Science topic
Electron - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Electron, and find Electron experts.
Questions related to Electron
Is there significant difference between these other element present which highlighted as black? This is from Scanning Electron Microscope-EDS
The emeritus professor Art Hobson in his article
"Realist Analysis of Six Controversial Quantum Issues"
from Academia.org writes( ):
“Schrödinger's equation for, say. a moving electron is clearly a "field equation" for a scalar (i.e. number-valued rather than vector-valued) field y(x, y, z,t) entirely analogous to Maxwell's equations for the vector EM field E(x, y, z. t), B(x, y. z, t). Nevertheless, the QP founders retained the Newtonian language, speaking consistently of quantum "mechanics" and quantum "particles." Physicists continue to apply the term "particle" to essentially every quantum object, including even the Higgs field which is clearly a universe-filling quantized field. Because language so shapes our perception of reality. I doubt we will transcend our quantum confusion until we adopt more appropriate words. Electrons, photons, and other quanta are not "particles."
The question of fields versus particles is crucial because, once one adopts the particle misconception, most other issues become unfathomable. For example, if quanta are particles separated by empty space, distant nonlocal comiections become incomprehensible.”
Yes this precisely my main concern since some time ago, as it is energy the fundamental issue, that can be solved if the Basic Systemic Unit is used to deduce the fundamental equations of physics, such as that of QP that defines the behavior of our first form of "measurable" energy, I mean the electron.
For it the concept of particle cannot be applied as it does not behave like that.
Edgar Paternina
I am trying to define a new material in silvaco by specifying the NiO parameters.
The example for Ga2O3 was as follows
material material=Ga2O3 user.default=GaN user.group=semiconductor \
affinity=4.0 eg300=4.8 nc300=3.72e18 nv300=3.72e18 permittivity=10.0 \
mun=118 mup=50 tcon.const tc.const=0.13
1. what values should be in the case of NiO?
2. nc300, nv300 means effective density of states?
3. mun, mup means electron and hole mobility?
4. tcon.const tc.const means dielectric constant?
5. user.default=GaN user.group=semiconductor \ I want to know the meaning of this part. In the case of NiO, what material should be written in user.default?
In quantum espresso 7.2, I am trying to do Spin orbit coupling(SOC).
I have tried many things changing mixing mode from plain to local-TF, changing mixing beta, changing electron convergence threshold, and pseudopotential file. But it is not converging.
Can anyone suggest me something!
Hello, I have the results for scattering rates, from epw software, but am wondering how I can plot the graphs of scattering rates as a function of energy as we have in this paper fig 6(a). .kindalyshare some information.
Thank You,
# Electron linewidth = 2*Im(Sigma) (meV)
# ik ibnd E(ibnd) Im(Sigma)(meV)
1 2 0.74585345124266E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
1 3 0.74585345124268E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
1 4 0.74585347474930E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
2 2 0.69732345805421E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
2 3 0.73937712638922E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
2 4 0.73937714320523E+01 0.00000000000000E+00
3 2 0.56870328376178E+01 0.59380777038025E+01
3 3 0.72215714326816E+01 0.11854851602414E+01
3 4 0.72215715157624E+01 0.11854851602414E+01
4 2 0.39942422518922E+01 0.13872317960828E+02
4 3 0.69880162209008E+01 0.20934857870599E+01
4 4 0.69880162474195E+01 0.20934857870599E+01
5 2 0.22701285746477E+01 0.79408123683872E+01
5 3 0.67274356213107E+01 0.26055621742724E+01
5 4 0.67274356625937E+01 0.26055621742724E+01
why electron and hole thermal velocities are same for all materials in scaps simulation, why
can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?
Thanks
The external spacetime field produced by an object of mass M, the Schwarzschild spacetime metric solution, is usually obtained as follows [1]:
1) Assumes a spherically symmetric spacetime metric, and is static and time invariant;
2) Assumes a vacuum conditions outside, with Tµν = 0;
3) Solve the Einstein field equation, Rµν - (1/2)gµνR=Tµν...... (EQ.1)
4) Utilize the boundary condition: the Newtonian potential ф = -GM/r, which introduces the mass M. Obtain the result:
ds2 = -(1-2GM/r)dt2 + (1-2GM/r)-1dr2 + r2dΩ2...... (EQ.2)
Overall, the Schwarzschild metric employs a priori derivation steps. The solution is unique according to Birkhoff's theorem.
Einstein does not explain why M leads to ds2, our questions are:
a) The spacetime metric is containing the energy-momentum Tspacetime , which can only originate from Tµν and is conserved. Why then must spacetime receive, store, and transmit energy-momentum by curvature* ?
b) The implication of condition 2) is that the spacetime field energy-momentum is independent of M or can be regarded as such. Comparing this to the electric field of an electron is equivalent to the fact that the energy contained in the electron's electric field is independent of the electron itself. Since Tspacetime is also bound to M, is it not part of M?
c) For complex scenarios, in the Tµν of Einstein's field equation EQ.1, should one include the spacetime energy momentum at the location? With the above Schwarzschild solution, it seems that there is none, otherwise both sides of the equation (EQ.1) become a deadly circle. So, should there be or should there not be? Does the field equation have a provision or treatment that Tµν can only contain non-spacetime energy momentum?
-----------------------------
Notes
* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be?” https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be
** "Doubts about General Relativity (1) - Is the Geometry Interpretation of Gravity a Paradox?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO36_Doubts_about_General_Relativity_1-Is_the_Geometry_Interpretation_of_Gravity_a_Paradox
-----------------------------
References
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
=============================
2024-04-26
Additional information*:
1) In his Karl Schwarzschild Memorial Lecture, Einstein summarized the many scientific contributions of his short life, stating [1], in commenting on Schwarzschild's solution, that “he was the first to succeed in accurately calculating the gravitational field of the new theory”.
(2) Einstein emphasized in his article “Foundations of General Relativity” [1], “We will make a distinction between 'gravitational field' and 'matter', and we will call everything outside the gravitational field matter. Thus the term 'matter' includes not only matter in the usual sense, but also electromagnetic fields.” ; “Gravitational fields and matter together must satisfy the law of conservation of energy (and momentum).”
(3) Einstein, in his article “Description based on the variational principle” [1], “In order to correspond to the fact of the free superposition of the independent existence of matter and gravitational fields in the field theory, we further set up (Hamilton): H=G+M
4) Einstein's choice of Riemannian spacetime as the basis for the fundamental spacetime of the universe, which I have repeatedly searched for in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, still leads to the conclusion that he had no arguments, even if only descriptions. In his search for a geometrical description, he emphasized that “This problem was unsolved until 1912, when I hit upon the idea that the surface theory of Karl Friedrich Gauss might be the key to this mystery. I found that Gauss' surface coordinates were very meaningful for understanding this problem.”[2] And, although many physicists also do not understand what Space-Time Curvature is all about, everyone accepted this setup. This concept of `internal curvature', which cannot be mapped to physical reality, is at least a suitable choice from a modeling point of view.
5) Einstein's initial assumptions for the field equations were also very vague, as evidenced by his use of terms such as “nine times out of ten” and “it seems”. He was hoping to obtain the gravitational field equation by analogy with the Poisson equation. Thus, the second-order derivative of the spacetime metric is assumed on the left side of the equation, and the energy-momentum density is assumed on the right side.
-----------------------------------------
* The citations therein are translated from Chinese and may differ from the original text.
[1] University, P. (1997). The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917. In. Chinese: 湖南科学技术出版社.
[2] Einstein, A. (1982). How I created the theory of relativity(1922). Physics Today, 35(8), 45-47.
Let us take the example of Zn with Fe3+ reaction. Zn wants to oxidize and Fe3+ wants to reduce to Fe2+ with that electron. Now assume there is no cell.
1) If i simply add Fe3+ solution to Zn pellets how would the reaction proceed?
2) Do I still need to consider the Nernst Plank eqn for transport of ions in this case since there is no external voltage applied?
3) What are the constitutive equations that I need to look at trying to model this cell?
The non-linear response of the electron in the driving laser field, we always mention in solids, inter-band polarization, and coherent intra-band dynamics of the electron. I want to deepen my understanding of the coherence related to the electron dynamics in the intra-band.
If the electron is a point-size ball of charge, the field it creates is infinitely strong at the electron's location. This means the field would have no defined direction and thus no defined forces, which leads to problems in calculating the forces. But if the electron is instead an extended field of charge, the forces on the different parts of the electron would be finite with well-defined directions. But if the electron's charge is spread out, why don't the various parts of the electron repel one another so that the electron rapidly explodes?
The following text explains quantum entanglement and its limitations in exchanging information. Quantum entanglement refers to a correlation between the states of particles that are separated by large distances. When one particle is measured, it instantly affects the state of the other particle, regardless of the distance between them. This phenomenon has led to speculation about the potential for instantaneous communication, sometimes called 'quantum teleportation.'
However, this correlation does not enable the transmission of information in the classical sense. While it may appear that information is being exchanged faster than the speed of light, it's crucial to understand that this correlation cannot be used to transmit information directly. This is because the state of one particle cannot be intentionally manipulated to convey a specific message to its entangled partner. Any attempt to manipulate one particle's state would only alter its own state, without conveying meaningful information to the other particle.
In short, although quantum entanglement is a fascinating phenomenon with implications for quantum communication and computing, it does not facilitate the direct transmission of information over long distances. Instead, it represents a correlation between the states of particles that cannot be exploited for communication purposes in the classical sense.
Explanation:
Information exchange involves the transfer of data between individuals or organizations through electronic means or specific systems. Effective communication over a distance relies on the principles of data, information, and communication. Data can be discrete or continuous values that convey information about quantity, quality, facts, statistics, or sequences of symbols. Information is conveyed through a specific arrangement or sequence of things, involving processing, organization, and structuring. Communication is the transmission of information through various means, with models providing simplified overviews of its main components and interactions. Many models suggest that a source uses a coding system to convey information through a message, which is then sent through a channel to a receiver who must decode it. Modulation is the process of altering the properties of a carrier signal, converting data into radio waves by adding information to an electronic or optical carrier signal. Demodulation is the process of extracting the original information-bearing signal from a modulated carrier wave using an electronic circuit called a demodulator or detector. A carrier wave, carrier signal, or carrier is a waveform modified with an information-bearing signal for transmitting information.
Entanglement occurs when two particles, such as photons or electrons, become connected, even when separated by vast distances, as it arises from the connection between particles. Quantum entanglement is a process where energetically degenerate states cannot be separated, making electrons or photons indistinguishable. This results in two entangled indistinguishable particles being inextricably linked, regardless of temporal or spatial separation. A pair of particles is generated with individual quantum states indefinite until measured, and the act of measuring one determines the result of measuring the other, even at a distance. In essence, aspects of one particle depend on aspects of the other, regardless of their distance.
Entangled particles, such as electrons or atoms, remain in the same state, and when they interact with each other or with some external source, each of them represents different states and potentials that lead to the possibility of performing many different tasks simultaneously.
Quantum entanglement: questioning information exchange.
Anyone attempting to use quantum entanglement to exchange information cannot do so because long-distance information exchange requires communication of variable signals. However, the act of measuring one of the quantum-entangled particles determines the result of measuring the other, regardless of the distance between them. This phenomenon does not represent an exchange of information between the entangled particles but rather indicates that they behave identically, even spontaneously, as synchronized oscillations. Therefore, manipulating one particle will not manipulate the other; they behave identically. In conclusion, quantum entanglements do not exchange information, nor do they act as quantum information carriers; they simply behave identically. Thus, they are useless for exchanging data or information.
Remark: The speculation surrounding quantum entanglement suggests the possibility of instantaneous communication or 'quantum teleportation.' This speculation arises from the observed phenomenon where measuring one entangled particle instantaneously affects the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, it's crucial to recognize that this speculation lacks concrete scientific evidence, as indicated by the term 'speculation.'
While external influences can induce entanglement between particles, this entanglement alone does not enable direct information exchange. Therefore, while there is speculation about the potential for instantaneous communication through quantum entanglement, it is not supported by current scientific understanding. Quantum entanglement remains a fascinating phenomenon with implications for quantum communication and computing, but its direct use for information exchange is limited by the constraints of quantum mechanics.
Through my preliminary experiments, it was found that there is an emission of abnormal ultra-high energy electrons downstream of the RF cavity of the electron storage ring, which I theoretically predicted. Therefore, I call on particle physicists to conduct more experiments to fully verify this previously unknown phenomenon with important significance.
Dear Friends, Grand Success. The 131st finding in my TOU (Theory of Universality) is : that protons are space-waves just like electrons, and taking the speed of protons in the space to be (1/43) of electron speed and applying exactly the same logic as applied for electron, the mass of the proton works out to be : (- i) 1.63193 x 10^-27 kg, ( the electron mass was derived earlier as (+i) 9.11941635 x 10^-31 kg ); which agrees with the experimental results. The (i) factor shows that all mass moving at speeds greater than or less than the speed of space is imaginary. That is only space can have realistic mass. Incidentally, the speed of the space is same as the speed of light at that space-time. To be published in next Annexure.
Pl join :
Is the Fine-Structure Constant the Most Fundamental Physical Constant?
The fine-structure constant is obtained when the classical Bohr atomic model is relativisticized [1][2]. α=e2/ℏc, a number whose value lies very close to 1/137. α did not correspond to any elementary physical unit, since α is dimensionless. It may also be variable [6][7]*.
Sommerfeld introduced this number as the relation of the “relativistic boundary moment” p0=e2/c of the electron in the hydrogen atom to the first of n “quantum moments” pn=nh/2π. Sommerfeld had argued that α=p0/p1 would “play an important role in all succeeding formulas,” he had argued ‡ [5].
There are several usual interpretations of the significance of fine structure constants [3].
a）In 1916, Sommerfeld had gone no further than to suggest that more fundamental physical questions might be tied to this “relational quantity.” In Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines, α was given a somewhat clearer interpretation as the relation of the orbital speed of an electron “in the first Bohr orbit” of the hydrogen atom, to the speed of light [5].
b) α plays an important role in the details of atomic emission, giving the spectrum a "fine structure".
c) The electrodynamic interaction was thought to be a process in which light quanta were exchanged between electrically charged particles, where the fine-structure constant was recognized as a measure of the force of this interaction. [5]
d) α is a combination of the elementary charge e, Planck's constant h, and the speed of light c. These constants represent electromagnetic interaction, quantum mechanics, and relativity, respectively. So does that mean that if G is ignored (or canceled out) it represents the complete physical phenomenon.
Questions implicated here :
1) What does the dimensionless nature of α imply? The absence of dimension means that there is no conversion relation. Since it is a coupling relation between photons and electrons, is it a characterization of the consistency between photons and charges?
2) The various interpretations of α are not in conflict with each other, therefore should they be unified?
3) Is our current interpretation of α the ultimate? Is it sufficient?
4) Is α the most fundamental physical constant**? This is similar to Planck Scales† in that they are combinations of other fundamental physical constants.
-----------------------------------
Notes
* Spatial Variation and time variability.
‡ Sommerfeld considered α "important constants of nature, characteristic of the constitution of all the elements."[4]
-----------------------------------
References
[3] 张天蓉. (2022). 精细结构常数. https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-677221-1346617.html
[1] Sommerfeld, A. (1916). The fine structure of Hydrogen and Hydrogen-like lines: Presented at the meeting on 8 January 1916. The European Physical Journal H （2014）, 39(2), 179-204.
[2] Sommerfeld, A. (1916). Zur quantentheorie der spektrallinien. Annalen der Physik, 356(17), 1-94.
[4] Heilbron, J. L. (1967). The Kossel-Sommerfeld theory and the ring atom. Isis, 58(4), 450-485.
[5] Eckert, M., & Märker, K. (2004). Arnold Sommerfeld. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, 2, 1919-1951.
[6] Wilczynska, M. R., Webb, J. K., Bainbridge, M., Barrow, J. D., Bosman, S. E. I., Carswell, R. F., Dąbrowski, M. P., Dumont, V., Lee, C.-C., Leite, A. C., Leszczyńska, K., Liske, J., Marosek, K., Martins, C. J. A. P., Milaković, D., Molaro, P., & Pasquini, L. (2020). Four direct measurements of the fine-structure constant 13 billion years ago. Science Advances, 6(17), eaay9672. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay9672
[7] Webb, J. K., King, J. A., Murphy, M. T., Flambaum, V. V., Carswell, R. F., & Bainbridge, M. B. (2011). Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant. Physical Review Letters, 107(19), 191101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.191101
Dear Friends, awesome finding. The 127th finding in my TOU (Theory of Universality) is that the electrons are space-waves just like gravitons. If we take the mass of the graviton as 2.89186 x 10^-38 kg, the speed of graviton as 4.586509 x 10^6 m/s, the surface speed of electron in hydrogen atom as 2.2 x 10^6 m/s and the surface speed of electron as SQRT(-25.963) x linear speed. Now, if consider the gravitons and the electrons in the space-time frame of Milky way Galaxy, and keeping in mind that the electron has 3 degrees of freedom of movement, the mass of electron works out to be 9.11941635 x 10^-31 kg; which agrees with the observed value of 9.1093837 x 10^-31 kg. To be published in next Annexure.
Pl join :
Why mobility of holes is less than electrons and relationship between conductivity and temperature in semiconductors?
Suppose I have a molecule for which I know the density matrix and overlap matrix. I can generate the Mulliken charge distribution in my system. Now I am interested in generating the electron and hole distribution in the molecule. Is it possible to generate such kind of distribution in the system? If possible, then How?
When hydrogen bonding is formed, the electron density on the donor atom (H) of the hydrogen bond decreases, but there is no information on how the electron density of the acceptor atoms (O, F) changes. Is the electron density of the acceptor increasing? Or is the electron cloud pulled to the bonding region causing a decrease?
I would like to find a reliable reference that includes electronic properties such as CB & VB DoS, electron & hole mobilities, thermal velocities of semiconductors like ZnTe, CdTe.
I am really beginner in this topic I would like to know that the type of Semiconductor (n- or p-) can affect these properties amounts?
Dear Chemists, theorists and teachers!
Please tell me where information is located on the distribution of electrons among the energy levels of all 118 atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements.
At the beginning of last year, with great difficulty, in an abundance of old, incomplete publications that did not contain these materials, I found what I was looking for (1 H 1, 2 He 2... ...118 Og 2 8 18 32 32 18 8) in a series of complete descriptions of atoms, but did not record the source address. When the work began to come to an end, a two-day search yielded no results.
Loving RG
Thomas G. Petrov
Double-slit Experiment with Electrons
We know from measurements that there exists an electrical gradient out from Earth of +400 000 V. At a voltage of + 400 000 V far out in space, space must contain a cluster of positrons (antimatter), or that it is a cluster of electrons in our atmosphere with decreasing density out of Earth (Earth's gravity attracts electrons from space). If we define the earth potential as 0 V and the number of electrons out from the earth decreases, it will give a positive charge gradient. The latter scenario seems to be the most likely since positrons would cancel out all electrons in space (e.g. solar flares).
Suppose that there is a cluster of electrons in our atmosphere when evaluating the double-slit experiment, inject electrons into a cluster of electrons. What will be the outcome? Is it thinkable that an electromagnetic wave is formed in a cluster of electrons that can explains the creating of the interference pattern on the screen behind the slits?
For defining new material in TCAD, the following sets of parameters need to be included such as bandgap (EG300), electron and hole density of states (NV300 and NV300), dielectric permittivity (PERMITIVITY) and electron and hole mobilities (MUN and MUP).
Can anyone please help me out for finding the above parameters for Niobioum Nitride (NbN) material? It will be immense help to carry forward my research.
Superposition is real, I know this. It's usually represented as containing contradictions (opposite spins of electrons). Therefore it's claimed that Aristotle's Logic does not work here. But is this "superposition thing" a quality or an explanation of a quality?
What if this particle disappers and appears so quickly that, and we're saying (while it's disappered) "it's in a superposition state" ? I mean, containing contradictions is OK for non physical being, because there is no existence at that moment? But when electron exists, it has only one spin. Is it possible to explain superposition in such way? Are there any similar comments by physicists?
If electron temperature and electron excitation temperatures in plasmas are different, then, is there any case they will be equal or always remain unequal?
What are the criteria for determining whether an elementary particle is elementary?
"What is an elementary particle?" This seemingly simple question has no clear answer; this seemingly unimportant question may be very important.
Weinberg says [1], "Giving this answer always makes me nervous. i would have to admit that no one really knows." in textbooks, the history of the discovery of particles is recounted. From atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, up to neutrinos and quarks in the Standard Model, however, the definition of elementary particles is usually not given, and various particles are discussed directly, as in the literature [2][3], ignoring the concept of Elementary.
To answer this question, it is necessary to answer what is meant by "particle" and what is meant by "elementary".
"A particle is simply a physical system that has no continuous degrees of freedom except for its total momentum. "[1]. But obviously, whether this definition holds depends on the depth of the researcher's perspective. If we study only dust, then dust is a particle, even though it has a rich internal structure; if we study blackbody radiation, then a photon is a particle, even though we don't know if it has a structure ....... So the concept of "particle" depends only on our perspective and ability to focus.
"what is meant by elementary ?" Elementary is used in many contexts, not only as "elementary particle", but also as elementary fields, elementary electric charge, etc. Whatever the object of description, our understanding of elementary is that as long as the object it qualifies is irreducible, then that object is elementary. Does irreducible mean "nothing could be pulled or knocked out of it"? This is not a reliable answer, because we don't know at what energy level a composite particle would terminate its decomposition. If there are "Kerr black holes as elementary particles" [4], how do we break it up? And it has been found that different particles produce each other in collisions, so which is a composite of which [1]? even different things produce the same output, so "The difference between elementary and composite particles has thus basically disappeared. and that is no doubt the most important experimental discovery of the last fifty years." [Heisenberg 1975]. When we get to the QFT stage, "particles are not fundamental entities" [5], "There are no particles, there are only fields " [6]. "From the perspective of quantum field theory, the basic ingredients of Nature are not particles but fields; particles such as the electron and photon are bundles of energy of the electron and the electromagnetic fields."[1].
Although photons and electrons come from imagined different elementary fields*, they can nevertheless be converted into each other by the annihilation process e+e- → γ γ' and the pair creation process γ γ' → e+e- [7], with the consequent creation or disappearance of the properties of electrons (charge, spin, mass). Physics suggests that this process is not direct, but rather that photons γ γ' produced by electromagnetic fields excite electron fields, from which e+e- is produced. If we remove this intermediate process, the photon has a spacetime symmetry, which corresponds to the Lorentz invariance of SR in "flat spacetime", and the electron has a gauge-invariant Internal spacetime symmetry, which corresponds to the general covariance of GR in "curved spacetime"; the photon is a boson, the electron is a fermion; according to the supersymmetry theory [8], there is a symmetry relationship between bosons and fermions. Since it is a symmetry relation, they must be convertible to each other, that is, different states of one thing. So, shouldn't annihilation and pair production be a kind of supersymmetric transition relationship? Why don't we consider "annihilation" and "pair production" as verification experiments of supersymmetric relations? Do we have another theory and experiment to determine this symmetry relation? If we further define that particles that can be produced by photons through "pair production" are elementary particles, wouldn't that answer all the questions?
Weinberg said. "We will not be able to give a final answer to the question of which particles are elementary until we have a final theory of force and matter. " What does that really mean?
----------------------------------
Notes
* Space-time is filled with dozens of different fields, it is impossible to imagine their rationality and necessity.
----------------------------------
References
[1] Weinberg, S. (1996). "What is an elementary particle." See http://www. slac. stanford. edu/pubs/beamline/27/1/27-1-weinberg. pdf.
[2] Griffiths, D. J. (2017). Introduction to Elementary Particles, WILEY.
[3] Group, P. D. (2016). "Review of particle physics." Chinese Physics C 40(10): 100001.
[4] Arkani-Hamed, N., Y.-t. Huang and D. O’Connell (2020). "Kerr black holes as elementary particles." Journal of High Energy Physics 2020(1): 1-12.
[5] Fraser, D. (2021). Particles in quantum field theory. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics, Routledge: 323-336.
[6] Hobson, A. (2013). "There are no particles, there are only fields." American journal of physics 81(3): 211-223.
[8] Wess, J. (2000). From symmetry to supersymmetry. The supersymmetric world: the beginnings of the theory, World Scientific: 67-86.
Tuesday, Oct. 3, the Nobel Prize committee announced the 2023 physics prize, recognizing Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz, and Anne L'Huillier "for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter."
Why does it light up at night during an earthquake?
As you know, positive and negative electrons are sent towards the planet after solar storms, bringing 9 waves with them. One of them is the waves of positive electrons that remain in the earth's atmosphere and appear in polar nights in countries that are close to the earth's pole in polar winters or at night as aurora borealis. Now we have to see, Why does the weather in that area light up during an earthquake at night? According to seismologists, there are magma rocks in which there are more positive and negative electrons than other rocks of the earth, and because these rocks are also split during an earthquake, electrons may be released from them at night and with electrons Earth's atmosphere collides and in one moment, like in action movies, both sound and light appear and become more frightening. Now the question is, is it possible to receive electrical energy from this energy in the magma rocks inside the earth and not use it only for earthquakes?
The Schottky diode is a semiconductor diode formed by the junction of a semiconductor with a metal. But if we take semi-metal (instead of metal) and semiconductor junctions, does it follow the same Schottky diode nature?
(2). Can anyone enlighten me about the basic difference between metallic and semi-metallic nature with respect to band edges( conduction and valence band), momentum space, etc. (except electron density is higher or lower.)?
Every crystal contains a set of spatial ground states, which may be occupied by electrons with opposite spins, forming singlet pairs. Every pair breaking event means that one of electrons leaves its spatial ground state and, thus, increases the energy of the whole system by the pair breaking energy. Note: the pair breaking energy is not arbitrarily small if the spatial eigenstates are limited in real space; hence below a certain temperature singlet pairs can be stable. Thus, the presence of spatial ground states ensures electron pairing. Isn't this a solution to the long-standing problem of the pairing mechanism in superconductors?
What actually the reason of change of anode material, why due to charging anode material act again as electron reservoir so that Li ion or Na ion can take it. It would be helpful if I got the answer of this reversible behaviour during charging and discharging.
difference between excitation temperature and electron temperature in plasma
Cu2+ (3d9) has an unpaired electron, so it is a magnetic ion. Now in the YBCO superconductor, how will this affect superconductivity?
I see a lot of mathematics but few interpretations in time (how it evolves, step by step with its maths).
I think this speed is quantified but is it a constant in all the jumps of the electron?
what is excitation temperature of electron in plasma
Dear members,
I would like to know if there is a pattern of proportion between the generated Abraham-Lorentz force and the Lorentz force leading to study the fine-structure constant. I am studying the proportion between these forces when q=e or charge of electron. It might be that a comparison of forces lead to link certain combination of electromagnetic fields and velocities of a charge particles q in low speeds.
Like I want to calculate electron density, mobility and conductivity in n-type Tin oxide knowing the value of x in tin oxide chemical formula SnO(2-x), where Sn:O = 1:(2-x).
Can someone please help me by providing the values of electronic properties (bandgap,electron and hole density of states, dielectric permittivity and electron and hole mobilities) of Niobium Nitride (NbN) at room temperature and cryogenic temperature application.
It will be of immense help for my research.
There are many weird ideas in physics that make it work. Some weird definitions
Spin- something between a number and a physical quantity
Electrons - between a wave and a particle
Charge - a trait of matter that cannot be separated from elementary matter or from its mass trait or defined physically as mass is, just by implication of having a similar role to mass
The band gap results for CuSe and Ni-doped CuSe, according to the Tauc plot and the mathematical DITM (Derivation Ineffective Thickness Method) model, in which thickness and type of transition (direct or indirect) are not required for band gap calculation, are as follows. What analysis can be inferred from these results? In the Tauc plot, not all transitions are clearly observable, whereas in the DITM model, they are visible. The results are indicated in a separate table.
A discussion on relativistic effects, when electron move along a wire and carry currents. How much length contraction will it experience in it's own frame. And what is the relation between the magnetic field created by the current carrying wire in Laboratory frame?
We know that electron mobility is higher than hole mobility because the effective mass of an electron is less than that of a hole. However, if we ask why the effective mass of an electron (excluding complexities of longitudinal and transverse electron effective mass and the lightness/heaviness of hole effective mass) is less than the effective mass of a hole, we would say it's because the energy of a hole is considered greater than the energy of an electron; so according to the energy relationship, when the energy of a hole is greater than that of an electron, its mass is also considered greater. But what is the reasoning behind considering the energy of a hole greater than that of an electron, and what is the scientific basis for the higher energy of a hole compared to an electron?
Is there any method to calculate the electron density of a particular conformer of a molecule without performing minimization?
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 150 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be the most rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
If magnetic monopoles do not annihilate*, do magnetic monopoles still exist?
If magnetic monopoles do not exist, how should magnetism be described? Is it a bipolar magnetic charge?
If it is a bipolar magnetic charge, how can it exist, and what should be its relationship to a unipolar charge?
The understanding of magnetism has a very long history[2], but to this day we are still searching for what is at the root of magnetism[3], as well as trying to explain what the force of magnetism actually is, for example, facing difficulties with the explanation of the Meissner Effect[4].The MoEDAL-Collaboration† [6] , a scientific project dedicated to the search for monopole[8] and dyon‡[9] , to upgrade the original TeV scale energy levels to the GUT scale in 2022[7] .
There have been many ideas about the origin of magnetism, from the earliest Amperian (infinitesimal current loops) [10], the Gilbertian (infinitesimally short magnetic needles), spinning charged sphere[ edit 11]; the ultimate magnetic particle, the elementary magnet, the electron itself spinning like a tiny gyroscope [12], rotation of a ring-shaped negative charge [13], until W. Gerlach and O. Stern experimentally discovered the existence of a magnetic moment in the electron [19], followed by Pauli [14], R. d. L. Kronig [15], G. E. Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit [16] who defined the concept of an intronic electron spin, explaining the anomalous Zeeman effect. However, we still do not have an answer to the question of what exactly spin is [17], whether magnetism originates from a magnetic charge symmetric to the electric charge, and whether there exists a magnetic monopole symmetric to the electron.
The concept of magnetic monopoles was first introduced by Dirac, who called them "nodal lines" [18], and later gave the quantization condition for electric charge: eg=1/2(nhc). The interpretation is that magnetic charge must accompany electric charge. However there are numerous ideas about magnetic monopoles [7], indicating that our knowledge of it is still uncertain.
Our question is:
In reality we do not find any signs of the existence of magnetic monopoles, all we find are two poles of magnetism, this is true for microscopic electron particles and also for macroscopic electromagnets. The two poles of magnetism coexist in one body and never separate. It is impossible for a mechanism to exist here that would bond positive and negative magnetic monopoles together without causing them to cancel each other out. Nor can there exist a bipolar field that is both positive and negative at one point. Therefore, there can only exist a rational model that still resembles a current ring with a unipolar magnetic field traversing it. This appears to constitute two opposite poles on both sides of the ring.
------------------------------
Notes：
* Weinberg addressed three puzzles, flatness, horizon and magnetic monopoles, in his account of the cosmic inflation in the book [1]. When talking about magnetic monopoles, it is argued that there was a magnetic monopole/photon ratio at the beginning of the Big Bang, which assumes a condition "if magnetic monopoles do not annihilate each other". This assumption triggered the topic.
† the Monopole and Exotics Detector at the LHC.
‡ dyon is a Magnetic Model of Matter proposed by Schwinger, which carries both electric and magnetic charges.
------------------------------
References：
[1] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY, Oxford University Press. Chinese version, p162;
[2] Milton, K. A. (2006). "Theoretical and experimental status of magnetic monopoles." Reports on Progress in Physics 69(6): 1637.
[3] J.Stohr, H. C. S. (2006). Magnetism: From Fundamentals to Nanoscale Dynamics, Higher Education Press.
[4] Kozhevnikov, V. (2021). "Meissner Effect: History of Development and Novel Aspects." Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 34(8): 1979-2009.
[5] . "MoEDAL (the Monopole and Exotics Detector at the LHC) ".
[6] Acharya, B., J. Alexandre, P. Benes, K. S. Babu and etl. (2021). "First Search for Dyons with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV p p Collisions." Physical Review Letters 126(7): 071801.
[7] MoEDAL-Collaboration and V. A. Mitsou (2022). "MoEDAL, MAPP and future endeavours."
[8] Preskill, J. (1984). "Magnetic monopoles." Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 34(1): 461-530.
[9] Schwinger, J. (1969). "A Magnetic Model of Matter: A speculation probes deep within the structure of nuclear particles and predicts a new form of matter." Science 165(3895): 757-761.
[10] Maxwell, J. C. (1873). A treatise on electricity and magnetism (电磁通论）, Beijing University Press (Clarendon press) 2010.
[11] Fahy, S. and C. O'Sullivan (2022). "All magnetic phenomena are NOT due to electric charges in motion." American Journal of Physics 90, 7 (2022).
[12] Compton, A. H. and O. Rognley (1920). "Is the Atom the Ultimate Magnetic Particle?" Physical Review 16(5): 464-476.
[13] Parson, A. L. (1915). "A magneton theory of the structure of the atom (with two plates)." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections.
[14] Pauli, W. (1925). "On the connexion between the completion of electron groups in an atom with the complex structure of spectra." Zeitschrift für Physik 31 (1925): 765.
[15] Kronig, R. D. L. (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2946): 550-550.
[16] Uhlenbeck, G. E., and Samuel Goudsmit. (1925). "Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezüglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons." Die Naturwissenschaften 13.47 (1925): 953-954.
[17] Chian Fan, et al. (2023). "Is the spin of an electron really spin?", from https://www.researchgate.net/post/No9_Is_the_spin_of_an_electron_really_spin.
[18] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). "Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 133(821): 60-72.
[19] Gerlach, W. and O. Stern. (1922). "Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld.
." Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 9: 349-352.
I have been pondering why nickel only exists as the Ni2+ ion in nature. I know that Ni+ and Ni3+ also exist, but unlike iron (Fe), Ni3+ is not nearly as common as Ni2+. So, I have investigated this and arrived at an explanation but haven't quite reached a conclusion yet.
This is how I understand it:
Nickel has an electron configuration of (Ar)4s2_3d8, and iron has (Ar)4s2_3d6.
It's easy to understand the ionization to Fe2+ and Ni2+ because the 4s2 electrons are farther from the nucleus and now easier to remove. It's also easy to comprehend that the ionization energy is higher for iron because the 3d shell in nickel has more electrons, thus shielding more against the nucleus's attractive force.
Ionizing to Fe3+ might be understandable as it might be relatively easy to remove one of iron's only paired electrons in 3d6, and I guess that 3d5 is stable because the shell is half-filled.
But why is it so challenging to ionize nickel's 3d8 to 3d7, 3d6, etc.? Is a shell with 8 electrons already stable? Or why is it so?
I hope to be able to understand this.
Well, I know about spin relaxation, superposition, quantum uncertainty, and Einstein's experiments. I know about the speed of light contain, also the fact that we can't control the spin of a particle.
I still think it can somehow be bypassed and used for the greater good. I want to know everything about quantum entanglement, especially, if there is a way it can be USD to communicate.
Answers to individual questions are expected and respected.
I would also like to know if we can measure spin direction of a single electron, and if yes how is it done?
First excited state of Hydrogen molecule can be found easily. I need to know 4 more values to compare with my calculations. Thanks.
The Josephson junction consists of a thin layer of insulating oxide material between two superconducting electrodes and is used mainly in measuring magnetic fields. In 1973, physicist Brian Josephson shared in the Nobel prize for physics “for his theoretical predictions of … those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects”.
("The Nobel Prize in Physics 1973” https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1973/summary/)
“At sufficiently low temperatures, electron-pairs pass through the insulating portion by quantum tunnelling.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘Josephson junction’, p.715)
Josephson, then a 22-year-old research student at Cambridge University, had a debate in 1962 with John Bardeen who had shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics with William Shockley and Walter Brattain for the invention of the transistor. He would share a second Nobel prize in 1972 with Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for their 1957 solution (the BCS theory) of the long-standing riddle of superconductivity.
(McDonald, Donald G. - “The Nobel Laureate Versus the Graduate Student” - https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/54/7/46/411592/The-Nobel-Laureate-Versus-the-Graduate-StudentJohn)
In an e-mail sent in the year 2000, Josephson offered the admonition: “Beware ye, all those bold of spirit who want to suggest new ideas.” His words apply to his younger self who, in 1962, was “bold of spirit” and “want(ed) to suggest new ideas”. What did he need to beware? Possibly – older scientists with established ways and conservative views … perhaps even his older, settled-into-tradition, self. Throughout history, older scientists have always argued against new ideas – and while many new ideas are indeed wrong, others which may seem to defy the laws of physics always win in the end. A quote attributed to Max Planck, the physicist who was a pioneer of quantum theory, says “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Those words may appear harsh but they remind us that elder scientists, even today and in future years, are – besides being vital teachers with much experience – subject to the conservatism which affects every person.
John Bardeen once commented –
"The idea of paired electrons, though not fully accurate, captures the sense of it."
(J. Bardeen, "Electron-Phonon Interactions and Superconductivity", in Cooperative Phenomena, eds. H. Haken and M. Wagner [Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1973], p. 67).
Since paired electrons is not fully accurate, the BCS theory of superconductivity needs a further consideration. That factor would be to focus on the wave portion of quantum mechanics’ wave-particle duality instead of on particles.
This discussion suggests that both the combination of particles/antiparticles, and the quantum pressure of interacting gravitational and electromagnetic waves, are valid interpretations of a) the Hawking radiation emitted from black holes, and b) superconductivity not using the second half of duality i.e. paired electrons. Instead, the electron waves and wave mechanics of Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) are used – electron waves could maintain the superconducting circuit by travelling through the spaces between the atoms in the oxide material. This agrees with "Measurement of the time spent by a tunnelling atom within the barrier region" (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2490-7) which says quantum tunnelling is not instantaneous - it's a result of particles' wave function.
Hello!
I am learning how to edit TEM images in Fiji (Image J).
I want to highlight some specific areas of my images using colors.
Can somebody help?
Thank you!
We want to run a large number of Monte Carlo simulations to obtain electron trajectories in a thin film at different incident electron enegies, different target thickness and different incident angles. Is there any Monte Carlo software can perform such simulations in batches?
We are able to perform a Monte Carlo simulation for each condition by using the software Casino. However, we cannot run it in batches.
Thanks.
What is an electric device which converts electric energy into light energy and how do photovoltaic cells convert sunlight directly into a flow of electrons?
In my opinion, the E=mvc formula keeps a secret and this said secret will only be revealed when people have determined the formula and the value of the intrinsic energy of the electron. There had been a marriage between the formula E=mcc and the formula E=hf which has led to the Compton wavelength. But in my opinion it is a bad marriage because it has had a negative impact on the understanding and proper use of the formula E=mvc. I find that it was up to de Broglie to add a link equation which could have allowed him to determine the Compton wavelength equation without going through E=mcc. In my opinion, by determining the maximum speed of the electron, it is possible that this said speed is reached by the electrons in the sun, this speed could be considered as the limiting speed of a particle with mass. It is possible that this said speed serves as a reference as the limiting speed of a particle and it will be taken into account to calculate the maximum energy of each particle with mass to evaluate the mass of a particle at rest. In my opinion if photons have mass then the formula E=mcc is the good one where m is the mass of the photon.
In this pre-print, I present my personal exploration of the definitions of "infinite" and "finite."
Feel free to criticise and write as comment or email mentioned on the paper
To gain a deeper understanding of the context, you can refer to my previous publications: • 1. Shaikh, H. M. I. H. (2023, November 1). "Hypothesis and Experiments: Quantum Roots: 'E' as the Common Origin of All Existence." [DOI Link](https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/976rp), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35936.25607
• 2. "The Essence of 'E': Unveiling the Infinitely Infinite" by Haque Mobassir Imtiyazul Haque Shaikh, published in the International Journal of Frontiers in Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), Volume 5, Issue 5, September-October 2023. [DOI Link](https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/5/7494.pdf)
definition of finite and infinite existence helps my hypothesis that in the formation of universe, finite and infinite both have played the rule.
Kindly let me know your first honest reaction, what that would be?
Stars, atoms and electrons are concepts in the same way a ball is: they represents something in reality in a more human friendly or Abstract way, (=conceptual element) that what they are i.e a star is a collection ofv10^128 particles, some of them under going nuclear fussion, a ball is a generslization of plasticity bearing objects of the size that are used by Humans to play
Is there a more adequate definition of what makes a concept that represents physical entities?
And, are these concepts ultimately scientific and independent of human-centered conceptions about reality?
This year’s NobelPrize laureate in physics Anne L’Huillier discovered that many different overtones of light arose when she transmitted infrared laser light through a noble gas.
Each overtone is a light wave with a given number of cycles for each cycle in the laser light. They are caused by the laser light interacting with atoms in the gas; it gives some electrons extra energy that is then emitted as light. L’Huillier has continued to explore this phenomenon, laying the ground for subsequent breakthroughs.
QM was developped to answer the issue of electrons spiralling out of atoms and being extremely short lived according to Maxwell equations.
Thus, its maunly a theory of compatibility of atom with EM waves, which means that other aspects of the system like gravity, thermal, Lorentzian Mechanics etc were simply rendered peripheral.
This has not however been argued sufficiently. Therefore, QM is mainly a enforcer of an ad hoc chosen aspect of nature and not so spherical in motivation.
There's G-Fourier for Linux and MacOS. I can't make it work for Windows however. Is there some Fourier analysis software that would allow me to make 2D and 3D electron density maps on a Windows machine?
The detection of quarks has always failed so far.
Shouldn't that be sufficient evidence for their non-existence? As we know, quarks were invented to explain the structure of proton, neutron and other particles. Any experimental evidence for particles with a third elementary charge, as quarks are supposed to possess, is still missing.
The structure of all particles and nuclei can be explained by the fact that positrons and electrons are their elementary building blocks, which combine to form particles according to certain rules and laws.
If we assume, contrary to the traditional belief of physicists, that (1) a neutron is a bound system of proton + electron + anti-neutrino and (2) an atomic nucleus contains anti-neutrons instead of neutrons and (3) nuclear decay is caused by (rare) reactions of the form anti-neutron + neutrino (coming from the sun) --> neutron + anti-neutrino which takes place 'inside' the nucleus, and (4) the nucleus ejects the neutron and the anti-neutrino and thereby deacays, then one comes to the conclusion that the mystery of a huge matter-antimatter asymmetry does not exist at all, BECAUSE in heavy nuclei the number of protons is roughly equal to the number of anti-neutrons, and therefore, in an atom with a heavy nucleus the number of protons is roughly equal to the number of anti-protons and to the number of electrons and to the number of positrons. So the idea of a huge asymmetry between matter and antimatter would not be a real mystery, but a consequence of an inaccurate model of the structure of matter.
If we assume the tunnling effect interlayers graphene. What type of it would be either Direc tunneling or FN tunneling. If it is Direct tunnling Effect, then the electron tunnling between the interlayers can be significantly improved with bias voltage.
The size of the electron is not known.. can it be small enough to make the electron a blackhole according to the Schwarzschild radius.
Will plasma cleaner or Electron shower in the Ex-situ TEM will help to remove the oxide layers or will help to improve the imaging in HRTEM mode or HAADF STEM mode?
Samples are prepared by Dual Beam FIB (lamella).
PS: ETEM or Cryo are not available in the present facility.
Following the postulates of Drude model, one finds positive hall coefficient value for some metals, which implies that charge carriers are other than electrons. How we can explain this via quantum theory?
Dear Wolfgang Konle
You asked: Do you think that it is by accident that the integral (12) ∆Wfield just has the same value if you insert -1/(8πG) for alpha?
YES. It is a Fallacy.
The point where you created your fallacy is equation 12. That is when you put together three divergent integrals into a single integral and postulate a single r_0, later to be conflated with the r in the Potential Energy calculation.
Self-Energy of Coulomb or Gravitational forces are infinite (cannot be calculated). The example of a "Gravitational Capacitor" is contrived and can only be calculated in the case of electrostatics, where the field goes to zero on the conducting plates and is considered constant between the plates. The energy in the electrostatic capacitor is not being mapped to the self-energy of the EXTRA electrons in the plate, but they should. What you calculate there is the energy of the setup. That always fails when you consider a Coulomb potential.
Even there, if you allow for the existence of charges, the self-energy would become infinite.
So, by accident and carelessness, the difference in "Gravitational Field Energy" becomes "similar" to Potential Energy.
Of course, in the case of potential energy, the value of r is defined by the distance between the centers of mass of the two bodies.
In your case, r_0 has no meaning since in your case, you are changing the mass of one of the bodies to become M+m. There is no physical process of moving masses or anything defining a geometry.
That is when the Fallacy was born.
From that, you started believing in the existence of a Gravitational Field Energy that is pervasive and not connected to the capacity of producing work (as it is in the definition of Potential Energy).
Since you started believing in your mistake, you conjured up a POSITIVE COSMIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ENERGY...
Since the positive energy nature of our Universe is already an unsurmountable problem in Physics (for the garden-variety scientists), adding more positive energy makes NO SENSE.
I will move this discussion to its own question so we don't have to take space on mine.
Cheers,
Marco Pereira
I need to known the possible computational codes that I use and explanations.
The 1926 Schrödinger equation was originally intended to resolve the subatomic quantum particle in an infinite potential field without a word about superposition. Furthermore, E. Schrödinger himself first opposed quantum superposition in his famous paradox "A cat in a box".
However, the giant N. Bohr came with his quantum superposition in 1928 to the Copenhagen conference and announced that he, including himself, who claims to understand it has understood nothing or that he is only a “simple liar”.
We assume that quantum superposition actually solved both atomic chemistry and physics, but this remained a theoretical mystery until the advent of the double-slit interference experiment of a coherent beam of electrons . It has been experimentally proven beyond doubt that quantum superposition exists and works in the same way as described in N. Bohr's interpretation.
The always seductive question arises:
Why is quantum superposition an effective and essential irreducible tool?
Two electrons, A at rest and B moving at high speed. According to the theory of relativity, there is a "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in the space-time of the electron moving at high speed, but not in the electron at rest. Now if electron B is moving with velocity v, towards stationary electron A, at the moment of their collision:
(1) assuming that they are both point particles*, what is the measure of spacetime at the moment of their collision, where exactly is the measure? and is the spacetime of A and B the same spacetime?
(2) Assuming that they are structured particles‡, how is spacetime measured at an interface at the instant before their "collision"?
(3) Is the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect¶ of SR absolute or relative ? Note that no matter how you set up the inertial systems, the spacetime of all inertial systems is a common spacetime that overlaps, and the difference is only in the relative coordinate values.
(4) What causes the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect? Is it the "motion" itself, or is it the increase in "energy-momentum" caused by the motion? If the cause is energy-momentum, then it is consistent with GR?
A realistic example is the "gold-gold (Au + Au) collisions" at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) by the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR ) Collaboration[1][2]. Two gold (Au) ions move in opposite direction at 99.995% of the speed of light. As the ions pass one another without colliding, two photons (?) from the electromagnetic cloud surrounding the ions can interact with each other to create a matter-antimatter pair: an electron (e-) and positron (e+). When two Au particles pass one another, approaching two times the speed of light, how is space-time measured here? And whose spacetime measure is it? This example gives the answer to the relationship between the speed of light and the platform of the light source, how the speed of light is interfaced with the speed of the Au. Light does not change its speed when Au keeps changing its speed, so what determines the difference in speed in between? It must be their spacetime measure. That is, we always have: Δx/Δt = c, assuming that Δx and Δt express spatial and temporal measures, respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* During Einstein's original proof [3], objects were considered as point particles, or independent of the structure of the object.
¶ The "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in SR is not shown where exactly it manifests itself.
‡ Regardless of the structure, the electric field of the electron is radially dynamically diffuse and it is part of the electron.
-----------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] BROOKHAVEN NTIONAL LABORATORY. (2021). "Scientists Generate Matter Directly From Light – Physics Phenomena Predicted More Than 80 Years Ago." from https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/?expand_article=1.
[2] Adam, J., L. Adamczyk and etl. (2021). "Measurement of e+ e− momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions." Physical Review Letters 127(5): 052302.
[3] Einstein, A. (1905). "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der physik 17(10): 891-921.
It's a dumb question maybe, but I'm not sure how to proceed.
Suppose you have two different models which generate molecules (in the form of coordinates of atoms). The molecules generated by models are not the same.
Next, you have a method to evaluate energy of a molecule (given atomic coordinates, it outputs a number). I can also optimize atomic coordinates with this method.
The question is, how to compare these two generative models in terms of energy?
My guess is that I can run minimization for each configuration and can evaluate dE = E_final - E_initial. But how can I compare/aggregate dE between different molecules? My guess is that to have a crude estimate one can divide these quantities by the total charge of the nuclei in the molecule (which equals to the number of electrons for neutral molecules). Is this reasonable or better ways exist?
In plasma physics, thermodynamic property is influenced by isothermally confined electrons and adiabatically expanding electrons. How can isothermally confined electrons and adiabatically expanding electrons be differentiated? What does they exactly mean in a plasma?
Rotational constants (GHZ): 0.1722105 0.0637054 0.0501274
Standard basis: 6-311++G(d,p) (5D, 7F)
There are 907 symmetry adapted cartesian basis functions of A symmetry.
There are 874 symmetry adapted basis functions of A symmetry.
874 basis functions, 1382 primitive gaussians, 907 cartesian basis functions
121 alpha electrons 120 beta electrons
nuclear repulsion energy 3359.0762438298 Hartrees.
NAtoms= 53 NActive= 53 NUniq= 53 SFac= 1.00D+00 NAtFMM= 60 NAOKFM=F Big=F
Integral buffers will be 262144 words long.
Raffenetti 2 integral format.
Two-electron integral symmetry is turned on.
One-electron integrals computed using PRISM.
NBasis= 874 RedAO= T EigKep= 1.51D-06 NBF= 874
NBsUse= 865 1.00D-06 EigRej= 9.94D-07 NBFU= 865
Initial guess from the checkpoint file: "C:\g16w\PE.chk"
B after Tr= 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
Rot= 0.999890 -0.012343 0.002602 -0.007743 Ang= -1.70 deg.
Initial guess <Sx>= 0.0000 <Sy>= 0.0000 <Sz>= 0.5000 <S**2>= 0.7712 S= 0.5105
ExpMin= 3.60D-02 ExpMax= 9.34D+04 ExpMxC= 3.17D+03 IAcc=3 IRadAn= 5 AccDes= 0.00D+00
Harris functional with IExCor= 402 and IRadAn= 5 diagonalized for initial guess.
HarFok: IExCor= 402 AccDes= 0.00D+00 IRadAn= 5 IDoV= 1 UseB2=F ITyADJ=14
ICtDFT= 3500011 ScaDFX= 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000
FoFCou: FMM=F IPFlag= 0 FMFlag= 100000 FMFlg1= 0
NFxFlg= 0 DoJE=T BraDBF=F KetDBF=T FulRan=T
wScrn= 0.000000 ICntrl= 500 IOpCl= 0 I1Cent= 200000004 NGrid= 0
NMat0= 1 NMatS0= 1 NMatT0= 0 NMatD0= 1 NMtDS0= 0 NMtDT0= 0
Petite list used in FoFCou.
Requested convergence on RMS density matrix=1.00D-08 within 128 cycles.
Requested convergence on MAX density matrix=1.00D-06.
Requested convergence on energy=1.00D-06.
No special actions if energy rises.
Restarting incremental Fock formation.
need help please what is the problem
for perovskite absorbers like (bandgap (eV),electron affinity (eV),dielectric permittivity (relative),CB effective density of states (1/cm^3),electron thermal velocity (cm/s),electron mobility (cm²/Vs),and shallow uniform donor density ND (1/cm3). I am searching it from literature review from last 3 days for simulation of perovskite solar cell as absorber material but I didn't found any suitable answer except band gap value from material project website. Can Any one provide me reference paper or guide me related to this thanks. I m using SCAPS-1D softwere.
during selecting pseudopotential file for quantum espresso, how to decide that we should go that one which used more semicore electron or that one which used less semicore electron
Can DFT codes such as Wien2k or similar codes be employed to calculate Electron Affinity, Vacuum Energy, and Work Function? These values are needed for chalcopyrite compounds in the context of SCAPS 1D simulations.
Hi.
Can Castep draw a 2D plane of electron localization function (ELF)?
The obtained ELF can be exported as 3D view,
but I want to draw a 2D map, e.g., (100) plane.
I tried to use "Craete slices", but it resulted in the electron density, not electron localization function.
Thank you.
If the answer is yes, could this possible characteristic of the charge be at the origin of the rest mass of the electron for example?
In making x ray measurements where you have two or three elements with core levels at different Kinetic energy.
Is it possible to get the same depth information for all the elements?
For example, You electron coming form O1s orbitals , Mg3s and from the Si2p orbitals?
Here the Ni has equilibrium lattice constant of 3.52 and I applied the 20% strain on x y and z axis.
&CONTROL
calculation = 'scf'
verbosity = 'high'
tstress = .true.
tprnfor = .true.
prefix = 'myprefix'
pseudo_dir = '/home/ashwani/PP/PBE_ONCV'
/
&SYSTEM
ecutwfc = 50
ecutrho = 400
occupations = 'smearing'
degauss = 0.001
smearing = 'mp'
nspin = 1
ntyp = 1
nat = 4
ibrav = 0
/
&ELECTRONS
electron_maxstep = 200
mixing_mode = 'plain'
mixing_beta = 0.7
diagonalization = 'david'
/
&IONS
/
&CELL
/
ATOMIC_SPECIES
Ni 58.6934 Ni.UPF
K_POINTS automatic
6 6 6 0 0 0
CELL_PARAMETERS angstrom
3.72000000000000 0.00000000000000 0.00000000000000
0.00000000000000 3.72000000000000 0.00000000000000
0.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 3.72000000000000
ATOMIC_POSITIONS crystal
Ni 0.0000000000 0.0000000000 0.0000000000
Ni 0.0000000000 0.4731182796 0.4731182796
Ni 0.4731182796 0.0000000000 0.4731182796
Ni 0.4731182796 0.4731182796 0.0000000000
Hello,
I am working on heavily doped TCOs for solar cells integration. I am currently trying to draw band diagrams, but I am facing a problem. I am able to characterize the work function (WF) of my samples (using a kelvin probe) as well as the optical bandgap (Eg opt) from Tauc plots (ellipsometry measurements). However, I am facing an issue: How can I place my Fermi level relatively to my conduction band minimum ? I need to measure either the electron affinity (khi) or the true bandgap (Eg true) (cf the enclosed diagram)
I have been trying to look for a characterization method but couldn't find one that suits my requirements...
Best regards,
Tristan
The valence band is the energy below which there are available states for electrons to occupy. Similarly the conduction band is the energy above which there are available states. But, What exactly does Fermi energy level mean?
Quantum computer uses the principle of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is always mysterious, and it is the study of phenomena on an absolute small scale, such as atoms, molecules, electrons, and elementary charge particles.
Hello, I will analyze my samples in a FE-SEM microscope, I was interesting in analazy the morphology of the carbon quantum dots and also make an EDS analyze and I was wondering how correctly prepare the sample because I understand that the different analisis require different type of electrons because for EDS the electrones come from a more inner place in the sample than the electrons for morphology.
I have my carbon quantum dots in a water media, I don't know what would be the best preparation for the best result. Any recommendation or reference to see it would be grateful.
clc;clear;
% Create an empty array to store the electron density data
ne_array = [];
% Loop through the files in the folder
folder_path = 'D:\ionPrf_prov1_2020_002'; % replace with the path to your folder
file_list = dir(fullfile(folder_path, '*.0001_nc')); % replace '.0001_nc' with the file extension of your data files
for i = 1:numel(file_list)
% Read the electron density data from the file
filepath = fullfile(folder_path, file_list(i).name);
fid = fopen(filepath, 'r');
while ~feof(fid)
line = fgetl(fid);
if startsWith(line, 'ELEC_dens') % look for the line starting with 'Ne'
ne_data = strsplit(line);
ne_data = str2double(ne_data(2:end)); % extract the Ne data as an array of doubles
ne_array = [ne_array; ne_data]; % add the Ne data to the array
end
end
fclose(fid);
end
% Save the electron density data to a text file
output_filename = 'ne_data.txt';
dlmwrite(output_filename, ne_array, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', '%.3e');
Dear Ahmed Abdelaziz
The code you provided seems mostly correct. However, there is one potential issue that could cause an error. In the line `ne_data = str2double(ne_data(2:end));`, the indexing operation `ne_data(2:end)` assumes that there is at least one value in `ne_data`. If the line starting with `'ELEC_dens'` is not found in a file, `ne_data` will be an empty cell array, and indexing it will result in an error.
To resolve this issue, you can add a condition to check if `ne_data` is not empty before performing the indexing operation. Here's the modified code:
###Matlab start
clc;
clear;
% Create an empty array to store the electron density data
ne_array = [];
% Loop through the files in the folder
folder_path = 'D:\ionPrf_prov1_2020_002'; % replace with the path to your folder
file_list = dir(fullfile(folder_path, '*.0001_nc')); % replace '.0001_nc' with the file extension of your data files
for i = 1:numel(file_list)
% Read the electron density data from the file
filepath = fullfile(folder_path, file_list(i).name);
fid = fopen(filepath, 'r');
while ~feof(fid)
line = fgetl(fid);
if startsWith(line, 'ELEC_dens') % look for the line starting with 'Ne'
ne_data = strsplit(line);
if numel(ne_data) > 1
ne_data = str2double(ne_data(2:end)); % extract the Ne data as an array of doubles
ne_array = [ne_array; ne_data]; % add the Ne data to the array
end
end
end
fclose(fid);
end
% Save the electron density data to a text file
output_filename = 'ne_data.txt';
dlmwrite(output_filename, ne_array, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', '%.3e');
##code ends
With this modification, the code will only perform the indexing operation and add the data to `ne_array` if `ne_data` has more than one element, ensuring that an empty line or a line without the desired data doesn't cause an error.
I am looking for all "equations" in physics where 1/alpha^2 (the inverse square of the fine structure constant) is used. Like in QED and the correlation of the probably of a photon interacting with an electron. Do you know of any places? Thanks in advance! Note: Only interested in the inverse square usage of the fine structure constant.
It might happen that half of their projection on 3d space is what we measure or perceive as our electron and the other half of the projection electron might be the electron which is entangled to the first one. In short, source of electron (i.e. is 6-dimensional Electron) but its projections are two separate entangled electrons on different distances on 3d space (obviously sharing common quantum states). Do you think, it is possible?
In fuel cells hydrogen (H2) is ionized in the anode and is transformed into H+ and e-.
Then H+ moves through the electrolyte membrane towards the cathode, where O2 is flushed. In the meantime, the electrons move from the anode (where they separated from H2) towards the cathode, producing an electron flux, i.e. regenerating an electrical current. In the cathode O2 first captures the electrons and then react with H+ to produce water (and heat).
What I am asking here is: how elemental H2 is forced to separate into two H+ and two e-? I have read that this happens in the anode, but I did not understand how it happens.
Cheers,
Michele
In the interactions of radiation with matter(nucleus of an atom)
I am contacting you today to kindly request your expertise and guidance regarding a specific aspect of my research. I am currently studying the defect properties of semiconductor material, and I am particularly interested in obtaining information on the parameters of particular defects relevant to my study and simulation in SILVACO
Defect Name:PEDOT:PSS
1.Energy Band Gap
2.Electron DOS in valance band
3.Electron DOS in conduction band
4.Electron affinity
5.Intrinsic n/p-type doping
6.NTA
7.NTD
8.WTA
9.WTD
10.WGD
11.EGD
12. Mobility of electron
13. Mobility of hole
14. Permittivity
[Include additional defects or parameters as necessary.]
It is commonly believed that the concept of electron spin was first introduced by A.H. Compton (1920) when he studied magnetism. "May I then conclude that the electron itself, spinning like a tiny gyroscope, is probably the ultimate magnetic particle?"[1][2]; Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit (1926) thought so too [4], but did not know it at the time of their first paper (1925) [3]. However, Thomas (1927) considered Abraham (1903) as the first to propose the concept of spinning electron [5]. Compton did not mention Abraham in his paper "The magnetic electron" [2], probably because Abraham did not talk about the relationship between spin and magnetism [0]. In fact, it is Abraham's spin calculations that Uhlenbeck cites in his paper [4].
Gerlach, W. and O. Stern (1921-1922) did the famous experiment* on the existence of spin magnetic moments of electrons (even though this was not realized at the time [6]) and published several articles on it [7].
Pauli (1925) proposed the existence of a possible " two-valuedness " property of the electron [8], implying the spin property; Kronig (1925) proposed the concept of the spin of the electron to explain the magnetic moment before Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit, which was strongly rejected by Pauli [9]. Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit (1925) formally proposed the concept of spin[3], and after the English version was published[4], Kronig (1926), under the same title and in the same journals, questioned whether the speed of rotation of an electron with internal structure is superluminal**[10]. Later came the Thomas paper giving a beautiful explanation of the factor of 2 for spin-orbit coupling[11]. Since then, physics has considered spin as an intrinsic property that can be used to explain the anomalous Seeman effect.
The current state of physics is in many ways the situation: "When we do something in physics, after a while, there is a tendency to forget the overall meaning of what we are working on. The long range perspective fades into the background, and we may become blind to important a priori questions."[11]. With this in mind, C. N. Yang briefly reviewed how spin became a part of physics. For spin, he summarized several important issues: The concept of spin is both an intriguing and extremely difficult one. Fundamentally it is related to three aspects of physics. The first is the classical concept of rotation; the second is the quantization of angular momentum; the third is special relativity. All of these played essential roles in the early understanding of the concept of spin, but that was not so clearly appreciated at the time [11].
Speaking about the understanding of spin, Thomas said [5]: "I think we must look towards the general relativity theory for an adequate solution of the problem of the "structure of the electron" ; if indeed this phrase has any meaning at all and if it can be possible to do more than to say how an electron behaves in an external field. Yang said too: "And most important, we do not yet have a general relativistic theory of the spinning electron. I for one suspect that the spin and general relativity are deeply entangled in a subtle way that we do not now understand [11]. I believe that all unified theories must take this into account.
What exactly is spin, F. J. Belinfante argued that it is a circular energy flow [12][15] and that spin is related to the structure of the internal wave field of the electron. A comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave [13]. The electron is a photon with toroidal topology [16]. At the earliest, A. Lorentz also used to think so based on experimental analysis. etc.
Our questions are:
1) Is the spin of an electron really spin? If spin has classical meaning, what should be rotating and obeying the Special Relativity?
2) What should be the structure of the electron that can cause spin quantization and can be not proportional to charge and mass?
3) If spin must be associated with General Relativity, must we consider the relationship between the energy flow of the spin and the gravitational field energy?
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
* It is an unexpectedly interesting story about how their experimental results were found. See the literature [17].
** Such a situation occurs many times in the history of physics, where the questioned and doubted papers are published in the same journal under the same title. For example, the debate between Einstein and Bohr, the EPR papers [18] and [19], the debate between Wilson and Saha on magnetic monopoles [20] and [21], etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference：
[0] Abraham, M. (1902). "Principles of the Dynamics of the Electron (Translated by D. H. Delphenich)." Physikalische Zeitschrift 4(1b): 57-62.
[1] Compton, A. H. and O. Rognley (1920). "Is the Atom the Ultimate Magnetic Particle?" Physical Review 16(5): 464-476.
[2] Compton, A. H. (1921). "The magnetic electron." Journal of the Franklin Institute 192(2): 145-155.
[3] Uhlenbeck, G. E., and Samuel Goudsmit. (1925). "Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezüglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons." Die Naturwissenschaften 13.47 (1925): 953-954.
[4] Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2938): 264-265.
[5] Thomas, L. H. (1927). "The kinematics of an electron with an axis." The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 3(13): 1-22.
[6] Schmidt-Böcking, H., L. Schmidt, H. J. Lüdde, W. Trageser, A. Templeton and T. Sauer (2016). "The Stern-Gerlach experiment revisited." The European Physical Journal H 41(4): 327-364.
[7] Gerlach, W. and O. Stern. (1922). "Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld. " Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 9: 349-352.
[8] Pauli, W. (1925). "Über den Einfluß der Geschwindigkeitsabhängigkeit der Elektronenmasse auf den Zeemaneffekt." Zeitschrift für Physik 31(1): 373-385.
[9] Stöhr, J. and H. C. Siegmann (2006). "Magnetism"(磁学), 高等教育出版社.
[10] Kronig, R. D. L. (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2946): 550-550.
[11] Yang, C. N. (1983). "The spin". AIP Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics.
[12] Belinfante, F. J. (1940). "On the current and the density of the electric charge, the energy, the linear momentum and the angular momentum of arbitrary fields." Physica 7(5): 449-474.
[13] Ohanian, H. C. (1986). "What is spin?" American Journal of Physics 54(6): 500-505. 电子的自旋与内部波场结构有关。
[14] Parson, A. L. (1915). Smithsonian Misc. Collections.
[15] Pavšič, M., E. Recami, W. A. Rodrigues, G. D. Maccarrone, F. Raciti and G. Salesi (1993). "Spin and electron structure." Physics Letters B 318(3): 481-488.
[16] Williamson, J. and M. Van der Mark (1997). Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Fondation Louis de Broglie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17] Friedrich, B. and D. Herschbach (2003). "Stern and Gerlach: How a bad cigar helped reorient atomic physics." Physics Today 56(12): 53-59.
[18] Bohr, N. (1935). "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Physical review 48(8): 696.
[19] Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935). "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Physical review 47(10): 777.
[20] Wilson, H. (1949). "Note on Dirac's theory of magnetic poles." Physical Review 75(2): 309.
[21] Saha, M. (1949). "Note on Dirac's theory of magnetic poles." Physical Review 75(12): 1968.
Please how can i calculate or know the how fast 4 GeV, 3GeV and 2GeV electrons are in a synchrotron and hat is the opening width of the beamed x-ray cone for 1 GeV, 2GeV electrons.
Dear community, I am a phd student, and I have recently analyzed dielectric functions of ALD 2D films of YSZ and TiO2 using REELS and ellipsometry. For REELS, I use QUEELS-ε(k,ω)-REELS software, and for ellipsometry, VASE by Wollam.
When analyzing the refractive index and the extinction coefficient in a similar energy range, I found higher values by REELS in both materials.
My questions are: Should I get equal values? In which cases should they be different? I have also found slightly lower band gap values.
I understand that the differences may be noticeable. The excitation phenomena are different, and in REELS, you can excite or increase excitations that affect the dielectric function, the depth of analysis, the different surface properties, measurement conditions, the direction of the excited fields in the materials, and even the oscillators of the models.
Drude-Lindhard model from REELS assumes a free electron gas and describes the collective motion of electrons in the material under an externally applied electric field, accounting for both the plasma frequency and damping constant. On the other hand, The Tauc-Lorentz model used in ellipsometry considers electronic transitions and bandgap excitations in the material.
It is important to mention that the oscillator equations in both models are very similar, only that they are written with other symbols.
I have reviewed different works where the dielectric functions calculated from REELS and ellipsometry measurements are compared. I feel that, in most of them, the authors are more satisfied if they obtain more similar values.
If the results differ, I have also not found a precise statement as to why they are different in terms of the Drude-Lindhard and Tauc-Lorentz models. Is it due to a term in some equation? To a specific fitting parameter that has some physical meaning? Or is it due to the surface properties of materials?
I hope this little discussion is well raised and helps to enrich our knowledge on the topic. I share the results I obtained and appreciate any thoughts.
All the best
Jorge
I have read two different kinds of definitions for 0, 1, 2, and 3 D nanoparticles. In one type 1 D nanoparticle is defined as the particle which has only one dimension in nanometer scale eg. nanosheets, or thin films. In the other type, 1 D nanoparticle is defined as the particle in which electrons are allowed to move in only one direction and are confined in any two directions (x&y, y&z, x&z) eg. nanowires and nanotubes.
Similarly, for 2D, according to first kind of definition, two dimensions should be in nm scale then the example will be nanofibres or nanotubes. And if we consider other definitions i.e. electrons will be allowed to move in two directions only, then examples will be thin films or nanosheets.
Now, everything boils down to 0 or 3D nanoparticles. Please someone make it clear.
Comment on the video "Electrons do not spin" by Dr. Matt O'Dowd and PBS Spacetime - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y
If the electron – and particles like quarks – have zero size, an explanation is that matter isn’t composed of “little hard balls” but of pure mathematics. This is consistent with something Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote in the 2010 book “The Grand Design”. They said aliens may do the same experiments we do but may not describe the results by using quarks. And Max Tegmark’s 2014 book “Our Mathematical Universe” proposes that the cosmos isn’t merely described by maths but IS maths. Here’s my own suggestion for expressing experiments and the universe in non-material terms –
Let's say electronics' binary digits (BITS) of 1 and 0 - aka base 2 maths - are the ultimate composition of, and are used to "draw", Mobius strips. Then two Mobius strips can unite to form a figure-8 Klein bottle. Trillions of Mobius strips can form a photon, and trillions of more complex figure-8 Klein bottles can form the more complex graviton. (The Klein is immersed, not embedded, in the 3rd dimension.) If the whole universe is projected from 2D (as proposed by the holographic-universe theory), then both gravitational and electromagnetic waves must be projections from 2D, too (according to this posting, from the Mobius strip which is made up of binary digits). Therefore, the range of frequencies (aka bandwidth) called gravitational and electromagnetic waves is composed of BITS. The universe is a mass of this gravitational-electromagnetic unification (and there is nothing except sufficient bandwidth). This also gives plausible answers to a couple of questions Albert Einstein asked – “What is a photon?”, and “How could gravitational-electromagnetic unity be possible?” (the photon and graviton would both form from the topological Mobius and Klein [as well as binary digits], thus producing gravitational-electromagnetic unity).
The physicist and science historian Abraham Pais wrote that “In 1924 the scientist Wolfgang Pauli was the first to propose a doubling of electron states due to a two-valued non-classical "hidden rotation". Extending the ideas of “doubling”, “two-valued” and “hidden rotation” from the quantum spin Pauli had in mind to the Mobius strip being a basic, fundamental unit of reality; it can be seen that Pauli’s proposal has an analogy to this article. The doubled Mobius strips (doubled to form a figure-8 Klein bottle) could be produced by the two-valued binary-digit system used in electronics. The bottles possess a hidden rotation, now identified as adaptive Wick rotation, which gives a fourth dimension to space-time. In a holographic universe where the 3rd dimension results from information in a 2nd dimension, there would only be two space dimensions in reality and time would be the 3rd dimension.
In 1988’s “A Brief History of Time”, Professor Stephen Hawking writes - "What the spin of a particle really tells us is what the particle looks like from different directions." Spin 1 is like an arrow-tip pointing, say, up. A photon has to be turned round a full revolution of 360 degrees to look the same. Spin 2 is like an arrow with 2 tips - 1 pointing up, 1 down. A graviton has to be turned half a revolution (180 degrees) to look the same. Spin 0 is like a ball of arrows having no spaces. A Higgs boson looks like a dot: the same from every direction. Spin ½ is logically like a Mobius strip (your video’s cube with its attached ribbons reminds me of the Mobius), though Hawking doesn’t specifically say so. This is because a particle of matter has to be turned through two complete revolutions to look the same (this reminds me of the spinors associate with rotation), and you must travel around a Mobius strip twice to reach the starting point.
Rest-Mass, Charge of an electron is still an unsolved problem in physics! Why?
Einstein: "A theory setting mass and charge a priori is incomplete!" So Dirac's Electron Theory (restmass and charge are fundamental constants) is incomplete in the sense of Einsteins Opinion. The same to SM & GR up to now?
I want to calculate deposited energy of the electron pencil beam in the z direction inside a sphere filled with water which its edge located at z=5 cm. If you have any resource, input file or guidance, help me please.
Can anybody explain ,the backscattering process of electrons from grain boundaries ?
