White - Energy from Electrons and Matter from Protons - A Preliminary Model Based on Observer Physics (2003).pdf - Energy from the Vacuum - andreas50_54

Energy from Electrons, Matter from Protons (c) Douglass A. White, 2003 Page 1

Energy from Electrons and Matter from Protons:

A Preliminary Model Based on Observer Physics

Douglass A. White

dpedtech@dpedtech.com

Virtually all the energy we use involves some form of electricity. All chemical

processes and all electronic devices run on electricity. In a word, life on our planet

is electrical. Electricity requires working with electrons. Unfortunately, although

most of physics, and all of chemistry, involves primarily working with electrons,

nobody has any idea what an electron is, or what it looks like, or how it is "built".

The "models" that physicists work from are either derived from pure question marks

or fairly thorough nonsense.

Here is a list of fundamental questions about the nature of the electron that remain

unanswered or only opaquely answered as far as I can tell from browsing around in

the literature.

* Why does the electron have the mass it has?

* What is mass?

* Why does an electron spin?

* How does an electron spin?

* Why is the electron's spin quantized?

* Why is an electron charged?

* What is charge?

* Why is charge quantized?

* Why is charge dipolar (when gravity apparently isn't)?

* Why do electrons have both electric and magnetic aspects?

* Why are these oriented normal to each other?

* How can an electron constantly radiate charge without decaying?

* How do photons interact with electrons?

* How can an electron be a point particle and still have mass?

* How can an electron be a point particle and still be a wave packet?

* How is a wave packet generated?

* Where does it come from?

* What, if any, is the structure of an electron?

* Why does an electron behave most of the time like a fermion?

* Why doesn't the electron fly apart if it has negative charge and spins rapidly?

Energy from Electrons, Matter from Protons (c) Douglass A. White, 2003 Page 2

(There is no theory of gluons for "pointlike" electrons.)

Most scientists simply accept the existence of mass, spin, charge, and the other

phenomena listed above as givens and try to work from there.

If we wish to solve our energy problems, make progress toward a unified field theory,

develop new quantum electronics technologies and so on, it seems we should make

some effort to develop a coherent model of the electron. In Observer Physics (ch.

11) I propose a simple, perhaps crude, model as a starting point for research -- a target

to shoot at or a seed to plant and nurture. At least it's a start.

The first stage of the model is quite analogous to the Bohr model of the atom. Bohr

began with a simple description of the hydrogen atom. That simple model formed

the starting point for modern quantum chemistry and physics. Although the heavier

atoms become more complex, the simple hydrogen model with some refinements

formed the "prototype". In the essay that follows I will provide at least a first draft

answer to each of the above questions. The answers will hold together into a

coherent picture of what an electron is and how it behaves. As a bonus we will also

get a striking new detailed model of the proton.

For our new model I will ask you to forget the notion of electrons drawn as particles

that you see in many books, and also forget the notion of the electron wave packet

drawings that you see in lots of other books. Both these visualizations are way off

the mark and tend to mislead.

"Wave Packet"

(Typical Drawing)

I will propose some new visualizations that will help resolve the confusion and

contradiction that surrounds the electron.

The first visualization refers back to the model of the atom with a positively charged

nucleus surrounded by a set of negatively charged electrons that move in shells or

orbits. We transfer that model to the electron as a "view from a distance". What

we then see is that the electron functions as a negatively charged "nucleus". It is

Energy from Electrons, Matter from Protons (c) Douglass A. White, 2003 Page 3

surrounded by set of positively charged virtual shells or orbits occupied by positively

charged virtual positrons that have quantized levels of probability in the same way

that the electrons orbiting a nucleus have quantized levels of excitation energy. In

this visualization we see the electron as a smaller scale reversed image of an atom.

e+ (virtual positron)

electron

The simplest atom is hydrogen. It has one proton and one electron. All the

electron shells except the one occupied by the single electron are in virtual mode.

Use your imagination to visualize an electron with a phantom virtual positron orbiting

around it at a certain quantum probability which is too low to manifest as a real

particle because it is smeared out into a cloud around its electron "nucleus".

Because the mass of a real positron is the same as an electron, a real positron-electron

pair forms positronium, an unstable "element" that quickly decays by the two particles

mutually annihilating. Positronium is similar in structure to a meson, an evanescent

particle formed by the conjunction of a quark and an anti-quark. To behave like a

stable atom, the electron must only have a virtual positron in orbit around it. The

mass of the virtual positron is very small, at least a hundred thousand times smaller

than the mass of the electron, and only sufficient to cause the electron to wobble

slightly as it moves along. This model explains why electrons vibrate as they move

rather than simply translating in a straight line.

With this model we are still observing the electron "from a distance", and can't see

any details except that there is a fundamental connection between the electron and its

antiparticle, the positron. We will develop this idea in more detail later.

Now let's turn to the first question on our list -- the problem of mass. So far no

theory except Observer Physics has proposed a logical reason why the fundamental

particles have the masses they have. This problem is not just limited to the electron.

(For a more detailed consideration of the whole problem of mass and the fundamental

particles see Observer Physics .) It turns out that the electron's mass is a bit more

complicated than the proton's mass. The proton is the fundamental building block of

matter. Its mass is very simple, but its internal structure is complex. Description of

the electron's mass is complex, but its internal structure is simple. So we will have

to describe in detail the structure of a proton, and the electron's mass is closely related

Energy from Electrons, Matter from Protons (c) Douglass A. White, 2003 Page 4

to that of the proton. But there is another important factor, and that is the electron's

relation to the photon, which is the other major interaction the electron has.

The electron functions as a "go-between" integrating matter and energy, space and

time. On the matter side it interacts with nucleons. On the energy side it interacts

with photons. So its mass is determined by its role in these two types of interactions.

At this point I will state a formula for the mass of an electron and identify the

components without going through its elaborate derivation.

* Me = (H eo % a^2) / e.

In the above formula (Me) represents the rest mass of the electron. The (H)

represents the "h-bar" form of Planck's constant and has the value of 1.054x10^-34 Js.

The term (eo) is epsilon zero, and represents the permittivity of electric charge in a

vacuum. It has the value of 8.854x10^-12 kg / m^3. The units here are sometimes

written as Coulomb squared per Newton meter squared, but I prefer to express it as

the fundamental (or minimum) density of mass in a vacuum space when that vacuum

is excited by the transmission of EM radiation. The term (e) represents the quantum

of charge for a single electron. It is usually expressed in coulombs as 1.602x10^-19 C.

I like to express it in kg/s a generation of a pseudo-mass in time.

The term (%) represents what I call the Dimensional Shift Operator. It has a value

of about 3.1622 m. The exact value is (10 m^2)^1/2. This is a spatial constant. It

happens, whether by coincidence or by providential design, that the values of the

physical constants fit very closely to the metric system of units. For example, the

speed of light is c = 2.99792458...x10^8 m/s. This is very close to 3x10^8 m/s. It

is so close that most of the time physicists just round it off. Another example

involves the rest mass of the proton. By an amazing coincidence it has the following

relation.

* Mp c = P e Ru.

Here (Mp) is the rest mass of the proton, and (c) is the speed of light); (P) is pi, (e) is

the quantum unit of charge, and (Ru) is very close to 1 meter. Another way of

writing the expression is to use the Einstein energy form for the proton's rest mass

(Ep):

Energy from Electrons, Matter from Protons (c) Douglass A. White, 2003 Page 5

* Ep = Mp c^2.

* Ep = P e Ru c.

Rather than arbitrarily setting the value of a meter, it seems to make sense that we

calibrate it from a universal constant. The proton is found throughout the universe.

Physicists already do this to some extent when they use so-called "natural units",

setting h = c = 1. However, this choice renders the D-Shift Operator invisible much

of the time. It is like viewing multidimensional physics from the viewpoint of

flatland.

The Shift Operator pops up regularly in physics. The value (% = 3.162 m) serves as

an operator for shifting scales and dimensions in the physical world. Without going

into the details of the derivation and its many applications, we can take as an example

the commonly occurring relation between the smallest physical measurement scale

and the largest physical measurement scale (in terms of constants), the constants that

are usually "normalized" into "natural units".

* (H) (c) = 3.162x10^-26 kg m^3 / s^2. = (%)(10^-26 J).

* P %^2 = 31.4159 m^2.

* P Ru^2 = 3.14159 m^2.

* (P %^2) / (P Ru^2) = 10).

* (H) (c) = (Ru)(Ru / %)^51 J.

Thus we can define a Joule entirely in terms of (H), (c), and the two distance

constants. Since all matter, which is what we measure in space anyway, is made

essentially of protons, why not simply define the meter as a proton times the speed of

light divided by pi times the charge quantum?

* 1 meter = Ru = Mp c / P e.

The term (a^2) in our electron formula represents the square of the fine structure

constant (fsc). (It is usually written with a Greek letter alpha.) The fsc is the

dimensionless constant in QED that governs the interaction between photons and

electrons: (a) = (137)^-1 = e^2 / (4 P eo H c). Thus we can also write our formula

for the electron in another equivalent way that looks slightly more complex:

* Me = (% e^3) / (16 P^2 eo H c^2).

White - Energy from Electrons and Matter from Protons - A Preliminary Model Based on Observer Physics (2003).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: