# Welcome back

## Find a book, put up your feet, stay awhile

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more

Download

Standard view

Full view

of .

Look up keyword

Like this

Share on social networks

2Activity

×

0 of .

Results for: No results containing your search query

P. 1

Is Matter Made of LightRatings: (0)|Views: 170|Likes: 5

Published by richgauthier6058

A new physics hypothesis proposes that an electron is composed of a transluminal quantum particle, like a photon that is moving in a closed loop

A new physics hypothesis proposes that an electron is composed of a transluminal quantum particle, like a photon that is moving in a closed loop

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/12879684/Is-Matter-Made-of-Light

10/16/2011

text

original

1

Is Matter Made of Light?

By Richard Gauthier, Ph.D.

“You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.”*--Albert Einstein

2

Emc

. Einstein’s equation relating energy, matter and the speed of light is probably the most famous scientific equation of all time. A book of this titleby DavidBodanishas been explaining the meaning, historical background and present implicationsof this equation to a large reading audience. A television program on this topic bythePublic Broadcasting Systembrought this understanding to an even wider public audience.This simple equation impliesthat an enormous quantity of energy is contained ina relatively small amount of matter, if that matter could be totallyor even partlyconverted into energy.

2

Emc

means that aquantity of matterof mass

m

is to bemultiplied by the square of the speed of light

c

in order to determine the total energy

E

contained inthat quantity of matter. In atomic and hydrogenbombs, less than about 1%of the energy available in the mass of theactive ingredientsis actually converted intoenergy. The percentageissignificantlyhigher in hydrogen bombs (which are based onfusion or joining of atomic nuclei of hydrogen) as compared to atomic bombs (which are based on the fission orsplitting of atomic nuclei of uranium). Hydrogen bombs aretherefore more powerful than atomic bombs of similar ingredient masses.If 100% of the matter in a bomb could be converted into energy according to

2

Emc

, such a bomb would be about100 times as powerful asa hydrogen bomb of thesame weight.Fortunately, these 100% mass conversion reactions canonly take placewhen a quantity of matter, for example an electron, is combined with an equal amount of itscorresponding antimatter,a positron. The electron and the positron mutuallyannihilate, releasingtwoor morehighly energeticphotons(particles of radiant energy)thattravel off at the speed of light.According to

2

Emc

, a millionth of a gram of positrons, when combining with the same mass of electrons, would release the energyequivalent of 83 pounds of highly explosive TNT. Antimatter is notoriouslydifficult tostore since it is so reactive with ordinary matter. 100% matter-to-energy bombs do notappear to be feasible at presentor in the foreseeable future.However, a Google search on“antimatter weapons” shows that the U.S. Air Force has invested millions of dollars to tryto develop such weapons.However, thisarticle is notaboutapplications of

2

Emc

, of which there aremany. It is about trying to understand why the speed of light

c

comes into the equation

2

Emc

when matter releases its stored energy.What is it about mattersuch as arock,which may not seem to be movingat all orelseismoving very slowly relative to thespeed of light

c

,that requires the value of the speed of light

c

be used to calculate howmuch energy is contained in this rock?

2Surprisingly, when Einstein derived the equation

2

Emc

in 1905, he didn’texplain why matter itself is related to the speed of light. What he did was to show thatwhen a certain amount of matter is converted to radiant energysuchas light, the quantityof energy produced follows

2

Emc

. But why matteritself, when it is still matter and notyet converted intoradiant energy, should be related to the speed of light

c,

has never beensatisfactorilyexplained.The explanation wouldlikelyrequire knowing the internalstructureand inner motion, if any,of electrons as well as thenuclear particles like protons and neutrons (along with theirconstituent quarks and gluons) thatcompose theatoms and molecules of matter.Leave aside themuch heavierand more complicatednuclear particles. The inner structure and inner motion, if any, of even theelectron, one of theleast massive and most basic sub-atomicparticles, has remained a deep mystery since its discoveryby J.J.Thompsonin 1897. Recent high energy experiments attempting to determine the size of an electron have shown that its size, if any, appears to be lessthan about a billionth of a billionth of a meter (

18

10

meters). There are several other known facts about electrons.Eachelectron has a small but definite ‘rest’ mass

m

,which isabout 1/1800 times that of a proton. The electron contains a small negative electric charge -

e

which produceselectrical forces and effects in matter. The electron also has a constant measurablequantity of angular momentum. Angular momentum is normally associated with therotation of an object. But the angular momentum or spin value of an electronisconsidered to be an intrinsic property of the electron,not associated with any actual physical rotation of the electron. The electron also acts like a tiny magnet with a fixedvalue of magnetism called its magnetic moment. Magnetism can be produced by themovement of electric chargethrough space, but themagnetic momentof an electronisalso considered to be intrinsic to the electron.It is actually theorganized arrangement of themagnetic momentsof many electronsin magnetic materialsthat gives rise to their magnetic properties. No accepted scientific theory has been able to explain the origin and values of allthe properties of the electron in terms of its structure or internal motion, if any, thoughthe electron’s mass, charge, spin and magnetic moment have all beenmeasured very precisely.There is also extremely good agreement between the measuredvalueandtheoretically predicted valueof the electron’s magnetic moment, based on the theory of quantum electrodynamics(QED).In addition to these physical properties of the electron, it also has vibrational andwave-like properties. The first scientist to propose that the electron hasan associatedvibratory frequencyand wavelengthwas Louis de Broglie. He proposed in 1924 that theelectron’s frequency

f

was proportional to its energy

E

. This is the same energy

E

of Einstein’s equation

2

Emc

. The energy of a photon, the quantum particle of radiantenergy,had been previously been shown by Einstein to be

Ehf

where

f

is itsfrequency and

h

is called Planck’s constant, a very small number. De Broglie set the twoenergies for a photon and an electron equal, giving

2

hfmc

orequivalently

2

/

fmch

.

3This frequency is around

21

10/sec or a billiontrillion cycles per second for an electron.Based on this proposed proportional relationship of electron frequency to electron mass,de Broglie proposed that a moving electron hasan associated wave motion, with awavelength that is inversely proportional to the linear momentum (mass times velocity)of the electron. So slowerelectronswere predicted tohave longer wavelengths and viceversa. This variable wavelength of the electronpredicted by de Brogliewas later precisely confirmed by experimentswhereelectrons were found to scatteroff of metalcrystals very similarly to x-rays having similar wavelengths as electrons.Interestingly, although de Broglie associated the frequency

f

of an electron at restto an internal vibration within the electron using the same quantum equation

Ehf

asfor a photon, he never seems to haveproposed that an electron is actually composed of a photon or a photon-like object. For de Broglie, a moving point-like electronhaving aninternal frequency when at rest of

2

/

fmch

,isguided by a pilot wavehaving acorresponding frequency. The pilot wave’s wavelength is given by hiswavelengthformula/

hp

, where

(Greek letter lambdaor L) is the pilot wave’s wavelength,

h

is Planck’s constant and

p

is the electron’s momentum (

p=mv

for low velocity electronsof mass

m

moving at velocity

v

).De Broglie’spilot wave concept nevercaught on due to some mathematical problems with his theoryand its inability to explain certain physical reactionssuch as thedeflection of one charged particle by another.However, the de Broglie wavelength of moving particles was successfully incorporated by Erwin Schrödingerinto theSchrödingerequationin quantummechanics,which makes many accurate predictionsabout atomic and molecular phenomena. But de Broglie’s pilot waveapproach wasrediscoveredand elaboratedin 1952 by David Bohm. He resolved theearlierphysical andmathematical difficultiesof the pilot wave approach with a newapproach where electronsare guided by a “quantum potential” to follow path trajectories showing the known wave-like propertiesof electrons.The standard interpretationquantum mechanics,known as the Copenhageninterpretation, accurately predicts the probabilities of detecting and measuring electronsin atomic physics experiments. The Copenhagen interpretationcannot make precise predictions about the trajectory ofan individual electron, andrejectsthede Broglie/Bohmapproachto describing the trajectoryof an individual electron. Bohm’s trajectory-oriented approachto quantum mechanics however has been provedto give the samestatisticalpredictionsfor experimentsasthe widely-accepted Copenhagenapproach toquantum mechanics. The Copenhagenapproach, developedmainlyby Niels Bohr,Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, and including the quantummechanicalSchrödinger waveequation,rejects the idea that there can be completely precise imagesfor particlesand particle trajectories to describe atomicand sub-atomic reactions.One reason for thisrejection of 3D electron models to describe the electron wasearly calculationswith spherical models of the electronthatindicated thatthesurface of arotating spherical electronwould have to travel fasterthan the speed of light if theelectron is tohave the known experimental values for the electron’s spin and magnetic

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

© Copyright 2015 Scribd Inc.

Language

Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Password Reset Email Sent

Join with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

By joining, you agree to our

read free for one week

Personalized recommendationsbased on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Join with Facebook

or Join with EmailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

Already a member? Sign in.

By joining, you agree to our

to download

Personalized recommendationsbased on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Continue with Facebook

Sign inJoin with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

By joining, you agree to our

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd