Charge and Atomic Models
In 1687 Newton’ s gravity law had introduced the concept of mass related, attractions at a distance. It was a hard to accept concept but then the charge related works of Coulomb (1773) also involved forces at a distance. Faraday’s work on electromagnetism then led to the idea of force fields in space that Maxwell;s 1865 mathematics treated as waves.
Clearly, charge, mass and force fields were features in physics years before Thompson discovered the electron in 1897 and establishing it as the source of the charge Franklin had identified as negative in 1747. The discovery supported the “plum pudding” model of an atom with positive and negative charges throughout it until, in 1911, Rutherford revealed how proton positive charges in an atom were concentrated with nearly all of its mass at an atom’s centre.
A planet like picture of atoms with electrons speeding in orbit around nuclei emerged. The coulomb charge attraction providing the force that maintained the curved motion. But there was a problem; Maxwell’s work had shown that accelerating charges emitted radiation and so circling electrons should be spiralling into nuclei but they weren’t.
Between 1913 and 1918, and using the quantised energy ideas of Planck and Einstein, Bohr came up with the idea that electrons could only have specific energies in their orbits around atoms. The success of Bohr’s model was mainly with the hydrogen atom and we know electron’s don’t orbit nuclei. Despite its limitations, this model is still the one best known by the public.
Furthermore, whilst quantised energies feature in observed electron actions it is essential to realise that they do not not explain why electrons stay out of nuclei or why they are mostly confined to and vibrate in space volumes distributed around an atom.
Quantum Physics and the Electron
In 1924 De Broglie had postulated the idea that electrons were standing matter waves. Then, in 1926 Schrodinger had taken an energy equation, introduced throughout it a wave function and had then manipulated it using both Planck and De Broglie relationships. He had ended up with an equation involving wave function derivatives that were either time or time independent. But what did the equation represent?
Max Born suggested the square of amplitudes in the changing wave function was indicative of the probability of finding a system in a specific state. By setting the probability of all possible states equal to 1, each and every possible outcome had its own probability.
Numerous repeat experiments of electron positions, energies and momentums have confirmed the wave equation probability results. Orbital space volumes and electron configurations help us to picture how electrons are distributed and where they are likely to be found.
Wave function success has led many to believe it represents reality, though it fails to align with relativity or explain gravity. Many see electrons as superpositions of many states, smeared out in orbitals or clouds and that measurement collapses the states to the one observed. Others say we are accessing one of many worlds when observing, whilst in quantum field theory, electrons are not fundamental but ripples or excitations in fields.
Mass and Energy
Our treatment of mass and energy further add to the confusion as to what an electron is. E = mc2 came from an Einstein 1905 paper which said that if an object absorbs or emits an amount of energy L, its inertial mass will increase or decrease by L/c2. So, it would seem that massless photons absorbed by, emitted by or interacting between the particles of atoms or structures have a say in their mass.
Many say mass is conserved even though energies change in expansions, contractions, states of matter and chemical changes whilst others say that mass does change but insignificantly so. Then we are told that particles have only one mass, a rest mass, described by some as invariant. For an electron it is equal to 511 thousand electron volts of energy, about one 1800th that of a proton or neutrons rest mass/energy. But others say rest mass can change and that it is the mass as measured by an up close observer. We also say atoms and structures have a mass defect, equal to the binding energy required to break an atom into its constituent particles, in that their mass is less than the combined rest masses of their particles. How can rest mass be invariant?
Einstein’s special relativity had led to the idea that mass at high speed was equal to gamma (γ) times rest mass. Gamma being 1/sqrt (1 – v2/c2) meant mass became enormous as object speed v, neared light speed c. The idea of relativistic mass is now discouraged but not that of relativistic total energy [ E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2 ] , of relativistic kinetic energy [ (γ – 1)mc2 ] or of relativistic momentum [ γ mu ]. All such formula ensure that energy and momentum are conserved as with the non-relativistic formulae.
In my blog what is energy I argue that potential energy and kinetic energy are not basic energies, that they are equal because they are calculating the same thing and that kinetic energy is not the “on board” energy we are told it is. There is no relativistic mass because there is no “on board” relativistic speed energy. Yes, ever increasing amounts of energy are needed to get the velocity of a mass closer to light speed but any energy that does add to a structure’s mass energy in this process is unwanted.
Motions happen when particle structures want or want away from photon energies coming their way and they use photon emissions to do just that. Calculated kinetic energies are the energies particle structures deploy in the delivering of their own accelerations or decelerations.
The normal 1/2 mv2 kinetic energy equation did not work for particles at significant speeds relative to light speed. The input energies should have been delivering speeds beyond light speed but they weren’t. A new relativistic formula for kinetic energy ensured that light speed could not be exceeded even when energy inputs were near infinite.
Momentum and Spin
Momentum, the product of mass and velocity is conserved in collisions. Yet collisions do not involve particle masses contacting at velocities. I repeat, motions happen when particle structures want or want away from massless photon energies coming their way. In my blog what is energy I argue that photons don’t carry and deliver forces; that it is particle structures of energy that decide how they
react to photon energies.
When dealing with momentum, angular momentum, magnetic moments, spin and all fields, be they gravity, magnetic or charge related, we need to realise that it is not the often remotely sourced light speed energies of space that are delivering forces. The desires and repulsions that happen are all local and determined by the energies of the particles or particle structures involved. They decide what they will absorb and emit.
Why particle energies desire energy and want to exchange it I know not but clearly such desire is strong and cooperative and the highly mobile electrons have an important role to play in the carrying out of that desire.
The living electron
We humans are complex structures of neutron, proton and electron energies, interacting via light speed energies. Our life source is within those energies, for what else is there? Their desires evolved us. We are a structure better able to serve their desires and they cooperate in us in phenomenal ways. But are we serving them well? They certainly don’t want money and our current stress and mental health issues are clear signs of their discontent.
Regard life as being present in all particles and their structure and all chemical, nuclear and states of matter changes are, like the actions of cellular structures, self determined acts. Contact and charge actions are the result of living particle desires to get, process, control and distribute energy. Coulomb’s law may work at the macro scale but particles do not have an in built charge, they have in built desires. We see how the gravity force is less than the charge force and seek a graviton to explain a weaker gravity field. Reality is that established structures do not desire photons like structures wanting change do.
Planets, galaxies and the dust clouds of our universe all exist because down at the sub atomic level particles are choosing how they will act. They are considering all of the possibilities available to them which is why we only get meaningful probabilities from quantum mechanics when we input a complete picture.
Electrons are a part of this living particle scenario, a living assistant if you like, created or destroyed by nucleon energies as befits their energy needs. Their role is to establish and control energy flows to protons; they proactively find locations where they can best do that. They take suitable energies from their surround, stay away from other electrons with the same purpose and will relocate to other preferred locations, if doing so caters for changed energy inputs. They may also decide to exit an established structure if unwanted energies are high. Wherever they be and wherever they go their intent is to serve nucleon energy needs from best locations. When in those locations their vibrations are simply self determined actions intent on controlling and meeting such energy desires.
We regard earth’s structure as non living yet its particles, that comprise less than 0.0001% of the space the earth occupies, are highly active both between themselves and with the energies of their surround. The more mobile electrons are most active. It is their desire for sun radiated energies, but not to excess, and their energy links to nucleons that deliver earth’s orbit around the sun. Their tiny energy gathering movements toward the sun’s radiations add up to an enormous total desire. We are wrong to think of the earth, its rocks and other structures and everything else in our universe as dead
There is no “on board” motion related kinetic energy. Yet particle structures moving toward wanted energy or away from unwanted energy do incur energy and mass changes that cause particles within them to distort from their preferred positions. The distortions are temporary if the structure can move and release the unwanted energy but may be more permanent if the structure is restrained, as with a spring. Whatever the conditions, particle structures always want what is best for them.
Distortions can also apply to the energy contents of particles. In colliders, for example, particles are fleeing from light speed photon energies intent on distorting them. At light speed they could be distortion free and relaxed but they would then desire energy and the getting of it distorts their internal structure, causing them to again seek light speed. It is why we cannot get particles to go beyond light speed
An electron has never been observed and has never been broken apart in a collider, but that does not mean it cannot be. After all, it is created out of nuclear energy and it and a positron will annihilate with it to photons of energy when it is no longer needed. As an energy gathering assistant it would be useless in very high energy situations where I suspect muons and taus replace them
I think we should see electrons as micro sized fuzzy node of highly proactive energy, always intent on performing its role of serving nucleon energy desires in the best and most efficient way possible. An electron is in no way confused. It rapidly decides how it will behave in any given and changing energy conditions.