[General] Potential energies of particles and photons

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Martin,

Comments below:

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

>  Dear Andrew,
>
> I have just read your email again, but now not on my Iphone but on my
> laptop. It is much easier that way.
>
>
>
> You are completely missing the fact that you are using the Born-Oppenheimer
> APPROXIMATION to the atom structure. This is the beginning of all the
> confusion you load on yourself (and the reader) as a consequence.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_Oppenheimer
>

At the level of my concern, the B.O. approx is fine. Please identify, in
the arguments below, where it would be a limitation.

>
>
> The proton is not infinitely massive, and in the H-atom it is rotating
> around/oscillating against the electron just as much, in terms of its
> momentum as is the electron against the proton. As I said before, the
> momenta of electron and proton are exactly equal, and so are their de
> Broglie wavelengths. The electron and proton are quantum mechanically in
> tune! The 2-body problem can be translated into a 1-body problem using the
> reduced mass.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_mass
>

I believe that you are sensitized to this issue because it is part of your
model. An issue that I can accept, but am not convinced of its importance.
I consider the synchrony of the proton and electron (equal orbital
frequency) to be based on Newton's 3rd law, not on resonance. Because the
deBroglie wavelengths are equal, the proton completes one deBroglie
wavelength cycle in many electron orbits. This does not appear to be good
resonance.

>
>
> The electric potential of the proton is meaningless against a neutral
> object, but against a charged object, also having such a potential (let the
> word sink in... "potential"... it is nothing until...) the two may repel or
> attract. It is not one or the other, it is both.
>
>
>
I think that we may be saying the same thing here. The electric potential
of the proton is its potential to do work on another charge. I use the word
'ability' rather than 'potential'. I believe that the meaning is the same.
The important point, which I think you also made, is that the work done may
not be from the potential at all, e.g., the work done on charging a van der
Graaff accelerator is against the potential.


>  Any loss of the energy of a closed system comes from the system as a
> whole, and the system finds a new balance in doing so.
>

I agree with this statement, if it is not used to be exclusive.

>
>
> The way you are talking about the hydrogen atom violates Newton's 3rd  law.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>

It is interesting that I had an argument with one of my coauthors earlier
this evening on this very point. The force on the proton and electron are
equal (and in opposite directions). Thus, since work is force times
distance (W = F*d), the work of a decaying atomic electron is being done by
the proton. It is moving the electron; the electron is not moving the
proton (to the approximation I am making). Also the electron is not moving
itself. You could say that the work is done by the E-field, not by either
particle alone. However, you would not be correct, since the field comes
from the particles.

In the interaction between an electron and positron, as they get close
enough together, their masses should increase when their velocities
approach the speed of light. They do not, because their residual masses
decrease at the same rate. This allows energy to be conserved.The
relativistic mass is electromagnetic (AC or alternating) in nature. The
residual mass is being converted into EM energy. At some point, all of the
'DC' mass (and DC charge) is gone and only photons remain. If this were not
so, energy could not be conserved.

In the interaction between an electron and proton, as they get close enough
together (s-orbitals), the electron mass should increase when its velocity
approaches the speed of light. *It does so*. Thus, it is not using up its
potential energy in the process. Since energy is conserved, and a photon is
emitted (from the e-p dipole, but mainly from the electron), the excess
electron mass (relativistic) must come from the proton. *QED*

Since the proton is part of the system, we could correctly say that the
relativistic electron mass comes from the system. However, that does not
change the proof that *the proton provides the mass energy for the electron
decay*.

>
>
> I hope this helps. Please stop confusing the poor students.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>

Physics has tried to simplify and codify its teaching for so long that
important concepts seem to have been forgotten and therefore are not
considered when looking at new concepts.

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150517/75789090/attachment.htm>