Towards a New Physics
- Thread starter Ioannis
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
How do we know we won't catch a nasty virus from visiting this site?
And why can't you raise whatever issue you want to discuss here, where we can all see it?
Hi exchemist!
There is no danger of catching a virus, it is never my intention. You are right why we just discuss the subject here.
Anyway, I will start with the core argument (thought experiment) where my entire work is based:"Assuming you have a stationary charge trapped between two opposing photons of the same Energy. What is the expected total momentum and Energy of the charged particle under these conditions?".
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This question appears absurd for a number of reasons:
- A stationary charge requires an object or particle to which said charge applies. How could a stationary object or particle be "trapped" by two photons, which travel at c?
- What is meant by "opposing" photons?
- if the charged particle is stationary, stationary with respect to what?
- if stationary means with respect to the observer then the momentum will obviously be zero.
- the kinetic energy of the particle or object, again with respect to the frame of reference of the observer, will be zero (subject to any zero point fluctuation), but this may not be the only energy possessed by the particle or object.
exchemist, just do not be afraid to think on your feet. It is a thought experiment, see my answers below:
-Assuming a stationary (null initial momentum) charge interacting from his left and right simultaneously by single photons. It means both the left and right strike (better interact) the electron at the same instant.
-"opposing photons" I mean same Energy and opposite momentum where in the middle of them is placed a stationary charge.
-A particle is stationary in respect to a stationary space. We have only a charge and two photons, nothing else and nothing more.
-Right. The momentum is zero.
-Assuming a stationary (null initial momentum) charge interacting from his left and right simultaneously by single photons. It means both the left and right strike (better interact) the electron at the same instant.
-"opposing photons" I mean same Energy and opposite momentum where in the middle of them is placed a stationary charge.
-A particle is stationary in respect to a stationary space. We have only a charge and two photons, nothing else and nothing more.
-Right. The momentum is zero.
Since the stationary charge absorbed these two photons, why the Energy is zero or in relativistic terms equals to rest Energy? You just violated the Energy conservation.
Exactly this sentence shows your confusion or better you afraid to think on your feet. Why I say this? It is not towards you but in general. Since year (more than 100 years) Science discarded/replaced consisted fundamental logic with abstract arguments and mathematics that have nothing to do with reality.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Now you are telling me something new, viz the particle has absorbed the two photons. You cannot expect me to comment on elements of a scenario that you have not revealed.
This is crap and you are evidently an idiot. I'm out of this discussion.
Why are you insulting me?
When a charged particle is trapped between two photons what other can that be? I did not tell you something new. It is your problem when you do not get what means "trapped between two photons". Maybe my English are not so perfect as you expect. In other words this trap of photons is called standing wave. Claiming my work as crap and me as idiot you just reveal your biased ideas about people.
I also do not care to discuss with people like you. Open minded, thinking on their feet means no biased people.
When a charged particle is trapped between two photons what other can that be? I did not tell you something new. It is your problem when you do not get what means "trapped between two photons". Maybe my English are not so perfect as you expect. In other words this trap of photons is called standing wave. Claiming my work as crap and me as idiot you just reveal your biased ideas about people.
I also do not care to discuss with people like you. Open minded, thinking on their feet means no biased people.
Don't get disheartened.....There are few people here, who feel that they are non-idiot by calling others idiot......Your pleading will yield nothing....you have to learn their language and respond in that, because that is what they understand. But be careful site rules do not allow tit for tat abuse.
Coming to your point, I have not seen your website, I will do, but the point is good. What will happen if two photons strike an electron simultaneously ? You have made it further specific by putting a condition that these photons are striking from opposite direction....I know only one scenario that is Photo Electric effect, but in that case the electron is bound, but here in this case this electron appears to be unbound....So I suggest you have a look at Feynman diagrams, and scattering too, see if you get something. I will also look around, in case I find something interesting to add.
Thank you for yours understanding The God. I really appreciate it.
Well in mathematical terms we have the following situation as I published it a couple of hours ago on another forum:
Photon coming from the Left and assuming a Compton effect:
=U_{i}\: \: (1))
 = wavelength\:after\:the\:scattering)
Photon coming from the Right, assuming a Compton effect:
=U_{i}\: \: (2))
Adding (1) and (2) results:
\: \: (3))
When the electron is at rest prior and post interaction, due to momentum conservation there will be no scattered photons:
)
)
Finally Eq. (3) becomes:
)
Paradox: Eq. (4) undoubtedly leads to a paradox where the electron increased its total Energy without to change its momentum (null). Consequently, in order to hold the Energy conservation under such circumstances, the electron should reduce its total Energy, leading finally to the following expression:
)
The result given by Eq. (5) is the heart of my entire work (see web site above with the link on vixra.org just on top of it).
What do you think about all the above?
Well in mathematical terms we have the following situation as I published it a couple of hours ago on another forum:
Photon coming from the Left and assuming a Compton effect:
Photon coming from the Right, assuming a Compton effect:
Adding (1) and (2) results:
When the electron is at rest prior and post interaction, due to momentum conservation there will be no scattered photons:
Finally Eq. (3) becomes:
Paradox: Eq. (4) undoubtedly leads to a paradox where the electron increased its total Energy without to change its momentum (null). Consequently, in order to hold the Energy conservation under such circumstances, the electron should reduce its total Energy, leading finally to the following expression:
The result given by Eq. (5) is the heart of my entire work (see web site above with the link on vixra.org just on top of it).
What do you think about all the above?
I do not known some times I write something completely different than I initially thought using the wrong wording. It is there where a small misunderstanding expands out of proportion.
I have made a lot of mistakes in the past about my claims but now I am convinced I have something unanticipated important to contribute. This is the reason I joined this group and others (although they were immediately hostile. They do not want to hear anything else than established science although you may (me in this case) present them logically consistent arguments. What is their Reply: This is how Quantum Mechanics works what I mention is bullshit.)
People that are on a hurry to criticize without even to think on their feet, they simply expose their-selves and behave with a direct and biased way, unfortunately.
I have made a lot of mistakes in the past about my claims but now I am convinced I have something unanticipated important to contribute. This is the reason I joined this group and others (although they were immediately hostile. They do not want to hear anything else than established science although you may (me in this case) present them logically consistent arguments. What is their Reply: This is how Quantum Mechanics works what I mention is bullshit.)
People that are on a hurry to criticize without even to think on their feet, they simply expose their-selves and behave with a direct and biased way, unfortunately.
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
The KINETIC ENERGY IS ZERO.
Exactly! But the total is above the rest Energy. This leads to the paradox. I presented the same arguments to another forum and they said that it is simply impossible since I did not take into consideration the Uncertainty Principle. In few words they claim that it can never occur in nature because the setup is impossible.
The main argument against the Uncertainty Principle is that is a mathematical construct and not a law of nature. As you may understand my arguments hit at the core of Quantum Mechanics and its interpretation.
The conclusion of Eq. (5) leads to the development of my entire work itself that is richer than today's Quantum Theory since it may explain all of those phenomena like Quantum Tunneling, Coulomb Barrier between protons or electrons or mix of them, Casimir Force, derivation of the radius of the Universe (without Hubble's constant) and much more under a deterministic way and using a single framework. The most important is readable by anyone with just High School Education and interest in Physics.
The result of Eq. (5) if proves to be true (I do not see why not) simply reveals that: "The speed of light is not constant on quantum level and actually decays. ". The implication in Cosmology is that at a different radius of the Universe results a different value of the speed of light although negligible and this because the Universe rotates (better saying the vacuum rotates as you will see in my work). They are all inter-dependent. If the Universe did not have any rotation, then the charged particles would not have an intrinsic spin and consequently no magnetic moment. In other words Magnetic Fields would never exist on quantum level and generally. Consequently EM Waves or photons would never exist.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
.
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
If it is stationary electron then I don't understand that what the Uncertainty principle will do to this electron when two same energetic photons are striking it from opposite direction...!
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The trouble is that the scenario is not properly described, so nobody can usefully comment.
A free, that is, unbound, electron cannot absorb a photon.
One that is bound in an atom, or molecule, can, of course. And such bound electrons can (rarely, but in principle at least) absorb 2 photons at once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption . In the bound electron situation, the uncertainty principle would be expected to influence the width of spectral absorption lines (what is called "uncertainty broadening").
In the free electron case, there is no absorption so no issue, so far as I can see.
They claim that a stationary electron is a wrong definition and that is true since you can never have an electron with null momentum. However, I mentioned nearly null momentum. The main problem with those guys is that they cannot accept the fact that two photon strike a charged particle at the same instance.
Their argument: At that moment it comes into play the Uncertainty Principle that states if you know precisely the momentum for a particle, the particle cannot be located in space at all (maximum uncertainty). Consequently they say that these two photons would never strike the electron.
HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) formulation is a pure mathematical construct without doubt and not derived through a natural process (natural law). IF it was a law of nature, then it should be integrated in the formulations above. Since there is not such a thing in the entire Quantum Theory (integrated limitations within natural law formulations due to HUP), then HUP cannot justify why things are uncertain on Quantum Level.
The confusion today and always according to my point of view is that HUP is used to determine the limitations of nature, which is absolutely wrong since it is not a natural law. My work derives the HUP from a natural process and has the following form, which is a natural law:
It is exactly the known expression with a minus on the right term. This expression may predict with a deterministic way whether the quantum tunneling may occur or not, without playing dies (probabilities that are used in todays Quantum Tunneling justification).
In a few words, I agree with what Einstein once said "I cannot believe that the Moon exists only because a mouse looks at it". This sentence gives a clear picture about the existing confusion in today's Quantum Mechanics interpretation.
Their argument: At that moment it comes into play the Uncertainty Principle that states if you know precisely the momentum for a particle, the particle cannot be located in space at all (maximum uncertainty). Consequently they say that these two photons would never strike the electron.
HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) formulation is a pure mathematical construct without doubt and not derived through a natural process (natural law). IF it was a law of nature, then it should be integrated in the formulations above. Since there is not such a thing in the entire Quantum Theory (integrated limitations within natural law formulations due to HUP), then HUP cannot justify why things are uncertain on Quantum Level.
The confusion today and always according to my point of view is that HUP is used to determine the limitations of nature, which is absolutely wrong since it is not a natural law. My work derives the HUP from a natural process and has the following form, which is a natural law:
It is exactly the known expression with a minus on the right term. This expression may predict with a deterministic way whether the quantum tunneling may occur or not, without playing dies (probabilities that are used in todays Quantum Tunneling justification).
In a few words, I agree with what Einstein once said "I cannot believe that the Moon exists only because a mouse looks at it". This sentence gives a clear picture about the existing confusion in today's Quantum Mechanics interpretation.
yes-yes--when one clicks on his site--this should have been a red flag instantly:
" vixra.org/abs/1604.0039 "