[General] Potential energies of particles and photons

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Martin and John W,

We are getting closer, but there are things still to be ironed out. And,
the problem, to paraphrase Jung, is that "the better one defines a concept
to fewer people will agree with you." To get this idea across to the
general community we have to iron out all of the wrinkles before it is
presented. I hope that is what we are doing here.

Comments below:

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 1:52 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Gentlemen,
>
> I think we can conclude that we have all learned something valuable from
> this. Each one of us is seeing part of the picture, and from different
> perspectives, and making different "mistakes", but the whole classical and
> quantum picture has to merge.
>
> This is what we are going to do! It may take a wee while, but the process
> is unstoppable if we can explain ourselves and our mis-understandings and
> fix them one at a time.
>

We are in absolute agreement here.

>
> Cheers, John.
>
> P.S.
>
> Andrew, if you are up and on Skype it would be good to talk ....
>

I will try to get onto Skype from late tomorrow afternoon (your late
morning). Since I am working on several papers simultaneously, I may have
more than 40 PDFs and MS documents open. I never thought that I would run
out of dynamic memory, but apparently, adding Skype can push it to the
limits.

My Skype ID is mulephone.

more below:

>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark,
> Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:17 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Potential energies of particles and photons
>
>   John, Andrew,
>
>
>
> The de Broglie frequency is omega_B = 2 pi v/lambda_B = gamma mv^2/hbar
>
> It is the v^2 that killed me
>

see below

>
>
> Best, Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=
> philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Williamson
> *Sent:* zaterdag 16 mei 2015 22:12
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Potential energies of particles and photons
>
>
>
> Aha ...
>
> Thank you Andrew ... just re-read your last email. Was not getting why you
> did not get it.. Now I at least get why ... and the problem is more general
> so I'm sure others have it too.
>
> The problem is model collision.
>
> Lots of you are thinking about trajectories of things in space. To
> understand some things you need to think about trajectories and objects not
> just in space space, but also in momentum space, frequency space, rotation
> space and angular momentum space (to name just a few). Thinking just in
> space space can lead to an awful lot of confusion (as here). Sometimes it
> is very difficult to think past models where these work very well in many
> circumstances, but this is what is required here. Sometimes you need to
> consciously UNTHINK things in space space
>
agreed!

>
> Things do not resonate in space. Things do not even resonate in time
> (though that is better). Things do resonate in frequency - and this is
> where the resonance (for the bell - or for lots of sorts of quantisation)
> is defined. Time and inverse time have different structure and different
> (relativistic) properties, different scales and different limits. Getting
> this properly is to get relativity properly (and to get why lightspeed is
> such a precise limit). There is no easy shortcut or analogy to getting
> this  - it is just very hard. Main point here is that , for resonance, one
> is properly thinking of frequencies
>
> To confuse things there are other possible "resonances" including in
> inverse dual-time ( as sort of angular momentum resonance) - but that is
> for a more advanced session. These things should really have other words to
> describe them. The regularity of a plane figure under rotation, for example.
>
I think that there are many resonances that we do not normally consider.
Looking at the wave equation shows resonance in *both* time and space.
Resonance is fundamental to all of physics and extends into all dimensions.

>
> Now, if the electron proton system were a little planetary system,
> consisting of point electron orbiting point proton you would be right.
> Pretty poor resonance indeed.
>
Actually, as you have noted, the resonance in frequency is very good. We
generally do not look at it that way. Mathematical point particles are a
non-physical 'convenience'. 'Point' planet or particle concepts in a solar
system or an atom are realistic, if we don't define a point to be a
singularity. Mathematical-point electrons are a weak QM concept to get
around conflicts with relativity. It is 'accepted', but bad, physics (just
as usage of the 'electron cloud' is a weak QM concept to get around
thinking - or teaching - of reality).

>
> Obviously, though this is a reasonable model, it just is not so in
> reality.
>
> The electron is not a point. Neither is the proton (except in some simple
> approximations!).
>
> Not at all. Not a bit. There is no sign of the atomic-orbital stuff in 1S
> states in physical chemistry (am I right Pavel?).
>
I would be interested in the answer to this comment, since 1s orbitals in
hydrides and in interstitial hydrogen are of great interest to me in my
cold fusion work.

>
> Now, in Hydrogen, both electron and proton DO have exactly the same
> de-Broglie wavelength, and hence exactly the same de-broglie frequency. Now
> that is a very very good resonance indeed.
>
John, this is the mistake I Martin, and now you, may be making. The
deBroglie wavelength is dependent on both mass and velocity; so is the
frequency. However, they have a different dependence and only at specific
velocities are the wavelengths or frequencies equal for bound electrons and
the binding nucleus. And, the case where both frequency and wavelength are
equal is unique. The identical frequencies of the bound electrons and the
binding nucleus have nothing to do with the proton's deBroglie wavelength
or frequency.

The atomic orbitals are resonances, where the electron's deBroglie
wavelength is harmonic with the orbit circumference. Both dB wavelength and
orbital circumference can have any value. Their intersection is unique and
produces the resonance that gives the greater probability of specific
orbitals. The nucleus has its own natural resonance. But it is not anywhere
near that of the electron in either frequency or wavelength. Its
relationship with the electron orbit is a forced resonance (based on
Newton's 3rd).  It would be interesting to calculate the array of nuclear
masses that would have natural frequencies (or harmonics) coincident with
the various electron orbital frequencies. (An easy exercise for an
ambitious undergraduate?) The next step would be to look for resonances
with a pair of 1s electrons.

I may be wrong. However, I do not believe that there would be any natural
(not forced) resonances between the electrons and nucleus (or nucleons).

MORE BELOW

>
> Same is true for any 1S bound charge and anticharge.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John.
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John
> Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 8:43 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Ariane Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Potential energies of particles and photons
>
> Hiya Andrew,
>
> Let me jump in.
>
> No, this is not a sensitised issue because of any specific model. It is
> true for a large mass, in terms of MOTION ... within the old Newton law
> approach, that approximation is a good one, but the energy is not coming
> primarily from motion, or sitting on a point particle, but is arising from
> the cancellation of field. It is part of the process of thinking about how
> field works at all - and that is what this whole discussion group is about.
>

Your statement about 'cancellation' will raise the ire of Bob Hudgins.
Mathematically, components of field lines cancel, the fields do not. We are
presenting a paper on that. Physically, the 'field lines', as gradients of
a potential, are simply redirected by the presence of another charge. In
the case of the electron-proton interaction, the far-field does not cancel.
The dipole potential goes to zero there and, in free space, the field lines
all bend around to terminate on the other charge. None of them cancel.
Usage of the cancellation concept is 'quickspeak' that is a useful
shorthand; but, it is dangerous when the true meaning is forgotten.

On the other hand, we all agree that the far-field energies of the
particles are converted into near-field energies as the particles come
together.

>
>  The process must also work for positronium, where the two masses are
> equal. We all need to understand how this sort of thing works because it is
> the stuff of physics and the stuff which we are talking about.  Now this
> was an interesting problem which I solved at undergrad level with a very
> inspiring teacher a long time ago. You gotta be lucky sometimes with your
> teachers!
>

I agree!

>
> In postronium one works with, as Martin says, the reduced mass. This is a
> textbook problem and can be looked up in the web or in an intermediate
> textbook. Bottom line is that there the potential and kinetic energies on
> approach to the 1S orbital are the same for electron and positron (but also
> for any two unit charged particles).
>
> Looking at it from the field perspective, however, is more instructive.
> Turns out that what you have for two isolated charges are 1 electron and
> one positron with their respective masses and fields and field energy
> densities out to infinity.
>
> Move gradually to 1S positronium .... here one has kinetic and potential
> energies using reduced mass and equal de-broglie wavelengths (obviously-
> but is also the same for hydrogen atom).
>

Using reduced mass gives a single-particle representation that has a single
dB wavelength that is not the same as that for either lepton. In the case
for the H atom, the reduced mass gives a single deBroglie wavelength for
the 'system'. The dB wavelength is simply the distance traveled in one
cycle of the dB frequency. While the wavelength and frequency are not
generally both the same for unequal-mass particles, talking of the
frequency perhaps gives better information. This frequency is that of the
coupled-oscillator system and classically is the same as that determined by
diagonalizing the matrix consisting of the two particles' linear
representations. The common frequency (eigenvalue in QM-speak) is that of
the system and not of either oscillator. [This is what QM is all about. The
Heisenberg matrix mechanics is simply classical mechanics and is proven to
be equivalent to the Schrodinger picture.]

Only when the particles are identical mass are the dB wavelength and
frequency the same for both particles. If the frequencies are identical
(forced, if the bound particles have different mass), then I don't believe
that the electron orbital circumference and proton path of a single cycle
can both be the dB wavelength of their respective particles.

>
> Where the binding energy has "come from" is not some point-particle
> structure, but lies in the cancellation of the external field. The integral
> of the field energy from the de-Broglie wavelength to infinity of the field
> energy density of the individual initial  electron and positron (1/2
> epsilon0 E squared) is now cancelled as positronium is neutral outside this
> radius. This, (not by co-incidence, it is an incidence) is exactly the
> potential energy part of the new system (they have gained half this in
> mutual K.E).
>

See discussion above

*Nothing new below.*
_________________________________________________-

>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Regards, John.
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew
> Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 8:19 PM
> *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> 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/20150518/c390df89/attachment.htm>