Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: electron phase change into a positron Chapt15.63 electrons of Helium
seeking to be a photon structure #1357 New Physics #1561 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: May 10, 2013 1:06 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 10,082
Registered: 3/31/08
Re: electron phase change into a positron Chapt15.63 electrons of
Helium seeking to be a photon structure #1358 New Physics #1562 ATOM TOTALITY
5th ed

Posted: May 10, 2013 1:06 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On May 10, 11:40 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright in my last several posts I indicated the two electrons sharing
> a suborbital such as in helium of 1s2 or of neon of 2p6 that the two
> electrons look like this as a combination of matter tranverse wave
> with longitudinal magnetic wave
>
>       E-
> 2M+ 2M-
>       E-
>
> Now that picture is very much similar to a photon as this:
>
>    E-
> M+ M-
>    E+
>
> where the E field and M fields destructive interference allowing the
> speed of light to be a constant regardless of frequency or wavelength.
>
> In chemistry we all know that elements on both sides of the inert
> gases want to be like the inert gases in electron structure and so
> they chemically bond with other atoms to achieve this inert gas
> electron structure.
>
> What I am about to raise the issue upon, is that electrons inside of
> atoms want to be like the photon structure of a cross section of wave
> with 4 poles of 2 E field and 2 magnetic monopole field.
>
> So now, in Hund's Rule we have each single electron wanting to be
> single and isolated but having the same alignment as neighboring
> electrons of an up spin alignment and wanting to be single in a
> suborbital, until it is time to go to a higher subshell, then the
> electrons would rather fill up each lower subshell orbital with a pair
> of electrons.
>
> So as single electrons they are this:
>
>    E-
> M+ M-
>
> but as paired up electrons in suborbitals they are this:
>
>       E-
> 2M+ 2M-
>       E-
>
> So they are almost approaching the structure of a photon
>
>    E-
> M+ M-
>    E+
>
> Now, do we have any physics experiments or observations that those two
> structures are the truth?
>
> Well, yes of course we have Pair Production and Pair Annihilation of
> electrons and photons. In Pair Production we have a gamma ray photon
> that splits into two particles of a electron and positron of this:
>
>    E-
> M+ M-
>
> and
>
>    E+
> M+ M-
>
> So, this leads me to question whether the second electron that pairs
> with the first electron in a suborbital, whether it is in fact a
> normal electron converted into being a positron? If it is, then I have
> a perfect symmetry of electrons being transformed into a photon in
> suborbitals such as the two helium electrons. So that the two
> electrons of helium are the same as a energetic photon.
>
> In this sense, for the first time in physics and chemistry, we have a
> unification of photons and electrons and not just that they pair
> produce one another but that photons and electrons are the same thing
> in particular circumstances. In Old Physics, we had the false notion
> that the electron and positron and photon were independently existing
> and different particles. In New Physics we have the view that these
> three are the very same single particle with a phase change, such as
> ice is water is water vapor. The electron is a positron is a photon as
> different phases of the particle. And when an electron is forced to
> share a suborbital, it phase changes into a positron.
> --
>
> Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
> newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
> call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
> is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
> sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
> sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what
> Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
> be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
> next dollar bill.?Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
> names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
> eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
> page-hogging. Drexel has?done a excellent, simple and fair author-
> archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012?as seen?here:
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>



No, I made a mistake in the above. The photon and electron would be
independent existing particles, but the antiparticle the positron
would be a phase change of an electron.

So in Old Physics antiparticles were independently existing new
particles whereas in New Physics, antiparticles are phase changes of
their original particle. In New Physics we have only 4 independent
existing particles-- proton, electron, photon, neutrino and everything
else is a phase change or combinations of those four.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.