mouth is, you don't know the models you talk about, you cannot put your month where your mouth is, you don't know basic terminology and you have had to change your claims proves all I've been saying about you.

Must be sad, having to live in such a world of lies and delusions.

And yet you complain this website isn't fit for your 16 year old daughter to read. So you aren't only an idiot, a liar and a fraud, you're a hypocrite.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What an excellent role model you are for your off spring. You must be so prouf.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

:shake:

Hey alphie...
thats me there in your mind... fucking it.

 

And if you ate a chicken, you may not be a chicken but you would


CONTAIN


A CHICKEN. You pathetic gimp.

Now go do another 5 hours of research and multiqoute another 50 threads or so to make up for whatever you are lacking.
And you still won't be able to find any proof against what is taught in Jr High.

 

The fact you have to continue to say that, even after it's clear you've been caught in your own web of lies, would seem to imply it's actually me whose got inside your head and you're upset about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So right now, having eaten shark 10 years ago, I contain a shark? Or could it be I contain some of the energy that shark contained and some of the atoms that shark contained but I don't contain any of the meat or flesh of the shark?

Yesterday I spent 2 hours reading a book on Lie algebras, another hour reading a book on symplectic geometry and another hour reading a book on algebraic geometry and it's applications to string theory. All after I'd spent another hour rereading a paper I've written on the applications of Lie algebras to compact dimensions in string theory. What books on physics did you read? What level of education do you have in physics? You joke that you think I'm in Jr High. Firstly, I'm British, so 'Jr High' doesn't apply to me. Secondly, I'm 24 and about to start my 3rd year of a string theory PhD. Thirdly, I've a degree and masters in applied mathematics from Cambridge. Fourthy, I teach quantum mechanics to 2nd year degree students. Fifthly, I've given talks on quantum theory to professors. Sixthly, you ignored my challenge for you to put up or shut up when it comes to your claims you 'intimately' know quantum mechanics. Seventhly, you ignored my challenge you write just 2 pages of coherent discussion on your claims. Eighthly, I read more books, papers and lecture notes in a week than you've read in your life. In the last week I got 4 books out of the library entitled "String theory and algebraic geometry", "Symplectic Geometry", "Lectures on Kahler Geometry" and "An Introduction to Algebraic Topology". Any one of those is at least 2nd year university level (the 4th one), though typically are at or beyond postgraduate level.

So when it comes down to it, I am light years beyond you in levels of education, understanding and knowledge. And I have proven, am proving and will continue to prove that in this thread and any other. The fact you have to resort to making claims you then refuse to back up and such things as saying "I'm mind fucking you", when infact, you're upset I've fucked your mind, just shows how upset you are you've been backed into a corner and shown for the delusional liar you are.

So, wanna put $1000 on a bet about you being able to put your thoughts into a coherent, well supported, 2 A4 page paper and getting it published or are you going to run away crying like a whiny little girl?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And just remember as you try to think up an excuse as to why you won't, that's me in the back of your mind, laughing at you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

:shake:

...fucking it.

I read a cosmo article yesterday. It described ten ways to mind fuck an anal retentive with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

 

Nimrod.
How can I make one sentence cover two pages? I HAVE NO CLAIMS other than:

An electron can absorb, contain and emit photons.

And for the millionth time- Its not my theory. I HAVE NO THEORIES.
Its the de Broglie model of an atom.

But please continue, I love wasting your time.

 

Then you don't know how science works.

Noone else, even DeBroglie, agrees with you.

I'm sure you spent more time typing your post than I did mine. About 60 seconds. Well done, I spent more time today picking the skin on the sole of my right foot than I did replying to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you just couldn't manage to penetrate yourself?

 

You are one hundred percent right.
I am completely wrong.
I apologize for my stupidity.
I am sorry for ever contradicting you.
I yield before your obvious and well articulated superiority.
Please overlook my comedic attempt at reading and understanding scientific posts that are clearly beyond my comprehension.
It is blasphemous that I would dare reply to one.
I admit utter and unconditional defeat.
Would you PLEASE just leave me alone now?

 

I'll say to you what I say to Reiku, you stop posting ****, I'll stop pointing out it's **** for all to see.

 

pho

 

I know Photovoltaic Solar Panels converts light photons into electrons. So I say yes.