Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #579526 > unrolled thread

Free electrons versus bound electrons

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Free electrons versus bound electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 06:39 -0700
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:16 +0200
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 07:58 -0700
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:36 +0200
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-22 15:05 -0500
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:03 -0700
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-22 18:00 -0500
              Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-22 19:45 -0700
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-22 19:46 -0700
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "Anon E. Mouse" <nobody@home.com> - 2016-05-23 00:40 -0400
              Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-22 22:19 -0700
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:44 -0700
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:52 -0700
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-22 16:17 -0400
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:09 -0700
              Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:16 -0700
                Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:38 -0700
                  Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 00:45 -0400
              Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 00:39 -0400
                Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:14 -0700
                  Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 08:10 -0400
                    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 06:37 -0700
                      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 21:05 -0400
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 00:20 -0700
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 15:55 +0000
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:13 -0700
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 09:29 -0700
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 17:17 +0000
              Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 15:41 -0700
                Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 02:11 +0000
                  Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 20:48 -0700
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:59 -0700
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:02 +0000
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 21:10 -0700
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 23:02 +0000
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:20 -0700
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 04:01 +0000
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:33 -0500
          Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:40 -0700
            Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-23 21:23 -0400
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 00:22 -0700
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:27 -0500
    Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:00 -0700
      Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:01 -0700
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 01:20 -0700
        Re: Free electrons versus bound electrons "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 13:55 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#579753

On 05/23/2016 02:14 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ  quacked
>> I'll be glad to. As soon as you explain why you believe in ghosts
>
> In other words you've got nothing as usual.
> -------------
>
> You seem upset, BJ.
>
Proof he has nothing rational to say.

You journalists all think that you can fool anybody with your lies, but 
in fact you can only fool people dumber than you which is a pretty small 
group.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579767

BJ quacked
You journalists all think that you can fool anybody with your lies, but 
in fact you can only fool people dumber than you which is a pretty small group. 
------------

I fooled *you* into believing I'm a journalist. Does that count?

Lol

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579965

On 05/23/2016 09:37 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> You journalists all think that you can fool anybody with your lies, but
> in fact you can only fool people dumber than you which is a pretty small group.
> ------------
>
> I fooled *you* into believing I'm a journalist. Does that count?
>
> Lol

AH! "Journalist" was just my guess given your total lack of intellect, 
morality, honesty, and ethics, but NOW you just confirmed my guess!

DAMN! I'm good!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579712

Le dimanche 22 mai 2016 16:58:09 UTC+2, omni...@gmail.com a écrit :

> 
> Free electrons are always paired with a distant proton. There is an equal number of electrons and protons in the universe. Free electrons are used in magnetism, always paired with a remote proton.

I don't believe this isnecessarily true. In fact, I am pretty certain it isn't. If you accelerate an electron to relativistic or near relativistic velocities, and direct them toward a suitable target, the excess energy will cause the formation of an electron/positron pair (or, at least, this is one possible outcome; also, it is NOT the only mechanism for such generation). This has been performed and verified many times in particle accelerators. For your statement to be true, a pair of proton/antiproton would also need to be spontaneously generated, and I am fairly certain this does not happen.
Likewise, proton/antiproton pairs have been generated in similar experiments, and I am fairly certain that these did not produce spontaneous pairs of electrons/positrons.

It MIGHT be correct to say that there is an absoute balance of charges distributed throughout the universe (theoretically) as particles are supposedly always produced with their equivalent antiparticle (or at least the components thereof), which would have an equal but opposite charge. However, would this be meaningful if there is an over-representation of particles of a single type (positrons, for example) locked away in black holes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579791

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> writes:

>> Free electrons are always paired with a distant proton. There is an 
>> equal number of electrons and protons in the universe. Free electrons are 
>> used in magnetism, always paired with a remote proton.

>I don't believe this isnecessarily true. In fact, I am pretty certain it
> isn't.

Proof it isn't:

Assume the universe is in a state where every electron is paired with a
proton, distant or not, and every proton is paired with an electron. Along
comes an energetic gamma photon, and it produces an electron-positron
pair.  Since a proton is not produced, we now have an electron which is
not paired with a proton, since there is no proton to pair it with, since
every other proton is already paired with an electron.

(And what about the positron? Is every positron paired with an antiproton
somewhere?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579796

Michael Moroney
Mikkel Haaheim <mikkel...@gmail.com> writes: 

>> Free electrons are always paired with a distant proton. There is an 
>> equal number of electrons and protons in the universe. Free electrons are 
>> used in magnetism, always paired with a remote proton. 

>I don't believe this isnecessarily true. In fact, I am pretty certain it 
> isn't. 

Proof it isn't: 

Assume the universe is in a state where every electron is paired with a 
proton, distant or not, and every proton is paired with an electron. Along 
comes an energetic gamma photon, and it produces an electron-positron 
pair.  Since a proton is not produced, we now have an electron which is 
not paired with a proton, since there is no proton to pair it with, since 
every other proton is already paired with an electron. 

(And what about the positron? Is every positron paired with an antiproton 
somewhere?) 
-----------

As I pointed out earlier, it's hogwash. Canadian hogwash sponsored by little pharma

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579807

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:55:41 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> 
>Free electrons are always paired with a distant proton. There is an 
>equal number of electrons and protons in the universe. Free electrons are 
>used in magnetism, always paired with a remote proton.
> 
> >I don't believe this isnecessarily true. In fact, I am pretty certain it
> > isn't.
> 
> Proof it isn't:
> 
> Assume the universe is in a state where every electron is paired with a
> proton, distant or not, and every proton is paired with an electron. Along
> comes an energetic gamma photon, and it produces an electron-positron
> pair.  Since a proton is not produced, we now have an electron which is
> not paired with a proton, since there is no proton to pair it with, since
> every other proton is already paired with an electron.
> 

Reference Book on pair production from a gamma ray hitting an electron: Book Title "Nuclear Radiation Interaction" by Yip, page 203, "in pair production the photon interacts with the electric field of the nucleus."

Dear M. Moroney, as the Reference states, an electron is not alone when the gamma photon hits, it is near a proton. There are no single electrons in a vast vacuum, without a proton. Gamma ray pair production is always is observed near a nucleus. The positron is also near a proton as a temporary effect of charge reversal in one place and anti reversal in its paired nucleus. The photon hits the electric field around the nucleus "and an electron-positron pair is emitted". Page 202, Yip.

Pair production of an electron and positron is always near a proton.
Alan Folmsbee

 http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579823

omnilobe@gmail.com writes:

>On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:55:41 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Proof it isn't:

>> Assume the universe is in a state where every electron is paired with a
>> proton, distant or not, and every proton is paired with an electron. Along
>> comes an energetic gamma photon, and it produces an electron-positron
>> pair.  Since a proton is not produced, we now have an electron which is
>> not paired with a proton, since there is no proton to pair it with, since
>> every other proton is already paired with an electron.

>Reference Book on pair production from a gamma ray hitting an electron: 
>Book Title "Nuclear Radiation Interaction" by Yip, page 203, "in pair 
>production the photon interacts with the electric field of the nucleus."

>Dear M. Moroney, as the Reference states, an electron is not alone when 
>the gamma photon hits, it is near a proton. There are no single electrons 
>in a vast vacuum, without a proton. Gamma ray pair production is always is 
>observed near a nucleus. The positron is also near a proton as a temporary 
>effect of charge reversal in one place and anti reversal in its paired 
>nucleus. The photon hits the electric field around the nucleus "and an 
>electron-positron pair is emitted". Page 202, Yip.

Why yes, pair production always takes place near a body that momentum can be
transferred to to conserve momentum, usually a nucleus. But that doesn't
change anything.  Remember, all protons in that nucleus are already each
paired with an electron somewhere before the gamma comes along, given my
initial condition.  Once the gamma comes along and produces the
electron-positron pair, that electron cannot be paired with any proton in
the nucleus, since each proton was already previously paired with a
*different* electron somewhere.  Or, if you want to claim that a proton in
the nucleus is now paired with the newly-created electron because that
electron is (momentarially) closest to the proton at the time of creation,
we now have the *formerly* paired electron without a proton to be paired
with.

So, regardless of the need for the nucleus for pair production, after the
gamma comes along and produces an electron-positron pair, we now have an
electron without a proton to pair with.  *Which* electron doesn't have a
proton to pair with isn't relevant.

(And you didn't answer: What about the positron? Does it have an antiproton 
to pair with?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579927

MM asked two questions:

"So, regardless of the need for the nucleus for pair production, after the gamma comes along and produces an electron-positron pair, we now have an electron without a proton to pair with.  *Which* electron doesn't have a 
proton to pair with isn't relevant. 

(And you didn't answer: What about the positron? Does it have an antiproton to pair with?) "

AF answers, 

1 : The positron is made in a pair, so the totoal charge imbalance is zero. The gamma photon hit an electron near a nucleus. A pair was made, plus and minus equals zero. The nucleus is affected by momentum, energy, and internal excitation of a type that may include charge neutralization. That charge neutrality exists after pair production.

Reference, Sydney Yip (2015) Nuclear Radiation Interactions, page 213:

"The photon is absorbed in the vicinity of the nucleus, a positron-electron pair is produced, and the atom is left in the excited state..."

"One finds that the conditions cannot be satisfied simultaneously without the presence of an atomic nucleus."

2 : No. The positron has no anti-proton, it has a proton in an excited nucleus. Charge neutrality is always preserved during pair production. It is like semiconductors electron-hole pairs by a photon: it is neutral, but a pn junction makes a solar cell to harvest charge. Your positron cannot be harvested to get a net charge because its tied to a nucleus in a pair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579984

omnilobe@gmail.com writes:

>1 : The positron is made in a pair, so the totoal charge imbalance is zero.
> The gamma photon hit an electron near a nucleus. A pair was made, plus and
> minus equals zero. The nucleus is affected by momentum, energy, and internal
> excitation of a type that may include charge neutralization. That charge
> neutrality exists after pair production.

Charge conservation was never an issue. You claimed that every electron 
had a proton to pair with, and gamma->e-e+ is a simple refutation of that.

Yes, it's safe to say that for every electron there is a positive charge
of some sort (proton, positron or whatever) to counter its charge, and
anything else negative (negative muons, antiprotons, whatever) also has a
positive charge out there to counter its charge.  I won't claim there is a
one-to-one pairing, however, consider a star, a mix of plasma, a bunch of
electrons and positive ions and bare nuclei.

>2 : No. The positron has no anti-proton, it has a proton in an excited
>nucleus.

So, according to you, gamma->e-e+ produces _two_ electrons without a
proton pairmate. Not just one, as I said.  The electron from the e-e+
pair, and another electron that used to be paired with the proton which is
now paired with the positron.  (and why no antimatter mirror symmetry?)

> Charge neutrality is always preserved during pair production.

Never in doubt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579996

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:12:35 PM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> Folmsbee wrote 

1 : The positron is made in a pair, so the total charge imbalance is zero.
> > The gamma photon hit an electron near a nucleus. A pair was made, plus and
> > minus equals zero. The nucleus is affected by momentum, energy, and internal
> > excitation of a type that may include charge neutralization. That charge
> > neutrality exists after pair production.
> 
> Charge conservation was never an issue. You claimed that every electron 
> had a proton to pair with, and gamma->e-e+ is a simple refutation of that.
> 
> Yes, it's safe to say that for every electron there is a positive charge
> of some sort (proton, positron or whatever) to counter its charge, and
> anything else negative (negative muons, antiprotons, whatever) also has a
> positive charge out there to counter its charge.  I won't claim there is a
> one-to-one pairing, however, consider a star, a mix of plasma, a bunch of
> electrons and positive ions and bare nuclei.
> 
> >2 : No. The positron has no anti-proton, it has a proton in an excited
> >nucleus.
> 
> So, according to you, gamma->e-e+ produces _two_ electrons without a
> proton pairmate. Not just one, as I said.  The electron from the e-e+
> pair, and another electron that used to be paired with the proton which is
> now paired with the positron.  (and why no antimatter mirror symmetry?)
> 
> > Charge neutrality is always preserved during pair production.
> 
> Never in doubt.

Hello MM, Your comments have encouraged me to give more details about "free electrons". Metals have free electrons and semiconductors, too. Magnetism of iron changes the motion of free electrons in a copper generator so more electrons gather at one terminal. Those electrons got there after influence from a remote location. The paired free electron in copper is paired with one proton in the iron, far away. That is how magnets can work, remote pairing of a free electron with a far away proton. A million miles is common on the Sun, from an electron to a strictly paired proton.

You can call electrons "free", but protons in magnets can control those free electrons. That is a limited freedom. Electrons can change loyalty and pair with a different proton in a time of 10^-28 seconds. That is flux cutting. Then one proton can cause electrical generation in copper using a parade of electrons that cut the flux that otherwise goes from iron magnet to iron magnet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579889

Isn't this pretty much what I said? Except that I used particle accelerators as the example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579911

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> writes:

>Isn't this pretty much what I said? Except that I used particle 
>accelerators as the example.

Looking back, yes you did.  I just simplified it, that's all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579997

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 5:58:09 PM UTC+3, omni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 3:39:43 AM UTC-10, john wrote:
> > When bound electrons become
> > free, I'm thinking they change their spin.
> > In the atom, they are 1:2.
> > When they become free,
> > their spin becomes 1:1 and their
> > momentum changes (doubles?).
> 
> A free electron is more than 4 Angstroms from a proton...
> 
> 4*10^-10 meters > m/(r alpha) = q/(2 pi a0) = 2.41 Angstroms 
> 
> m is proton mass, alpha = 1/137, q is a charge, a0 is Bohr radius
> 
> Free electrons are always paired with a distant proton. There is an equal number of electrons and protons in the universe. Free electrons are used in magnetism, always paired with a remote proton.

=wrong !!!   (surprise !!)

not is all cases 
the number of electrons is the same as number of Protons !!!
because 
protons that are inside the nuc
loos their charge while inner bonds are done !!
see
Google:
'The Y Porat Model - an abstract '

=====
TIA
Y.Porat 
=====================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579614

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>When bound electrons become
>free, I'm thinking they change their spin.
>In the atom, they are 1:2.
>When they become free,
>their spin becomes 1:1 and their
>momentum changes (doubles?).

As if your crappy beliefs already don't have enough violations of the laws 
of physics, off you go to add a couple more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579621

Michael
Don't the laws of Physics all change
at the Quantum level?
According to QM?
So am I violating changed laws
or unchanged laws?
Brain dead physicists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579677

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Don't the laws of Physics all change
>at the Quantum level?
>According to QM?

QM violates many ideas considered common sense in the macroscopic world,
but the fundamental concepts such as conservation of momentum and so forth
which you gladly violate hold true.

>So am I violating changed laws
>or unchanged laws?
>Brain dead physicists.

Your feeble justification of "if they can do it, so can I" has been noted,
and laughed at. [especially since "they" don't do it]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579809

On 5/22/2016 6:20 PM, john wrote:
> Michael
> Don't the laws of Physics all change
> at the Quantum level?

No. What gave you that idea?

> According to QM?

Nope, QM says no such thing.
What comic book did you get that from?

> So am I violating changed laws
> or unchanged laws?
> Brain dead physicists.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579815

Odd Bodkin
On 5/22/2016 6:20 PM, john wrote: 
> Michael 
> Don't the laws of Physics all change 
> at the Quantum level? 

No. What gave you that idea? 

> According to QM? 

Nope, QM says no such thing. 
What comic book did you get that from? 
----------

Ant Man. 

Wasp Woman went sub atomic to destroy a nuke heading for the USA. However, her regulator became broken and she was trapped in the quantum realm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579973

On 05/23/2016 12:40 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Odd Bodkin
> On 5/22/2016 6:20 PM, john wrote:
>> Michael
>> Don't the laws of Physics all change
>> at the Quantum level?
>
> No. What gave you that idea?
>
>> According to QM?
>
> Nope, QM says no such thing.
> What comic book did you get that from?
> ----------
>
> Ant Man.
>
> Wasp Woman went sub atomic to destroy a nuke heading for the USA. However, her regulator became broken and she was trapped in the quantum realm.
>
Cartoons are "science" for "professor" Wormley and comic books are 
"science" for HVAC. Welcome to Obama's America.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web