[General] Potential energies of particles and photons

Andrew Meulenberg mules333 at gmail.com
Mon May 18 04:15:00 PDT 2015


Dear Martin,

I didn't want to take the time to do the actual calculation, but I'm glad I
did. Thank you for asking me to do it (I was going to ask you to do the
same). Since I had done it in Excel, I did the same exercise for the DDL
orbits hoping that a resonance might show up there. It did not; so I can
eliminate that from the possible reasons for stability of the deep orbits.
I can send you the file (not well organized), if you wish.

My calculations give (assuming H gnd state, circular orbits, and C-O-M
calculation):
for the deBroglie wavelength radius  - - -   RdB = hbar/mv = *5.29E-11 m*
for both e & proton;
for the orbital frequencies   - - - f =* 6.58E+15* *Hz* for both e &
proton;
for the deBroglie wavelength frequencies - - -  fdB = v,V/LdB =  * 6.58E+15
and 3.59e12 Hz* for electron and proton;

Thus, the deBroglie wavelengths and orbital frequencies are equal (as you
said), but the deBroglie frequencies fdB are very different and fdB for the
proton is 3 orders of magnitude off from the orbital frequency.

Andrew
________________________________

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

>  Hi Andrew,
>
> just as an exercise to show me,
>
> can you please calculate in steps the DB wavelength, DB frequency and
> orbital frequency of both the electron and of the proton in the Bohr model
> Hydrogen ground state?
>
> So no relativity required, circular orbit.
>
> Just assume I am an idiot, okay?
>
> That will iron it out, whatever way.
>
>
>
> Best regards, Martin
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=
> philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* zondag 17 mei 2015 22:23
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Cc:* Kyran Williamson; Nick Bailey; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Potential energies of particles and photons
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150518/e80dee0c/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list