[General] Potential energies of particles and photons

Sat May 16 13:12:01 PDT 2015

Dear Andrew,

I am not in any way referring to any of my work, model or whatever.
I have put some serious effort in trying to teach you some real physics. Anyone can make a mistake, you know.

First of all I have made a mistake in trying to be very quick from the top of my head.
It is the de Broglie frequency that is the same for electron and proton, not the the de Broglie wavelength and not the momentum:
The equantion is M_eR_e + M_pR_p = 0
R being the orbital radius, and not the orbital velocity.
I am sorry for that, I apologize.

This can however not be obtained if you use the BO approximation.
Also that it is ONE wavefunction, that of the entire atom. The electron at some 1900^2 times higher speed than the proton, but with the same (orbital and de Broglie) frequency.
Consequence, wavelength of proton is 1900 times shorter than for the electron.

My remarks about the potential hold firmly.

Cheers, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 16 mei 2015 21:20
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [General] Potential energies of particles and photons

Dear Martin,
Comments below:

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

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150516/9a30f7be/attachment.htm>