All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

[Polymath257]

Polymath, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper as this goes on. I grant you understand the maths, but you forget that the maths only are an abstract representation of the relevant reality. So if the electron produces the surrounding photon field when excitation occurs, where is the separation between electron and the electron's photon field? For them to be two separate things, there must be a proven separation, else they are merely twp aspects of one thing.

Well, among the other effects that can be seen is that the 'bare' electron charge and the charge of an electron with a photon cloud are different. This can be detected in high energy experiments when collisions get past a large part of the photon cloud.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is another presentation of the same effect:
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys596/fa2012/StudentWork/team4_final.pdf

This has the above artists conception, by the way.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, I looked into this a bit more. Here is a presentation given on this topic:
Spin-orbital separation in 1-D | Atomic Orbital | Spin (Physics)
and an early version of the actual paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1954.pdf

The upshot is that this separation is a *collective* phenomenon and is not a decay of an electron in the traditional sense of particle physics.

Some background: in quantum mechanics, there is a duality between wave and particle properties. In essence, for quantum mechanics, the two viewpoints describe exactly the same thing. Because of this, it is common and productive to think of many wave-like quantum phenomena as particles. So, for example, the collective vibration of a solid known as sound can *equivalently* be described as a 'gas' of particles called phonons. This is a collective effect of the movements of all the atoms in the solid.

In the experiment (and corresponding papers), the basic setup is in a solid that consists of bundles of long lines of atoms. Bonding between atoms only happens within the lines. Also, because of the way the atomic orbitals overlap, there is a de-localization of the electrons along the line. In this, the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum are described as vibrations along the line of atoms.

If this setup is carefully stimulated, it is possible to create a situation where say, spin angular momentum is propagated along the line, but orbital angular momentum is not (or vice versa). Because of the wavelike nature of this propagation, we can equivalently describe this as a 'decay' into particles of spin and particles of orbital angular momenta.

Collective behavior like this is a bit tricky to describe to the public (or journalists) because the underlying mechanics of it is dependent on quantum mechanics and the dualities involved in its description of nature. In this case, the one-dimensional aspect is crucial to get the separation.

Fascinating!

Yes, it is fascinating, but it does not show what the underlying essence of so called particles in either particle of quantum physics. I understand that there is an underlying essence of all mass and energy of the universe, they are inter convertable... E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, among the other effects that can be seen is that the 'bare' electron charge and the charge of an electron with a photon cloud are different. This can be detected in high energy experiments when collisions get past a large part of the photon cloud.

I don't doubt the mathematical models, but if the photon cloud energy came from the excited electron and is sustained by the excited electron, this shows there is an underlying essence common to the apparent two aspects.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And what evidence do you have that there *is* anything other than the physical reality?

Because only 2.5% (5%) of the universe is physical as our human sensory systems know it, the rest is other than....What is the Universe Made Of? - SpaceRef

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it is fascinating, but it does not show what the underlying essence of so called particles in either particle of quantum physics. I understand that there is an underlying essence of all matter and energy of the universe, they are inter convertable... E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2

Wave-particle duality is a different thing than mass-energy equivalence. The first is a quantum mechanical fact that all particles have a corresponding wave nature and all waves have a corresponding particle nature. In essence, the two descriptions are equivalent.

Mass-energy equivalence deal with how the law of conservation of energy is to be interpreted. In particular, mass enters into the calculation in a way given by the formula E=mc^2 *if* the mass is at rest. If, instead, the mass is moving with a momentum of p, the corresponding energy is E=sqrt{m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2}.

 

[Polymath257]

Because only 2.5% (5%) of the universe is physical as our human sensory systems know it, the rest is other than....What is the Universe Made Of? - SpaceRef

So you are claiming that dark matter and dark energy are not physical?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't doubt the mathematical models, but if the photon cloud energy came from the excited electron and is sustained by the excited electron, this shows there is an underlying essence common to the apparent two aspects.

Yes, a defining property of the electron is that it interacts via the electromagnetic force. Since that E&M force is carried by photons, it is an essential part of an electron that it interacts with photons. This includes producing virtual photons from the surrounding vacuum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wave-particle duality is a different thing than mass-energy equivalence. The first is a quantum mechanical fact that all particles have a corresponding wave nature and all waves have a corresponding particle nature. In essence, the two descriptions are equivalent.

Mass-energy equivalence deal with how the law of conservation of energy is to be interpreted. In particular, mass enters into the calculation in a way given by the formula E=mc^2 *if* the mass is at rest. If, instead, the mass is moving with a momentum of p, the corresponding energy is E=sqrt{m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2}.

I was not talking about wave-particle equivalence, the point I was making about mass-energy equivalence is that logically there must be an underlying unitary essence of the apparent two aspects.

 

[Polymath257]

I was not talking about wave-particle equivalence, the point I was making about mass-energy equivalence is that logically there must be an underlying unitary essence of the apparent two aspects.

Yes. And that is what we now call energy. There was a slight shift in definition because of Einstein's ideas. So, now, when we discuss energy conservation, that includes the contribution from mass. Just like it includes the contribution for heat and position.

Also, all energy is associated with some particle. Light energy is associated with photons. Heat is associated with whatever is moving around (heat is a type of kinetic energy). Etc.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. And that is what we now call energy. There was a slight shift in definition because of Einstein's ideas. So, now, when we discuss energy conservation, that includes the contribution from mass. Just like it includes the contribution for heat and position.

Also, all energy is associated with some particle. Light energy is associated with photons. Heat is associated with whatever is moving around (heat is a type of kinetic energy). Etc.

I should point out that the discussion before this *was* concerned about wave-particle duality. The very notion of spinons and orbitons depends on exactly this duality.

 

[paarsurrey]

And what evidence do you have that there *is* anything other than the physical reality?

One sees beauty everywhere in nature, it is just not physical but is an aspect of nature created by God.
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I should point out that the discussion before this *was* concerned about wave-particle duality. The very notion of spinons and orbitons depends on exactly this duality.

I get that, but that was in the context of your trying to explain what an electron was made of, and by answering spinons and orbitons, you have still not been able answer my original question, what is the essential substance that underlie these representative names? Since science does not know, I am taking the initiative to point out that due to the understanding of mass - energy equivalence, it follows logically that there must be some underlying universal energy essence of which all matter is made. Do you disagree?

 

[Polymath257]

I get that, but that was in the context of your trying to explain what an electron was made of, and by answering spinons and orbitons, you have still not been able answer my original question, what is the essential substance that underlie these representative names? Since science does not know, I am taking the initiative to point out that due to the understanding of mass - energy equivalence, it follows logically that there must be some underlying universal energy essence of which all matter is made. Do you disagree?

Yes, energy is one of many characteristics of a particle like the electron. There is also charge, spin, parity, lepton number, etc. All that energy-mass equivalence does is show how the mass enters into one conservation law. But there are other conservation laws based on the other characteristics.

No, the electron is NOT made of spinons and orbitons. Both of the latter are dependent on collective effects of many electrons interacting strongly. The resulting interactions can be considered to be free particles. THOSE particles are the spinons and orbitons.

Electrons are, as far as we know, not made from anything more fundamental. They *are* one type of 'essential substance'. Muons are another one. So are photons.

You seem to think there needs to be *one* underlying substance for all of these. Perhaps there is, but we don't have any evidence for such as yet. The closest is string theory which has all fundamental particles as vibrations in a linear quantum 'string'. And that string would then be the 'fundamental substance'.

 

[Polymath257]

One sees beauty everywhere in nature, it is just not physical but is an aspect of nature created by God.
Regards

Wrong, it is an aspect of how our brains interact with the world. No deity required.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, energy is one of many characteristics of a particle like the electron. There is also charge, spin, parity, lepton number, etc. All that energy-mass equivalence does is show how the mass enters into one conservation law. But there are other conservation laws based on the other characteristics.

No, the electron is NOT made of spinons and orbitons. Both of the latter are dependent on collective effects of many electrons interacting strongly. The resulting interactions can be considered to be free particles. THOSE particles are the spinons and orbitons.

Electrons are, as far as we know, not made from anything more fundamental. They *are* one type of 'essential substance'. Muons are another one. So are photons.

You seem to think there needs to be *one* underlying substance for all of these. Perhaps there is, but we don't have any evidence for such as yet. The closest is string theory which has all fundamental particles as vibrations in a linear quantum 'string'. And that string would then be the 'fundamental substance'.

So you think an electron is a 'billiard ball' type of 'essential' substance, a coherent stand alone element in its own right?

 

[Polymath257]

So you think an electron is a 'billiard ball' type of 'essential' substance, a coherent stand alone element in its own right?

The words you use have meanings that do not apply in this context. Thinking of an electron as a billiard ball is just incorrect. The classical notion of a particle is not appropriate here. An electron is not a hard little ball.

I don't know what you mean when you describe something as an 'essential substance'. Again, this seems to be an old Aristotelian language, which just isn't appropriate in this context. Neither do I understand what you mean by something being 'stand alone' or 'coherent' in this context. Finally, the term 'element' seems to be used in an old context (again Aristotelian).

The current language has 'elements' as those 'substances' made out of one type of atom. So electrons are NOT elements in this sense. But, for example, hydrogen and oxygen are elements.

The old use of an element as something that is indivisible is much closer to the concept of a fundamental particle--something not made from anything else. Electrons do appear to be fundamental particles in this sense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The words you use have meanings that do not apply in this context. Thinking of an electron as a billiard ball is just incorrect. The classical notion of a particle is not appropriate here. An electron is not a hard little ball.

I don't know what you mean when you describe something as an 'essential substance'. Again, this seems to be an old Aristotelian language, which just isn't appropriate in this context. Neither do I understand what you mean by something being 'stand alone' or 'coherent' in this context. Finally, the term 'element' seems to be used in an old context (again Aristotelian).

The current language has 'elements' as those 'substances' made out of one type of atom. So electrons are NOT elements in this sense. But, for example, hydrogen and oxygen are elements.

The old use of an element as something that is indivisible is much closer to the concept of a fundamental particle--something not made from anything else. Electrons do appear to be fundamental particles in this sense.

Hold on, you said in your post #76 that electrons "*are* one type of 'essential substance'. Muons are another one. So are photons.", so what do you mean by 'essential substance'?

And you did not answer my question afaics about whether you consider the electron particle as a stand alone unit, ie. indivisible?

 

[Polymath257]

Hold on, you said in your post #76 that electrons "*are* one type of 'essential substance'. Muons are another one. So are photons.", so what do you mean by 'essential substance'?

I mean that all of these are fundamental particles. They are not made up of anything else.

And you did not answer my question afaics about whether you consider the electron particle as a stand alone unit, ie. indivisible?

Electrons are not made up of other things. In that sense, they are indivisible. In the situation with spinons and orbitons, the fundamental electrons do NOT split up. What splits up is a type of combined behavior of many electrons arranged linearly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I mean that all of these are fundamental particles. They are not made up of anything else.

Electrons are not made up of other things. In that sense, they are indivisible. In the situation with spinons and orbitons, the fundamental electrons do NOT split up. What splits up is a type of combined behavior of many electrons arranged linearly.

Now we are getting somewhere, so electrons are indivisible and not constituted of anything else? So what happens when an electron and positron come together?