I periodically gather postings about similar subject matter and put them together in a compound posting. Here is a book-length compound posting all about electrons. If you cannot read it now then just read the introduction.
INTRODUCTION
You probably know that you are reading this blog, as well as using your phone and computer, thanks to electrons. All electronic and electric devices are based on the movement of electrons.
But the way in which all that we know is dependent on electrons goes far beyond that. An atom is composed of three subatomic particles, protons, neutrons and, electrons. The nucleus of the atom is composed of protons and neutrons with electrons in orbitals around the nucleus.
The elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus. Almost all of the mass in matter comes from the nucleus, and sunlight and starlight comes from nuclear fusion. But, other than that and nuclear devices, all of the effects that the nature of atoms has on us comes from electrons.
The materials that we deal with are almost always compounds, composed of molecules, rather than elements composed of atoms. Molecules are atoms held together by sharing or exchanging electrons. The nucleus of the atom is not involved in chemical processes, which includes combustion, cooking and digestion, only the electrons.
Atoms are held together by electric charges. There are two opposite charges, negative and positive. The basic rules of the charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Protons have a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge, that are equal to but opposite of each other. This results in an attraction of opposite charges that holds the electrons of the atom in orbitals around the nucleus.
By far the vast majority of the inside of an atom is empty space. Relative to the compact size of the nucleus the electron orbitals of the atom are far out in space. Yet when atoms are in contact with each other they do not merge together because of electron repulsion. The outermost electrons of each atom are what is actually in contact and, being both negatively-charged, they repel one another because like charges repel. This keeps atoms that are pressed together separate.
Nuclear fusion, upon which we depend for sunlight and all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, is actually governed by electrons. Ordinarily the mutual repulsion of the electrons of atoms that come into contact keep the atoms separate, because electrons are all negatively-charged. But if a vast amount of matter comes together by it's mutual gravity this electron repulsion can be overcome and smaller atoms are fused together into larger ones, this is what forms a star. The new larger atom contains less internal energy than the smaller atoms that were fused together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why stars shine.
Weight is based on electrons. Mass is the amount of matter in something while weight is the effect of gravity upon the mass. If the movement of the nucleus, where the vast majority of an atom's mass is concentrated, when attracted by gravity was not limited by the electron repulsion when the atom came into contact with another atom then there would be mass, but no such thing as weight.
When we push or pull something the movement is governed by electrons. Almost all of the mass that we are working against is contained in the nucleus of the atoms, but the pushing or pulling is governed by electron repulsion so that the atoms that are pressed against each other do not merge together, even though the vast majority of the inside of each atom is empty space.
I think we should all have an appreciation of electrons.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) ELECTRON REPULSION AND BINDING ENERGY
2) THE INACCESSIBLE STRUCTURES OF ELECTRONS
3) ELECTRON DEPENDENCY
4) THE INTERPRETATIONS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
5) THE MYSTERY OF SPIN
6) THE ELECTRONIC WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON ORBITALS
1) ELECTRON REPULSION AND BINDING ENERGY
We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another. This brings us to a question about the nuclear binding energy which binds the like-charged protons of the nucleus together in an atom. Where did this binding energy come from? What kind of energy was it before lighter atoms were crunched together into a larger atom? If it is true that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, then there must be an answer to this. It must have been some other type of energy before it was binding energy.
Materials composed of lighter atoms tend to be lower in density then those composed of larger atoms. While this may seem to make sense, it really doesn't. The density should actually be the same regardless of whether it is composed of larger or smaller atoms.
The example that I use was of a box filled with ball bearings. The box should end up weighing about the same regardless of whether the ball bearings were large or small. I did not actually fill a box with ball bearings but I calculated that, no matter what the size of the ball bearings, the empty space remaining in the box would be the same. Therefore, the box should end up weighing about the same regardless of the size of the ball bearings.
But when smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, there must be less overall electron repulsion among the larger atoms simply because there was less overall surface area and binding energy is a direct function of surface area. More smaller atoms will have more overall surface area and thus more electron repulsion. This is what holds the atoms apart so that materials composed of lighter atoms are less dense.
238 hydrogen atoms eventually get crunched together to form one uranium atom. The reason that uranium is far more dense than an equivalent mass of hydrogen is that there is so much less electron repulsion, even though there is no significant change in actual mass. There is also the factor that larger atoms take up proportionally less space than lighter atoms because there is more opposite charge attraction pulling inward, from both more positively-charged protons in the nucleus and more negatively-charged electrons in orbitals, and this compresses the larger atom.
Electron repulsion is simply the mutual repulsion between negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of adjacent atoms. Remember that like charges repel while opposite charges attract. This is what keeps matter intact, because atoms cannot merge into one another due to this. This is also why matter and antimatter mutually annihilate, antimatter has positively-charged positrons in it's orbitals instead of negatively-charged electrons so that there is no such repulsion between matter and antimatter.
Radiation released by the sun and the stars is actually the former orbital energy of electrons as they are crunched into protons to form neutrons. That is the only way to explain why the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier elements, at least up to iron. It is true that some of the mass or the nucleus is actually transformed into binding energy, as we move up the binding energy curve, but it still requires energy to overcome the mutual repulsion of like-charged nuclei so that the nuclear force can take over and apply binding energy to hold the nucleus together.
But where does this ever-increasing binding energy in progressively heavier nuclei in the star, up to iron, come from? Energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, so there must be an explanation of where this energy came from. There is only a certain amount of energy in the star to be changed from one form to another and, as time goes on and lighter atoms are continuously crunched into larger ones, the total binding energy within atoms within the star just keeps increasing.
But what about our principle of electron repulsion and density? Electron repulsion resists gravity, it holds back the crunching of smaller atoms together by the gravitational mass of the star. If it can resist one of the basic forces of nature, then it must be energy. Just as we use the energy in fuel to launch a rocket or aircraft in opposition to gravity, electron repulsion is energy that resists gravity.
Distance is equivalent to energy because we can see that a higher satellite orbit is a higher-energy orbit and an object that falls a greater distance on earth will impact the surface with greater energy. If distance is equivalent to energy this must mean that surface area is also equivalent to energy. When two or more smaller atoms are crunched together in stars the new larger atom has less overall surface area than the atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and that is why stars shine.
The binding energy that holds the nucleus of an atom together against the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons in the nucleus is also energy. That is why it is called binding energy. In fact, the binding energy in the nucleus is the exact opposite of the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart until it is overwhelmed by the gravitational mass of the star. Electron repulsion uses the mutual repulsion between like charges to keep atoms apart, while the binding energy in the nucleus keeps the atom together by overcoming the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons. The the short-range nuclear force can then take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
Can you see what I am moving toward here? The electron repulsion between atoms is the exact opposite of the binding energy that holds atoms together. As the star progresses in crunching smaller atoms into larger ones, the overall electron repulsion of all atoms in the star decreases because there is less overall atomic surface area, while the total nuclear binding energy in the star increases because as atoms get heavier the binding energy per nucleon increases, according to the binding energy curve in elements up to iron and nickel.
We also know that energy can never be lost or destroyed, but only charged in form. This means simply that the energy in electron repulsion must have gone somewhere, and the binding energy in the nuclei must have come from somewhere. At the sub-atomic scale, there can be no such thing as energy inefficiency so the energy cannot just get "lost" somewhere. We must be able to see the results of whatever form that energy is changed to.
If you guessed that it is the energy in the electron repulsion that makes material composed of smaller atoms less dense and resists the crunching of atoms together that gets transformed into the energy that overcomes the mutual repulsion of positively-charged nuclei of lighter atoms being crunched together so that the short-range nuclear force can convert some of the mass of the nucleus into the binding energy that holds the atomic nuclei together, then you are absolutely correct.
As lighter atoms are crunched together within stars, there is progressively less electron repulsion. There are fewer electrons in orbitals of atoms, but progressively more neutrons as electrons are crunched into protons to form neutrons. There is the energy released as radiation, but yet there is more binding energy within the nuclei. It must all form an equation.
Remember, once again, that the energy of electron repulsion is not directly itself transformed into binding energy in the nucleus. But the energy that was in electron repulsion is reversed so that it can force the nuclei of light atoms close enough together so that the short-range nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into the binding energy which permanently holds the nucleus together.
It is easier to explain how the former orbital energy (just like a satellite has orbital energy) of electrons is transformed into radiation then it would be to explain how it it turned into binding energy. It is also easier to explain how the energy in electron repulsion between atoms is transformed into the energy which forces nuclei together than it would be to explain how it is turned into radiation.
This is why I maintain here that the energy in electron repulsion gets converted into the inward energy that makes it possible for the nuclear force to convert some of the mass into binding energy as many smaller atoms are crunched together into fewer larger ones. The many smaller atoms have more total energy of electron repulsion but the fewer larger atoms have more total binding energy.
It is why I also maintain that the fewer larger atoms have fewer total electrons in orbitals than the many smaller atoms. Since there is energy in the orbitals of these electrons, energy must have been released as electrons were crunched into protons to form neutrons.
A uranium atom, for example, has 238 total nucleons in the nucleus but only 92 protons and electrons. This started out as 238 hydrogen atoms with one proton and one electron, meaning that 146 electrons got crunched into protons to form neutrons. Much of that former orbital energy must have gotten released as radiation, even though most electrons in the uranium atom are in higher energy level orbitals than they were in the beginning, as electrons in hydrogen atoms.
The orbital energy of the electrons in higher orbitals would have also come from the same source as the energy which forces nuclei together. When two smaller atoms are crunched together into a larger one, there would not be enough room in the lower orbitals for all of the electrons in the new atom. Some of them would form a higher orbital shell, and the higher energy of that shell would have come from the same former energy of electron repulsion that was being converted to the inward energy that forces nuclei together.
It is this electron repulsion that actually drives the life-cycle processes within stars. It gets progressively more difficult to crunch atoms together by gravity as the atoms get heavier, and this determined the life-cycle of the star.
2) THE INACCESSIBLE STRUCTURES OF ELECTRONS
As far as we can tell electrons are mere point particles of negative charge with no internal structure that we can discern. We can see that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom are composed of quarks, but there is apparently no such internal structure for electrons. But let's stop and consider this carefully.
How do we measure and look into things? We can receive electromagnetic waves, such as light, and can sense magnetism and electrical forces as well. But electromagnetism is the way that we can receive information about the world around us.
Not only is electromagnetism the way that we can receive information about the world around us but the only way we can receive that electromagnetism is by it's effect on electrons. The photoelectric effect, for example, that enables us to see results when the energy in electromagnetic radiation can knock an outer electron in an atom out of it's orbital.
The electrons in the outer orbitals have the highest energy and additional energy from the radiation may be enough to knock it out of the atom altogether. This causes a flow of electrons that the nerves in our eyes can sense or we can measure with electronic equipment.
Because we can only see by receiving electromagnetic waves, that puts certain limits on our vision. An optical microscope is limited by the wavelengths of light to a magnification of about 1400 x. Any magnification beyond this is impossible because the wavelengths of light that we see are too long to convey the necessary information. We can get around this limitation by using an electron microscope, which uses a beam of electrons instead of visible light.
Since we do not actually see an object, but only the light emitted or reflected by the object, that brings about the phenomenon of optical illusions. That is another factor in our vision that there may be conditions in which the electromagnetic waves that our eyes receive do not accurately convey what we are looking at.
The classic optical illusion is a rainbow. When the sun is at our back and there are droplets of water in the air up ahead, if light is refracted twice within the droplets so that it comes back to us it will break white light down into it's component colors. Since shorter wavelengths are refracted more than longer ones the colors are separated.
The optical illusion that we see the most often is the blue sky. There is no blue wall as it appears. Objects reflect the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that are about the same as their wavelength. The fine particles of dust that are small enough to remain airborne in the atmosphere are of a scale that reflects blue light, the shortest wavelength of light. The blue light is reflected all around and that is why the sky appears blue.
At evening, when the sun is low in the sky, it's light comes at us through a greater depth of atmosphere. The result of this is that the blue light is scattered away altogether so that only the light at the opposite end of the scale of visible light remains. This is red light and is why sunsets appear as red. If we look at the boundary region between night and day from out in space, we can see a line of blue light that was scattered away.
But all of this is an optical illusion because we are seeing light that has been refracted by the atmosphere so that it does not represent a physical object that it has been reflected or emitted by. The fact that light can be refracted, as well as reflected or emitted, is generally what brings about optical illusions.
Another optical illusion of refraction is the apparent shimmering water mirage that is sometimes seen on the road up ahead on a hot day. But when we arrive at where the water seems to be, we find that it has moved further back so that we never actually reach it. That is caused by the light being refracted by heated air rising from the road.
The interface between water and air also brings an optical illusion. If you look at something below the surface of the water, it is not exactly where it seems to be because water and air have different indexes of refraction. You can see this by how a pole that you hold and put into the water seems to bend where the air meets the water.
So if we are dependent on electromagnetism for information about the world around us, and it's effect on electrons is the only way that we can receive this electromagnetism, isn't it possible that there might be other "illusions" or limitations in the information that we receive?
What about electrons themselves? We are absolutely dependent on electrons, and the fact that they can be made to flow as an electric current by being knocked out of electron orbitals, to receive information. If the nature of light, as electromagnetic waves, brings limitations due to wavelength and optical illusions, then what about the nature of electrons?
Have we ever thought about how the fact that we can only receive information by way of electrons might affect our understanding of the electrons themselves?
We perceive electrons as simply negatively-charged points with no discernible internal structure at all. But we use electrons as "bits" in receiving and processing information. This information is brought to us by whole electrons and never by anything smaller than an electron. Electrons themselves are the smallest "bits" in the receiving and processing of information.
So how can electrons be anything but simply a negatively-charged point? By using whole electrons as the smallest "bits" or information we are limited to determining that an electron is there, but cannot see what it might be made of or it's internal structure. This is not true of protons or neutrons, in which we can discern an internal structure, but only of electrons.
It is reminiscent of trying to get an optical microscope to magnify something more than about 1400 x. Electromagnetic waves are reflected by objects that are about the same as their wavelength and this means that we cannot directly see objects smaller than this wavelength. But we can get around this, seeing at least an image of an object smaller than this, by using an electron microscope that shoots a beam of electrons at an object.
But we cannot do this if we want to further observe electrons themselves. Electrons are the only "bits" that we have to receive and process information. This means that the only way we can discern whatever internal structure the electron might have is to use a "bit" of information that is smaller than the electrons themselves but will somehow interact with them and that is something that, at this point, we do not have.
We can never learn everything about our world because we are limited by the process that we use to receive information. We cannot perceive electrons as anything but point particles, having no internal structure, simply because we are dependent on these electrons for information.
3) ELECTRON DEPENDENCY
How about some outside the box thinking about a perplexing scientific issue?
Quark Theory has been around since the mid-1960s and is widely accepted. According to the theory there are six quarks, plus the corresponding antiquarks of antimatter. But only two quarks are really important to us, the up and the down quarks. It is sometimes said that, if all quarks except the up and down quarks disappeared tomorrow, only particle physicists would notice.
Quarks are theorized to combine together to form subatomic particles called hadrons. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons, both of which are hadrons composed of quarks. The third component particle of atoms are electrons. But electrons are a different class of particles, known as leptons, which are not composed of quarks.
Quarks may seem to be an arcane topic to you but they really aren't. Your body is made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and, electrons. A proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron and a neutron 1,837 times the mass. An atom, except hydrogen, contains at least twice as many protons and neutrons together as electrons. This means that virtually all of the mass of your body, except maybe one part in three thousand, is composed of quarks, all of which are combined together to form protons and neutrons.
The component particles of the atom have integral electric charges. An electron has a charge of -1. A proton has a charge of +1. A neutron has a charge of zero.
Quarks have fractional, rather than integral, electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 while a down quark has a charge of -1/3. Two up quarks combined with one down quark produces a proton with a net electric charge of +1. Two down quarks with one up quark produces a neutron with a net electric charge of zero.
In the postwar period so many new particles were discovered that it was referred to as the "Particle Zoo". It was felt by many that there couldn't really be this many fundamental particles. As it turned out, there wasn't. According to Quark Theory many of these particles were actually composed of the even more fundamental quarks.
Quark Theory has been very widely accepted. The only complication seems to be that an individual quark has never been observed. Quarks are only seen when combined together to form protons and neutrons.
Not long after Quark Theory emerged, quark stars were theorized to exist. A star is an equilibrium between the inward pull of the gravity of the star's mass and the outward push from the energy released by fusion in the star's center. A star forms when enough matter comes together by gravity to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The new larger atom contains less internal energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and that is why stars shine.
But a star eventually reaches the point where it requires more force to break atoms apart than is released by their fusion. That point is iron and it is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes. Without the outward force of the energy released by fusion the star may collapse so that the structures of the atoms themselves are crushed.
What happens at this point is that the electrons of the atoms are crunched into the protons to form neutrons, which is what happens in ordinary fusion. This forms what is known as a neutron star, although it is no longer technically a star because fusion is not taking place.
Since the structure of an atom is mostly empty space, and since the structures of it's atoms have collapsed, a neutron star is composed of extremely dense material. A spoonful of material from a neutron star is believed to weigh billions of tons.
The collapse of the star's atoms brings it's matter into extremely close quarters. This increases the force of gravity still further and brings about further collapse. The result is that the structures of the neutrons collapse into the unimaginably dense mass of a black hole. The material of a black hole is about two hundred times as dense as a neutron star.
The theory is that, since neutrons are composed of quarks, there should be a stage in the progressive collapse of matter, between neutron stars and black holes, that had the star composed of quarks and would be known as a quark star.
But like individual quarks themselves no quark stars have ever been found. Plenty of neutron stars and plenty of black holes have been found, but no quark stars.
There is, of course, the possibility that Quark Theory is wrong and there is no such thing as quarks. But the theory explains so much and is so widely accepted.
I have another explanation of why no quarks or quark stars have ever been found and cannot see that this explanation has ever been offered. The explanation was not difficult to arrive at, it just involved some thinking outside the box.
What if the reason we have never detected quarks or quark stars is not that they are not there, but that we can't detect them?
Once again it comes back to the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe. What if we don't have an unbiased view of the universe? In other sciences, like geology and chemistry and everyday physics, it may not make a difference. But in cosmology it does make a difference. My cosmology theory is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe, we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
We rely on electromagnetic radiation, which includes visible light, for our information about the universe. As the name implies electromagnetic radiation is based on electric charges. In my cosmology theory empty space consists of a perfectly alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. The basic rules of electric charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. The charged particles of matter, such as electrons, consist of like charges held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. This energy shows up as the intrinsic energy in matter known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is why Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, has mass being convertible into energy.
In contrast to matter electromagnetic waves, including light, consist of disturbances, caused by energy, in the checkerboard of alternating electric charges comprising empty space. In my cosmology theory energy always goes to overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. Matter forms when the mutual repulsion of like charges is overcome by energy, to produce charged particles such as electrons. Electromagnetic radiation is formed when energy overcomes the attraction between opposite charges in space.
When electromagnetic waves encounter matter they "bounce off", or are reflected, by the electric charge of the electrons on the outside of atoms. This is why matter reflects light and we can see things. It doesn't matter if the outside of the atom has a positive or negative electric charge, it would be reflected off antimatter in the same way as ordinary matter.
Has anyone ever thought that the reason we cannot detect quarks and quark stars is not that they are not there but due to the nature of the electromagnetic radiation upon which we depend for information?
What if the production and reflection of electromagnetic radiation as we know it depends on integral electric charges? By "integral" I mean integers or whole numbers. A proton has an electric charge of +1, an electron of -1, and a neutron of 0.
Remember that quarks, in contrast, have fractional electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 and a down quark of -1/3. What if electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, only works with integral electric charges and not with fractional charges?
Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of integral electric charges. The only way that we can see or detect electromagnetic radiation is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals in atoms, this produces an electric current in our eyes or detection equipment.
Why is it that we can see or detect the electromagnetic radiation from matter as long as it is composed of integral electric charges, but it seems to "vanish" and we can detect it only by it's gravity when it breaks down into fractional electric charges? Doesn't that make it seem clear that the "invisibility" of the fractional electric charges is due more to the nature of electromagnetic radiation than to the matter itself?
There are so many optical illusions on earth, blue sky, rainbows, red sunset, etc. So why should we expect that electromagnetic radiation from space will always convey the universe just the way it is?
Electromagnetic radiation, including light, is produced by the movement of integral electric charges, which are almost always electrons with a charge of -1. They are reflected by integral electric charges which are, again, almost always electrons. The only way that we can receive electromagnetic radiation is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals, in our eyes or detection equipment.
It appears that electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, is based on integral electric charges. When the radiation encounters something that is not composed of integral electric charges, which simply means the charge on an electron or a proton whether it be negative or positive, it is as if the matter is speaking a different "language" that our familiar electromagnetic radiation doesn't "understand".
The way we see it is that the gravity of the black hole is so great that it doesn't allow even light to escape. But what that amounts to, once again, is the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe and that our observations and measurements are completely reliable in our gaining understanding of how the universe works. But the fact is that we are dependent on electromagnetic radiation to convey information to us and one of the things that we must take into account is the nature of that radiation.
This adds a new dimension to electromagnetic radiation. Not only is there the wavelength, from long radio waves to short gamma rays, but there is also the electric charges that produce, reflect and, receive the waves, from the integral charges on electrons and protons to the fractional charges, in thirds, on quarks.
Since we are dependent on the electromagnetic radiation involving electrons for our information let's call it "Electron Dependency". It is the reason that we cannot detect individual quarks or quark stars or black holes.
One obvious conclusion that some might come to is that this explains "Dark Matter". Matter that is gravitationally active but cannot be seen because it is not composed of integral electric charges.
Here is a link to another line of thinking, my hypothesis that black holes actually are the missing quark stars:
https://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-missing-quark-stars.html?m=0
We can discern nothing about the structure of electrons themselves. They seem to us to be nothing more than point particles. But, once again, that is a matter of our perspective and that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We have seen that we cannot see electrons as anything other than mere points simply because it is electrons that we depend upon to convey information.
4) THE INTERPRETATIONS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Never has there been a topic that is so simple but that we have so over-complicated as Quantum Physics.
THREE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHYSICS
We could say that there are three separate classifications of physics. The most familiar is "classical physics". This is the everyday physics of how the physical universe operates that is found in an ordinary physics textbook.
But there are also two other classifications of physics. These are commonly referred to as Relativity and Quantum Physics (or Quantum Mechanics). The reason that these two are separate classifications is that they are about mechanisms and realities that cannot be explained by ordinary physics.
Relativity tends to involve large scales, on the astronomical level, with objects traveling at a significant portion of the speed of light. Quantum Physics, in contrast, involves small scales such as electrons in their orbitals in atoms. These two are also incompatible with each other.
What makes Relativity different is the speed of light. Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, explained how the speed of light is the only absolute constant, nothing can ever travel faster than it, and everything else is variable, or relative, hence the name "Relativity".
In Relativity, when an object travels at a significant portion of the speed of light, changes take place that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Time slows down and the length of the object shortens. At the speed of light, time would stop and the object would have no length at all. But the speed of light itself never changes. It sounds strange but has been proven repeatedly, in many different ways. The GPS satellites, for example, have to take relativistic effects into account to work properly.
But when we come to Quantum Physics, it has it's own set of rules that are beyond explanation by ordinary physics, as well as being completely different from those of Relativity.
In Quantum Physics, the observer is very important. When we observe or measure a quantum interaction, the observation itself becomes a part of the interaction. The quantum interaction will turn out differently according to whether it is being observed, or not being observed. This is completely alien to both "classical" physics and to Relativity.
Another important factor in Quantum Physics is uncertainty. For example, we can express probabilities of where an electron is likely to be found in it's orbital within an atom, but can never predict with certainty. This is also completely different from "classical" physics, as well as Relativity.
But in Quantum Physics, the speed of light that is all-important in Relativity is not even a factor at all. It has been shown that information moves absolutely instantaneously between two entangled photons, no matter how far apart they are.
Three concepts that are central to an understanding of Quantum Physics are wave function, wave-particle duality and, of course, uncertainty. Another concept is that of superposition, two quantum states can be combined to create a third state. "Entanglement" refers to sharing a quantum state, usually two photons.
The central experiment of Quantum Physics is the famous Two-Slit Experiment. It is similar in nature to a diffraction grating, that splits white light into it's component colors, but it involves the all-important observation. If a photon, a single particle of light, is passed through one of the two parallel slits but it is not observed, we can tell by the interference pattern that will be produced on a screen behind the two slits that a photon also passed through the other slit at the same time.
But if we observe or measure the experiment in any way, a photon will have passed through only one of the two slits and there will be no interference pattern on the screen. This shows how the observation is a vital part of Quantum Physics.
In "classical physics", or in Relativity, light or any electromagnetic radiation is a wave. But in Quantum Physics, there is the wave-particle duality where light has the properties of both waves and particles. The "particles" of light are referred to as photons.
The idea of quantum computing, by the way, is to make use of the greater information in quantum bits, referred to as "qubits". An ordinary computer bit must be either a 1 or a 0, for on and off, and this is how all data is stored. But a qubit, in a superposition of multiple quantum states, has many more possibilities and can thus hold much more information.
Quantum Physics, also called Quantum Mechanics, unlike Relativity or "classical" physics, has different ways to interpret a quantum interaction. These possible interpretations can be divided into two broad categories, the "collapse" or the "non-collapse" interpretations.
The most popular interpretation of quantum interactions seems to be the Copenhagen Interpretation. A quantum system will be in a superposition of all possible quantum states, referred to as eigenstates, at once. But when it is observed, it will "collapse" into only one eigenstate, or quantum state. The "collapse" may be due to observation or to other factors. This one state is the one that we will see or measure.
The leading "non-collapse" interpretation is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which used to be called the Everett Interpretation. In this interpretation of a quantum interaction, every possible outcome must exist, with each event acting as a branch. In this interpretation, it is decoherence that causes us to see only one outcome instead of all of them. It is not the same as a "collapse" of a wave function because all other outcomes must still exist somewhere. Coherence is where two quantum systems share a quantum state, decoherence is loss of coherence and a breaking into two quantum states.
Albert Einstein, the author of Relativity, was also involved with Quantum Physics. He actually won his Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, which is quantum in nature, not for Relativity. It was Einstein who developed the concept of the photon, or single particle of light. But he was convinced of the absolute invariability of the speed of light and referred to the instantaneous transmission of information as "spooky action at a distance". Of the uncertainty principle that is central to quantum physics, he is reported to have said "God does not play dice.
The place that my cosmology theory takes in all of this is simple, and it makes Quantum Physics simple. Imagine a one-dimensional string in space, which is what an electron actually is, and we depend on electrons to receive information by electromagnetic radiation. Now imagine a two-dimensional wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. That is all that we need to know.
Waves are actually two-dimensional. They seem to us to fill three-dimensional space because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light. We can tell this because, if light is interacting with electrons, a higher-frequency (shorter wavelength) light, which contains more energy, will push each electron with more force but will not push any more electrons than the lower-frequency light. If we apply a brighter light, but at the same wavelength, the light will push more electrons but will not push each one with any more force.
This shows that light consists of individual two-dimensional waves that do not completely fill three-dimensional space. A wave has to be of at least two dimensions. Light seems to get dimmer as we get further from it's source because we are receiving fewer of the waves, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But each individual wave that we receive is not actually dimmer.
In contrast with other matter, when we start dealing with electrons is when things start to "get quantum" in nature. Each electron in an orbital has a four-part quantum "address" and no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum "address".
The Four Principal Quantum Numbers and energy levels of electrons in orbitals are expressed in integral numbers, or integers, showing that this is the most basic of energy levels. That is what "quanta" means, the most basic of quantities.
Ordinary nuclear physics, involving the nucleus of the atom, does not involve the rules of Quantum Physics, only the electrons do. The essential quantum interaction is a two-dimensional wave of light interacting with a one-dimensional electron which, in my theory, is a string with the wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. For us to measure or see anything, light must impart some of it's energy to matter. Since matter is made of atoms and electrons are on the outsides of atoms, this means interacting with electrons.
If a material has it's outer electrons only loosely attached to it's atoms, so that the energy in light can knock electrons out of their orbitals, the light will cause a chemical reaction or an electric current to flow. That means that we can see, or measure, or photograph light.
The simple basis of Quantum Physics is that when a two-dimensional wave interacts with the one-dimensional string of an electron, it must impart the energy of one of it's two dimensions to the electron. That is how we see or measure anything to do with light, and is known as the photoelectric effect. The other dimension must be left but, since the electron is a one-dimensional string, this one remaining dimension of the light will appear to us to be a particle, and that is what we refer to as a photon.
The "collapse" of a quantum wave function from all possible quantum states into only one, when it is observed or measured, that is the Copenhagen Interpretation and all other "collapse" interpretations, has a very simple explanation. The electrons in our eyes or measuring devices that the two-dimensional wave of light must interact with are really, according to my cosmology theory, one-dimensional strings in space, which we perceive as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we see only a moment at a time, at right angles to the direction of our movement.
The energy of one dimension of the wave is absorbed by the electron, which is necessary for us to be able to measure of see it, and the other dimension remains. Since only one dimension of light cannot still be a wave, that is where photons come from, the one-dimensional remains of a two-dimensional wave which now resembles a particle like an electron in nature.
The many points on the wave represent all possible states of the information carried by the wave and, depending on the point on the wave that contacts the electron, always at a right angle, the wave function appears to "collapse" into only one state, which is defined by the point on the wave that contacts the electron.
Imagine a two-dimensional circle being reduced to a one-dimensional line, but the state of the "collapse" to one dimension would depend on which of the infinity of diameters on the circle we took away to leave only a line perpendicular to that remaining as the one-dimensional line.
This is all that a "wave function collapse" amounts to, our vision or observation by interaction with a one-dimensional electron, taking away one dimension of the energy of the wave so that it "collapses" into a one-dimensional photon. All possible eignestates (quantum states) are every point of the wave before the collapse. The one remaining after the collapse is a line of light, a photon, that was perpendicular to the point on the wave that encountered the electron.
That is why the observer is so important in Quantum Physics, the observation which is usually the wave function encountering an electron string that is perpendicular to it and absorbs one of it's two dimensions. A photon resembles an electron in form because both are one-dimensional strings, except that the photon has no electric charge.
THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION
Aside from the "collapse" interpretations of Quantum Physics", of which the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular, there is also the "non-collapse", of which the Many Worlds Interpretation is the most popular.
The Many Worlds Interpretation, as the name implies, states that, when a wave function is observed, it does not collapse because the other possible states still must exist somewhere. Rather than a "collapse", it is decoherence that causes one state to become separated from the others. Decoherence is defined as the loss of unity of a quantum state, so that it splits in two. Entangled photons, as we saw above, share a quantum state so that information is instantaneously passed from one to another. But that can be lost due to environmental factors.
But isn't "collapse" and decoherence really the same thing, the absorption of one dimension of a two-dimensional wave function by an electron that it encounters? According to our observation, the wave seems to "collapse" into a one-dimensional photon. But we could also say that there was a decoherence of the two dimensions of the wave, so that they were separated by the electron.
The Many Worlds Interpretation considers each event as a "branch". The quantum system seems to go in one direction, but the other directions that it could have gone in must still exist somewhere, maybe in another universe. There is not a "collapse", so that the other directions or quantum states no longer exist, but only a decoherence as our observation separates the one quantum state that we see from the others.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is something that we can spend hours pondering, as I am sure many others have. But I see it as us seeing the universe in our own terms and from our own perspective. The solution to this interpretation is just as simple as for the "collapse" interpretations, and that solution is to see that everything is really information.
Suppose that we throw a ball, and it bounces off a wall. But the ball could have kept on going if the wall hadn't been there. That means that there must be another universe where the ball keeps going, and doesn't bounce off the wall.
But we can easily measure the acceleration of the ball to determine it's course if the wall hadn't been there. That information is there whether the ball bounces off the wall or not. And the ball itself is just information. According to my cosmology theory, everything is composed of infinitesimal electric charges with space being a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating charges and matter being any concentration of these charges.
So it really isn't necessary to have a multitude of universes, with a ball in each, going through every single course of events that it possibly could have. If everything is really just information, then all we need to know is the original acceleration of the ball and the information of all possible courses of events that the ball could have taken are still there, all within our one universe. We see ourselves made of matter so we presume that there must be a ball made of matter like us in each possible universe but matter, like space, is just information.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is similar in nature to the pattern of information that I call "The One And The Many". The one is what is, the many are what possibly could have been but weren't. Addresses are an ideal example. Something is defined by what it is not.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
What about the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Physics? That is simple too. Consider radio triangulation. If we receive, with a directional antenna, only a momentary signal from a radio source, we can tell what direction the source is in but cannot tell how far away it is or whether it is moving. For that, we would need more than one measurement. In time, to see if the source is moving, and from another location, to determine how far away the source was.
This is why we have two eyes, to be able to estimate how far away things are.
In the same way, since the electrons in our measuring devices can absorb only one dimension of a two-dimensional wave we can, for example, predict where a given electron might be found in an orbital, but can never say with absolute certainty because all we have is an instantaneous one-dimensional measurement.
HIDDEN VARIABLE INTERPRETATIONS
Some other interpretations of Quantum Physics can be described as "hidden variable" interpretations. This means that we can never tell for sure what is happening in a quantum interaction because we are not capable of seeing all of the variables. My theory accommodates that because what we perceive as time is actually a fourth dimension of space that we cannot access at will because the particles of our bodies are actually one-dimensional strings that are aligned primarily in this dimension. The other three we can move in at will.
The reason that two photons can remain entangled, after a single photon is split in two by passing it through a crystal, is that the crystal adds it's spatial dimensions to it so that a one-dimensional photon takes on a "V" forms with the point of the "V" being the place where it was split by the crystal and the two points of the "V" representing the two entangled photons, between which information passes instantaneously. But the point of the "V" is in the past dimension of the dimension of space that we perceive as time from the points of the "V".
THE GREAT SIMPLICITY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Can you see how simple Quantum Physics really is? In my cosmology theory, it is fully explained as being even simpler than Relativity.
All that we need to know is that when a two-dimensional wave encounters a one-dimensional electron, which is the only way we can see or measure the wave, it must necessarily absorb the energy of one dimension of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave is what we refer to as a photon, which behaves as a one-dimensional particle. This is why light is said to have the nature of both a wave and a particle.
The wave function, representing a multitude of all quantum states, thus appears to "collapse" into only one such state when we observe it. There is always the uncertainty factor in quantum measurements because we are observing a two-dimensional wave function, light being how we receive information, in only one dimension.
Picture a one-dimensional line in space. That is an electron, but the motion of an electron in it's atomic orbital resembles a wave. The direction of the line is the dimension of four-dimensional space that we perceive as time.
Now picture a two-dimensional wave contacting the electron line at a perpendicular angle. One of the dimensions of the wave is the direction in which it is traveling and the other is perpendicular to it. Both of the dimensions of the wave are perpendicular to that of the electron. The electron absorbs the dimension of the wave that is the direction in which the wave is moving, the remaining dimension of the wave then exists as a one-dimensional photon that is perpendicular to the line of the electron.
In the four-dimensional space of my cosmology theory, that still leaves one dimension because, so far, we have the two dimensions of the wave and the one of the electron. But light waves are two-dimensional in three-dimensional space. That is why light waves are said to have a certain polarity in space, like the hands on a clock. A polarizing filter only allows light waves with a certain polarity through.
Remember that this cosmology theory does not make the universe more complicated. It takes what looks complicated, because we over-complicate it, and makes it simple. There is the principle in physics known as Occam's Razor. This well-established principle is that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation.
This cosmology theory can get long, but that is only because it explains so much that is otherwise unexplained. The essence of this theory can be described in two paragraphs. Following is the brief abstract that I use for the cosmology theory.
"My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions. The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space".
Ever since developing this simple theory, I have been adding all of the cosmic mysteries that it neatly explains. These explanations are in the posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", which is the name of the theory, and in the earlier part of the theory on the cosmology blog, www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com .
In Relativity, the reason that the speed of light is so absolutely constant is that it is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We see Quantum Physics due to the nature of our vision, using one-dimensional electrons to interact with two-dimensional light wave forms.
All that we really need to know about the greatly over-complicated topic of Quantum Physics is that an electron is a one-dimensional string aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. When a two-dimensional light wave encounters the electron from a perpendicular angle the electron will, under the right conditions, absorb one dimension of the two dimensions of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave now has the nature of a particle like the electron, and is what we refer to as a photon.
The right conditions for the electron absorbing a dimension of the wave is described in section 10) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space" as "THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT". This is why, when light encounters an electron, the electron will absorb it only one out of every 137 times.
5) THE MYSTERY OF SPIN
All particles comprising ordinary matter have spins of 1 / 2. Spin refers to the number of times that a particle must rotate to get back to the original configuration. This is the realm of quantum physics and cannot be explained by ordinary physics. A spin of 1 / 2 means that the particle must be rotated twice to get back to the original configuration.
Particles of ordinary matter consist of two families of particles, quarks and leptons. Electrons are leptons and the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei are both composed of three quarks each. Compound particles like protons and neutrons, each composed of quarks, are known as baryons.
Ordinary matter that is composed of quarks, the protons and neutrons, are made of an odd number of quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2 / 3. A down quark has a charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and a down quarks make up a proton with a net charge of + 1. Two down quarks and an up quark make up a neutron with a net charge of zero.
Leptons and baryons together, the components of ordinary matter, are known as fermions. All composite particles made up of quarks are called hadrons which, aside from baryons also include mesons, which is a pair of a quark and an antimatter quark. But mesons are not stable.
Besides fermions, with their spin of 1 / 2, there are other particles that have a spin of 1, known as integral spin because 1 is an integer. These particles only have to rotate once to get back to their original configuration. But these are not matter particles, they are known as bosons and carry forces. The best-known boson is a photon.
The major difference in properties between fermions and bosons is exclusivity. Fermions are exclusive while bosons are not. If a particle has to spin twice to get back to it's original configuration that means it is exclusive. If a particle has to spin only once to get back to it's original configuration that means it is not exclusive.
Exclusive means that the particles, or the matter of which they are composed, cannot occupy the same space at the same time. That is why ordinary matter particles have a spin of 1 / 2. Electrons in an atom follow what is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Each electron has an "address" consisting of a four-part quantum number. No two electrons in the atom can have exactly the same quantum numbers.
Particles that are not exclusive, bosons such as photons, follow the set of rules called "Bose-Einstein Statistics". Particles that are exclusive, fermions such as electrons and protons and neutrons composed of quarks, follow the set of rules called "Fermi-Dirac Statistics".
The spin is the fourth of an electron's quantum numbers. There are two possible spin directions, up and down. Electrons ordinarily exist in pairs, with the same quantum numbers but with opposite spin. Not all electrons are paired. In some materials, the orbitals of the unpaired electrons can be lined up with a magnetic field. Materials with the orbitals of unpaired electrons lined up are known as magnets.
Spin can be best seen in the following moving illustration. Or you can see it at the Wikipedia article, "Spin-1/2"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD#/media/File:Spin_One-Half_(Slow).gif
If we attach cables to each side of a rotating cube, so that the cables won't tangle, the cube must rotate twice to get back to the same configuration. That is because the cables have two possible configurations, and will alternate between the two with each rotation. We can refer to the two configurations of the attached cables as "clockwise" and "counterclockwise". We could also say that the cables alternate between an "S" and a "Reverse S".
But since the two possible configurations are equal, there must be an alternation between the two, which requires that there be two rotations to get back to the original configuration.
But notice that we need the attachment of these cables to demonstrate 1 / 2 spin. We could not tell the spin of a particle just by looking at it, if we could look at it. "Getting back to the original configuration" means the configuration of the space around a spinning particle.
But how can the empty space around the particle have a configuration, and how can the configuration be affected by the spin of the particle? Empty space seems to be just nothingness, without any kind of configuration.
But remember my cosmology theory, detailed in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Stationary Space". Everything, both space and matter, is composed of a near-infinity of infinitesimal electric charges. Empty space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions.
This is the most logical configuration because the basic rules are that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. But there is energy in the universe and like charges can be held together by energy, and this is what matter is. Energy can also cross space as a wave displacement of the alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges, and this is what electromagnetic waves are.
An electron, for example, is, in my cosmology theory, a concentration of negative charges held together by energy. There is the well-known mass-energy equivalence, a certain amount of mass being equivalent to a certain amount of energy. The equivalence of mass and energy is what Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared is about, the inter-convertibility of mass and energy. This is why concentrations of like charges, such as the electron, have mass but empty space doesn't.
But if the electron, or any other matter particle, is composed of concentrated electric charge, and the space around it is composed of an alternating checkerboard pattern of the same charges, then shouldn't a change in the particle, such as it's spin, also have an effect on the arrangement of the electric charges in the space around it?
Imagine the electron in space. The electron is a concentration of negative charges, held together by energy against like-charge repulsion which is why the electron has mass. The space adjoining it is alternating negative and positive charges. The negatively-charged electron affects those charges in that it pulls the positive charges in space somewhat toward it, and pushes the negative charges in space somewhat away from it.
Now suppose the electron begins to spin, as it does. It's effect on the charges around it will be pulled along with the spin just like the cables attached to the spinning cube in the illustration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD#/media/File:Spin_One-Half_(Slow).gif
There has to be two possible configurations of the space around it simply because there are two electric charges of which the space is composed, negative and positive. A line of electric charges in space that adjoin the electron might be negative-positive-negative-positive... or it might be positive-negative-positive-negative... Since the two arrangements are equal, the space around the spinning electron must alternate between the two.
That means that the electron must spin twice before the original configuration of electric charges is restored, and that is why we say that the electron, and all other matter particles composed of a concentration of electric charges, have a spin of 1 / 2.
This is what the two opposing spins, up and down, really means. One is negative-positive-negative... and the other is positive-negative-positive... There are only two possible spins because there are only two electric charges.
This makes sense but then how can there be other particles with a spin of 1?
The answer involves the exclusivity of a concentration of like electric charges that are held together by energy, such as electrons. If we bring two electrons close together, they will repel each other because like electric charges repel. That is what makes them exclusive, and no two electrons in the same atom can have the same four quantum numbers for the same reason.
The reason that matter doesn't just pass through other matter is electron repulsion. As the atoms of the two pieces of matter come in contact, the negative charges in the electrons of each repel each other. This is why you can stand on the floor without passing right into the floor, since the interior of an atom is by far mostly empty space.
Suppose that there was an electron of concentrated positive charges, instead of negative. What if we brought that together with the usual electron?
There actually is a positively-charged electron. It is called a positron. But it is the antimatter version of an electron. Antimatter is the same as ordinary matter except that the electric charges are reversed. If we brought the two together, both would vanish in a great burst of energy as the negative and positive charges composing each react and rearrange themselves back into the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space, and the energy that was holding the like charges of each together is released.
So if everything, space and matter, is composed of electric charges and if particles that are "exclusive" are composed of concentrated like charges, held together by the energy of the mass-energy equivalence, then the only remaining source of any other kind of particle is the electromagnetic waves that can carry energy across space. These waves are a displacement of the alternating negative and positive electric charges that make up space, but not a concentration of the charges in the same way as matter.
Such a wave would have to be two-dimensional because they have two specific components, wavelength and amplitude. Since we are composed of atoms, which have electrons in their orbitals, the only way that we can sense or see things must involve electrons. But, in my cosmology theory, electrons are one-dimensional strings in four-dimensional space that we perceive as particles because we can only see three of these dimensions, the other we perceive as time.
But if waves are two-dimensional, and the electrons by which we must receive the waves are one-dimensional, that means that there must be one dimension of the wave remaining after the electrons in our eyes or measuring equipment absorb the energy of one of the two dimensions of the wave, which is the only way that we can see or sense anything.
Since particles, such as electrons, are really one-dimensional strings, and since one dimension of a two-dimensional wave must remain after our electrons have absorbed the energy of the other dimension of the wave, that means there must be one-dimensional remnants of waves that would seem to us to be particles, such as photons. This explains why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature.
However, unlike particles of matter such as electrons, these "particles" of electromagnetic waves are not concentrations of either negative or positive charge. They are a displacement of the usual checkerboard pattern of alternating charges but there is no reason for them to have more negative or more positive charge.
These are just mass-less and charge-less one-dimensional packets of energy. But that would mean that they would not have the same effect on the electric charges of the surrounding space, as the electron described above. This also means that they would not be exclusive, many of them could pass through the same space with minimal effect on one another. Without this effect, there would be no reason for them to have to spin twice to get back to the same configuration of surrounding electric charges.
This mystery of particle spin is all a simple matter of the four spatial dimensions in my cosmology theory. In my cosmological theory, matter consists of one-dimensional strings of like electric charges, held together against the usual like-charge repulsion by energy. When this rotates what is happening is that the points on it's surface are moving in a perpendicular direction to the direction of alignment of the string. This means that the rotation, as we perceive it, of the one-dimensional string involves two dimensions.
.gif){kind=link}
But there are four dimensions of space. The rotation, or spin, of the string of matter involves only two of these dimensions. Two is half of four and that is why the string, as the particle as we perceive it, has a spin of 1 / 2. How much simpler could it be?
Everything that is spinning has a spin of 1 from it's own perspective. The only way that it could be seen differently is from the perspective of the surrounding space, and it would only be different if there were somehow a different number of dimensions involved, and there would only be a different number of dimensions involved if this cosmological theory of mine is correct.
Something cannot be seen as having a spin of 1 as seen in four dimensions if the spin only involves two dimensions. It will have to spin twice to get back to the original configuration. This is not true from it's own perspective but only from the perspective of the surrounding dimensions of space.
The particles, as we see them, that have the spin of 1 / 2 are the particles of matter, the leptons and hadrons that are collectively known as fermions. But there are other particles that have a spin of 1, these are known as bosons. The best-known boson is a photon, a "particle" of light.
All electromagnetic radiation is waves. Individual waves must have two dimensions because they have two components, wavelength (or frequency) and amplitude. But it is often said that light has a particle nature as well as a wave nature. What happens is that the only way we can receive light or other electromagnetic radiation is through it's interaction with electrons which, in my cosmological theory, are one-dimensional strings. This interaction means the electron, in our eyes or instruments, absorbing the energy of one of the two dimensions of the electron. This leaves the other dimension of the light wave as what we see as a one-dimensional particle, similar in form to a particle like an electron.
In this cosmological theory everything, both space and matter, is composed of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive in multiple dimensions, since the basic rules of the charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. But a concentration of like charges can be held together by energy, and that is what strings of matter are. Energy is equivalent to mass, as pointed out by Einstein, and the energy holding the like charges of matter together is the familiar Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Electromagnetic waves do not have this mass because they are energy, not holding a concentration of like charges together like matter, but a disturbance in the alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges of empty space. The waves are not actually electromagnetic but they seem to be because they disturb the otherwise perfectly alternating pattern of electric charges in space. These charges comprising space usually balance out to zero but the underlying electromagnetism is exposed by the disturbing action of the wave.
But this means that while fundamental strings of matter are a concentration of a single electric charge, either positive or negative, the photons contain both electric charges although not in the perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space. The dimensions of space are composed of electric charges.
So this means that a one-dimensional string of matter is one charge moving in one perpendicular dimension as it spins. While a one-dimensional remnant of an electromagnetic wave is two charges moving in one perpendicular dimension as it spins. Again, each spin thus involves two dimensions.
The math is simple. Two dimensions x one electric charge = 2. Two dimensions x two electric charges = 4. We can multiply electric charges by dimensions because dimensions of space are themselves composed of electric charges.
There are four dimensions of space involved. For matter, 4 / 2 = 2. For photons, or other bosons, 4 / 4 = 1. So particles of matter seem to have to spin twice to get back to the original configuration while bosons only have to spin once.
Consider the example of a square. We are aware that the square is two-dimensional so that we can go from one corner to the diagonally opposite corner in one movement. But suppose that there was someone who could be aware of only one dimension. They could not cross the square diagonally as we did. They would have to go along one side of the square to the corner, and then along the perpendicular side of the square from there to get to where we are. We would require only one movement to cross the square, but they would require two.
That is what particles are like with regard to rotation. The dimensions within which the particles, actually strings in four dimensions, rotate are composed of electric charges. Bosons contain both electric charges while matter particles contain only one or the other. That is why rotating bosons only have to spin once to get back to the same original configuration while particles of matter have to spin twice.
6) THE ELECTRONIC WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON ORBITALS
Induction is the property of an electrical current in a conductor that induces a current in another conductor, if there is relative motion between the two. This concept is familiar to anyone around Niagara Falls, where hydroelectric power is generated. There is also the self-inductance of a coil of wire in a circuit. The initial current induces a secondary current that opposes the original current. This has the effect of "smoothing out" the original current. A coil for this purpose is known as a choke coil.
In another area of basic electronics, we know that an electromagnetic wave that we call a radio wave is set up when an alternating electric current, which is a movement of electrons, is made to flow with a high frequency in a circuit. An antenna is connected to the circuit to assist the propagation of the radio waves.
I got to wondering why these same principles wouldn't also apply to the orbitals of electrons within the atom. These two fundamentals of electronics, induction and radio wave creation, take place because of the nature of electrons, and the electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus have exactly the same properties. My reasoning is that basic electronics should be able to provide a lot of insight into what goes on in electron orbitals within atoms.
If one or more electrons moving up and down in a radio antenna will set up an electromagnetic radio wave, then what about the electrons in orbit within atoms? Isn't it logical that these electrons would create electromagnetic waves also, considering that an orbit is a form of circuit?
My hypothesis is that, just as the current in a coil of wire induces another current that opposes the original current, electrons pair up and position themselves so that the electromagnetic waves that the two produce will cancel one another out. Electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin. Notice the strong resemblance between an orbital pair of electrons and a waveform. All waves consist of crests and troughs, when a crest meets a trough of the same wavelength the two will mutually cancel one another.
Both electrons in a pair create waves, but with the crests and troughs of the waves inverted. This causes the two waves created by an electron pair to cancel one another out.
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum numbers, which define the energy levels of the electrons. The quantum numbers had been defined by another Austrian, Erwin Schrodinger.
Electron pairs are two electrons that have the same quantum numbers, but have opposite spin. I take that to mean that the two electrons in such a pair will produce electromagnetic waves that will completely cancel one another.
The two electrons position themselves to achieve this cancellation so that there will be no net wave produced because the wave produced by one electron can move the other electron in the pair, but not those in other orbitals with different quantum numbers because their waves are of a different wavelength. Electrons filling the orbitals in an atom first pair so that they match one another, and then they position themselves so that they cancel each other's wave.
Remember that our universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object falls when it is dropped. It requires less energy for it to fall than it does to maintain it in it's position. The same principle applies with all of physics. This is why electrons position themselves, being moved by the opposing electron in the pair, so that no net wave is produced. Generating electromagnetic waves requires energy, and the nature of the universe is that it always seeks the lowest energy state.
It may seem that having the shells and orbitals of electrons in atoms is, in itself, a violation of this seeking of the lowest energy state because this represents a higher energy condition than all of the electrons just crowding into the lowest shell, the one closest to the nucleus, which is also the lowest energy level for electrons in the atom. But then that would mean that the electrons would not cancel each other's waves, and the generation of waves would mean a higher energy state.
This also explains the basis of magnetism. In a magnet, there are unpaired electrons whose spin has been aligned so that the unpaired electrons all spin in one direction. Seen from one direction is the magnet's north pole and from the other the south pole. Opposite poles of two magnets strongly attract because their waves are cancelling out, thus producing a lower energy state and the energy that is saved is why the magnet is able to lift iron.
The waves of unpaired electrons with opposite spin will draw together and cancel one another in the process. Since waves are electromagnetic in nature, the two magnets with facing opposite poles will attract, just as opposite electric charges attract.
But all of this shows that electron waves must exist. Magnetism is when these waves have an influence outside the atom. Magnets can lift non-magnetized iron because the pole of the magnet, with unpaired electrons spinning in only one of two possible directions, will induce unpaired electrons in the non-magnetized iron to spin in the opposite direction and thus draw the two pieces of metal together. But the attraction between a magnet and non-magnetized iron is never as strong as that between the opposite poles of two equivalent magnets.
Now it becomes clear what happens when we try to force the like poles of two magnets together. The energy required is just the opposite of the attraction between two opposite poles, whose waves cancel out. Instead of crest meeting trough, we have crest meeting crest and trough meeting trough. Instead of cancelling out, and allowing the energy thus released to pull the two magnets together, this requires more energy to force the like poles together.
With this in mind, how do you suppose that electric motors and generators work? If we force the delocalized electrons in metal to move in one direction, by the application of a voltage or electromotive force, it must also align their directions of spin. My scenario here shows that it is actually the aligned direction of electron spin, rather then the simple movement of electrons, which makes it possible for an electric current to exert mechanical force in an electric motor. An electric generator is basically the reverse of an electric motor, with the mechanical force producing the current.
But an electric wire that was not in physical contact should not be able to exert any force on anything, regardless of current flowing through it, unless the electrons of that electric current were producing some kind of waves to transmit energy and force. If the spin of the electrons moving in the current were unaligned, they would simply cancel one another out and no net force would be exerted. Such a force, on magnetic material such as iron, could only be exerted by an electric current if the movement of the current also aligned the spin of the electrons, just as in a stationary magnet.
The same concept does not apply to a light bulb, or to the production of heat by electricity, because that energy is the result of the moving electrons losing energy by resistance in the wire. The lost energy has to go somewhere, and it shows up as heat.
But all of this shows that the Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals must be correct. We can see that these waves must be produced by electrons in their orbitals but, in non-magnets, we do not see any evidence of such waves. We know that electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin, and the normal lack of evidence of such waves outside the atom can only mean that they cancel out.
This model explains why elements that have even numbers of both protons and electrons are more stable than those that have odd numbers. Even numbers of electrons in an atom are well-known to produce more chemical stability. It is because even numbers are necessary for complete pairing, and pairing is necessary for this wave cancellation. This concept also helps to explain why electron orbitals in atoms like to be either empty, full or, half full. It also explain why matter is said to have a wave nature, as well as a matter nature.
Metals differ from non-metals in that a number of atoms share their outer-shell electrons among themselves. These are known as delocalized electrons, and the group of sharing atoms is known as a crystal. In some metals, most notably iron, these shared electrons can be made to align their motion, rather than cancelling out the effect of their charges. We then see the effect known as magnetism, and why magnetism is related to electricity which is the movement of the electrons..
The electromagnetic waves that must be generated by an electron moving in an atomic orbital, just as an alternating current in a circuit and an antenna produces a wave, would not be readily detectable by us. The wave produced by a single electron, even if it was not cancelled out by it's opposing pair electron, would be exceedingly faint in the space beyond. If the wave had been produced by an unpaired electron, it would then be cancelled by the waves from other unpaired electrons.
While there must be alignment by electron pairs, there would be no such alignment with other electrons either within the same atoms or in other atoms. This means that, even if the waves did not cancel, they would dissipate out of phase and would not reinforce one another in materials other than magnets.
Furthermore we, and any equipment that we build and use, must necessarily be made of matter. These "electron orbital waves", as we will refer to them, would be of extremely high frequency and short wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass right through matter because the atom is actually mostly empty space, and these waves are fine enough to go right through at least the atoms of some elements.
Remember that electromagnetic waves are reflected by matter which is about the same size as the wavelength of the waves, meaning that waves of extraordinarily short wavelength can pass right through the electron orbitals of atoms. Waves from electron orbitals would be of far shorter wavelength than this, making most of these waves undetectable by any equipment made of matter.
I cannot see how these electron orbital waves would not exist. This explains the nature of electron orbitals in atoms ideally, and fits with the properties of electrons in basic electronics.
No comments:
Post a Comment