An ‘unknown’ electron.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

An ‘unknown’ electron.
==========================.
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e= +ah*c and e= -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Question.
Why does electron heed five ( 5 ) formulas ?
=========================.
Why does electron obey three Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
================================.
#
Now nobody knows what the Electron is.
1
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
2
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /
3.
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
All of them are problematical.
Nobody knows what electron is.
#
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.

/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
====================.
So, why we call an electron a simple
elementary particle if IT looks not very simple ?
=====================.
We know the electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Comment by Sam ‘sasam2 ‘
#
On Jan 21, 10:59 am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An ‘unknown’ electron.

Speaking of electrons - physics and biology seem to meet in the study
of interaction of magnetic fields with DNA.
I've read up a bit on studies undertaken by Poponin and Garjajev - has
it been discussed on TO yet? These studies seem to indicate a phantom
organizing effect of DNA on the previously random distribution of
photons in a vacuum - some effects lasting a month after the DNA has
been removed. No other material / substance causes this effect.
Poponin thinks that this can give some clues as to the sub-structure
of a vacuum, since the presence of DNA left a history of slowly
propagating "holes" in the vacuum influencing electromagnetic fields.
Garjajev focuses on the effects of modulated laser beams on DNA. These
studies seem to give evidence of the DNA code (all 100% of it)
following linguistic rules, while in vivo chromosomes react on DNA
(and normal voice) modulated laser. It shows DNA exhibiting some form
of non-chemical information transmitting characteristic connecting all
chromosomes of an organism as a unit, while starting to explain how
our toe nail DNA knows it must form toe nail cells and not nose hair
cells.
This shows that a DNA wave theory will probably answer some questions,
i.e the phantom leaf and limb effect while enhancing medical
treatment.
I've read somewhere that cells separated from tissue in micro gravity
does not revert back to their basic state as on earth, but retains
their individual characteristics. This also seems to indicate that the
earth's gravity field acts on the DNA "field" in some way.
Cheers
Sam
==========.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

Comment by Zerkon
I'd say they use the word to indicate reduction. Many things reduced down
to a few, these then are called simple as in irreducible.

Your question is very important, I think. Is simplicity here now void of
complexity, the only reason being the object is common or basic therefore
simple? Or can this simple object have infinite complexity which would or
will seem very likely to be the case proved at some future point.

"What will then happen" is a good question. A material finality must be
then formed outside of object parameters. The scientific method will
survive even as many scientific minds implode, for a while anyway.

It may be a greatest day yet to come. Philosophers in and out of their
graves, of course, will have to chuckle at least a little.
/ Zerkon /
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

I am going to a talk on the electron by Prof Andy Schofield of the University of Birmingham in just over a week. His department recently announced that they had observed an electron as two simultaneous particles, the holon and spinon. These have been postulated for many years, as I am sure you will all know. I know very little about this observation as of now, but I find it interesting that in this case what I knew as one particle (the first discovered I think) seems to have two constituents, or at least two distinct properties, that are not always collocated.
If it is not obvious by now I am an amateur, so can anyone here tell me if this ‘feature’ is hypothesized for other particles?
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

conceptualizer wrote: I am going to a talk on the electron by Prof Andy Schofield
of the University of Birmingham in just over a week.
His department recently announced that they had observed
an electron as two simultaneous particles, the holon and spinon.
===========
I can suggest you to ask the dear Prof some questions:
‘ Are holon and spinon similar to proton’s quarks ?’
or
‘Electron doesn’t keep its physical parameters interacting
with Vacuum. What are about holon and spinon ?’
or, maybe . . . . .
I try to understand that the Prof observed.
One example.
I threw a stone/ corpuscular / holon in the water.
Then I see waves/ spinins and not holon (it sank).
Question:
Did Prof observe the moment ( !!! ) when the corpuscular / holon
touched the waves/ spinin ?
And, maybe, therefore he saw two simultaneous effects. (!? !?)
===========.
nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by nameless »

conceptualizer wrote:I am going to a talk on the electron by Prof Andy Schofield of the University of Birmingham in just over a week.

I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that you are going to give a talk on the Professor's work? That you are he?
Not really important, but what is might be the following;
His department recently announced that they had observed an electron as two simultaneous particles, the holon and spinon. These have been postulated for many years, as I am sure you will all know. I know very little about this observation as of now, but I find it interesting that in this case what I knew as one particle (the first discovered I think) seems to have two constituents, or at least two distinct properties, that are not always collocated.
Reading this sent me on a train of thought to the end of time that finds expression as a 'prediction'.
I have heard the process of scientific inquiry and development (the continual 'discovery' of new 'particles', both micro and macro) described as; "attributes seen depend upon conscious choice of attributes to observe!"
We 'find' that which we are capable of 'seeing'.
So, as our technology continues to progress I will make two predictions;
1) That as long as physics breaks mirrors to examines the shards, only to break them as soon as hammers big or small enough are invented, that every 'particle' that is thought to be an 'ultimate particle' will itself be again broken. It is amazing that what we perceive, is only as limited as our tools of perception, with the advance of those tools, simultaneously manifests the 'observation', the 'new particle. All those -ons; ions and pions, tacyons and muons, morons and waxons (the antiparticle of which would be the 'wax-off'!)... which leads me to part 2 of this prophecy, that;
2) the final 'particle' to be/is discovered will be/is called a 'uni-on', 'Union'!
There will be no 'mirror particles', no 'anti-unions'.
It will neither travel foreward nor backward in 'time'. It can only be observed Now!
As i write it, so it is.

In that 'Union' it will be/is found that all these carefully measured 'distinctions', all these smaller and smaller shards are not now, nor have they ever been actually 'distinct' from each other as appearances have suggested. Scientific enlightenment is exactly this understanding, 'Unity', in which there are no 'real' distinctions (Mind/undifferentiated potential/Consciousness). That the Universe more resembles a 'tapestry' than a 'movie'.
Well, there it is, the final '-on' discovered will be/is known now and forever as 'Union'.
Those of us Here at the moment of said discovery can 'remember' this prophesy and marvel at the depths of the Universe.
Th, th, th, th, that's all ffffolks!!
*__-
Last edited by nameless on Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

The discovery was made by Birmingham and Cambridge scientists using special conditions in very fine wires. I will report back anything interesting that is said. I would be surprised if I need to ask about quarks and gluons, I expect that to be offered up, but I will of course be asking if the theory behind the discovery is not made lucid.
Nameless, your thoughts remind me of some of mine, expressed when I introduced myself.
“I do think that everything is information. Every time scientist look closely at something it seem to be mostly nothing and a tiny amount of something. If this pattern continues then there is nothing or nearly nothing but information. The arrangement of what there is would seem to be the important feature.”
Here is one announcement of the discovery:
http://www.newscentre.bham.ac.uk/press/ ... lits.shtml
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Mike Strand »

Thanks, nameless and conceptualizer, for your posts and the info about the electron research.

Like you, conceptualizer, I like nameless's thoughts about the "un-ion". Scientists continue to invent new techniques for breaking or taking particles apart -- particles that probably aren't anything like a rock, or a clock with parts that make it tick. And the electron -- more like a wave or a packet of energy.

The interaction between the observer and that which is observed is a big issue in such experiments. How much of what we see is really independent of our seeing it? So it's back to nameless's observation:
[quote][I have heard the process of scientific inquiry and development (the continual 'discovery' of new 'particles', both micro and macro) described as; "attributes seen depend upon conscious choice of attributes to observe!"
We 'find' that which we are capable of 'seeing'./quote]

On top of this, there are other sources of error in measurement which confound what we think we observe in these experiments. So I hope conceptualizer will share with us what he finds out at Prof. Schofield's talk. Conceptualizer, I hope you get an opportunity to ask questions about their techniques, sources of uncertainty, etc.
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Mike Strand »

Just following up with Conceptualizer -- if you have anything to share about the Schofield talk, I would like to see it.
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

Sorry for the delay posting this, but it is difficult to explain, and in spite of listening and asking questions I seem to have little in the way of bald facts.
Professor Schofield is a theoretical physicist who has had two sequential intakes of PhD students working on the experiments, so this observation has been a long time in the making.
The experiment requires a large number of electrons to be arranged in what is essentially a single dimension (from the point of view of what was being measured) by placing them in ‘groove’ and getting electrons to ‘jump’ from it. He stressed that the observation required a large number of electrons to be present in this groove, ten to the power 18 I think he said. A single electron will not exhibit this behaviour. He said that due to the complexity of the calculations only about 20 electrons could be simulated in a computer model, so it was nowhere near possible to simulate this behaviour.
This experiment observes the dislocation of the charge and spin properties of an electron. The former is called the holon from the notional positively charged hole an electron fills as it moves in an electric current, the latter can be thought of as the magnetic property of an electron. He did not describe the electrons as being made from of any sub particles, as far as he is concerned the electron is a fundamental particle which is so small that nobody knows the size of it. These observations are not demonstrating that the electron is being fragmented, but that its two properties can be dislocated when many electrons are arranged along a single dimension. A deeper understanding seems to require very deep or perhaps profound mathematics skills that I think will never be within my reach regardless of how hard I try. He did say that there are experiments that may demonstrate this effect in two dimensions, but that they are not complete yet. He did not report that anyone is working on a three dimensional demonstration of this phenomena.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

conceptualizer wrote: The experiment requires a large number of electrons
to be arranged in what is essentially a single dimension
(from the point of view of what was being measured)
by placing them in ‘groove’ and getting
electrons to ‘jump’ from it.
What is happen when electron ‘jumps from it’ ?
‘from it’ . . . it means:
Until now the problem of jumping electron doesn’t solved:
not in an electromagnetic effect,
not in an atomic effect,
not in the vacuum effect (how can electron keep his limited
physical parameters / sizes in interaction with vacuum).
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by Mike Strand »

Thanks, conceptualizer! Your account of Prof. Schofield's talk is fascinating. Only the specialists in the field can be expected to understand the math, so I and other readers should be able to appreciate your description of the experiment and the effort it must have taken on your part to obtain and summarize information from the experimenters.

Two aspects of your report stood out for me: The fact that it involved a huge number of electrons, and also that a single electron would not exhibit the "dislocation" behavior. This is consistent with my vague understanding that probability and statistical theory are involved at this level of physics (quantum theory).

This reminds me of an analogy between shuffling cards or shaking dice and the wave function of a tiny particle, such as the electron. Let's look at shaking a single die, then throwing it down on the table. The outcome will be one of the following: 1 spots showing, 2 spots showing, ... 6 spots showing, with a probability associated with each outcome. While I am shaking the die, any of the possible outcomes or "states" is present in the "cloud" of the die-shaking. But when I throw it down (i.e., stop the die from rolling and tumbling and take an observation), this "cloud collapses", like the wave function of an observed particle, and I see it in one of the possible states or outcomes.

I've heard the electron described as a "tiny wave packet" by science writers trying to explain quantum theory to the general public, like me. This puts the image in my mind of a ripple on the surface of a pond, or a display on an oscilloscope. Is it any more or less valid to view the electron's wave function as a "wave packet", than to view the die-outcome probability distribution as a little packet of probability spikes? True, the phenomenon of a die rolling around in my fist or in a canister is a physical, observable event, but the set of probabilities regarding the outcome of throwing the die down and observing the result is a mathematical concept only, not really a physical entity.

I would like to see people comment on this analogy -- its strengths and limitations in regard to understanding quantum theory.

Thanks again, Conceptualizer, for getting back to us on Prof. Schofield's experiment!
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

You are very welcome Mike.
I am only sorry I could not add more to the understanding for everyone who is interested. I did get the strong feeling that the good professor was trying hard to find analogies that we could visualise. He did describe how some of his colleagues worked in purely abstract mathematical terms to understand these phenomena. Although he was very gracious, and even stooped so low as to complimented me on my first question, I think everyone came away feeling like a chimp trying to grapple with calculus. These people are extraordinarily specialised, it was a very interesting and privilege to meet one.
conceptualizer
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 am

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by conceptualizer »

Socratus asked for some more detail and after trawling my memory for anything else that might be of interest here it is.
I think his account was of the electrons leaving the ‘groove’, not as reported in the article I posted a link to which said they jumped into the groove. I know you are going to think this odd, but the exact measurement was not explained and nobody asked the question of how the dislocation in charge or magnetism was measured. Although as the article indicates it was something to do with the rate of transfer of electrons and that as the electrons leave the separation can no longer exist for each electron. This seems like a huge oversight in retrospect, but I can only say it was challenging stuff to understand.
He also explained that there are big problems in the string theory camp at the moment, because the number of possible universes that could exist using the current version of the theory is in the order of ten to the power of two hundred and something. There are not that may atoms in the universe apparently. So that fact that we exist in one of them is not very useful. I think I detected a hint of mischievous pleasure in this revelation.
The only other interesting detail that I now recall is that he believes that in the future the more interesting area of physics at this scale, in spite of the work now going on at Cern, will be in the recombination of particles. He said that he thinks that new unknown and useful properties and effects will be discovered from subtle experiments to assemble particles in very specific ways, not just disassembling them crudely with force as we have done until now with particle smasher experiments. It seems like there is much left for this field to tell us.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: An ‘unknown’ electron.

Post by socratus »

conceptualizer wrote: He also explained that there are big problems in the string theory
camp at the moment, because the number of possible universes
that could exist using the current version of the theory is in the
order of ten to the power of two hundred and something.
There are not that may atoms in the universe apparently.
So that fact that we exist in one of them is not very useful.
I think I detected a hint of mischievous pleasure in this revelation.
String Theory ?
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT using 4D space
Nobody knows what Minkowski negative space really is
Trying to understand it, Kaluza in 1921 created 5D space
Nobody knows what it is too
So
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5 + 4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D how can we
understand SRT and another 10-D, 11-D/ String Theory ?
============.
Post Reply