Electo-mechanical Theory Of Electromagnetic Energy, Theory

Electro-mechanical theory Of Electromagnetic Energy

Electro-mechanical electromagnetic radiation theory explained

It is accepted as fact that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in thier motion is significant, because thier velocities around the nucleus are substantial. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus . So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emmited in the form of a massless particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a massless particle, but one that possesses and can transmit energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kenetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula:

Velocity equals the square root of 2 times kenetic energy over mass.

Excuse me if I dont write these formulas as its impossible to do so in this forum. The photon defys this well proven formula by possesing energy, and apparently no mass.

According to this" hypothysis", the photon does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or fully defined in a logical fashion. The definition of a photon itself is dependant on another dubious theory, and this new theory doesnt rely on any such theory for its conclusions..


What Is Electromagnetic radiation?


In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as massless particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.

::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of various frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possesing the higher energy levels.::

Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted part is NOT theory, but proven ,undisputed fact . The precedeing paragraph, however, is unproven, though anecdotal evidence does tend to support the belief.
What is electromagnetic energy (cont.)

The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory , and later you will see why. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given amplitude of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependant mainly on amplitude .

Electromagnetic energy is thought of as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light.Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Visable light itself is of course a low energy electromagnetic wave that our eyes have receptors to sense.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon.


Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits

Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a partical moving in a waveform, just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelyhood,as shall later be explained.

Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)


Energy levels Explained

When a particle is going around in a circle, the speed of the particle is related to the force applied outward, and therefor the force holding it in place. It is neccesary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
This force is the energy contained withen electromagnetic energy.
Note that this does not conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle,in this case an electron.
This force is the "electrical force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model.


The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.

Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital (integer)

energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts


1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
This includes the electical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y.



What particle is oscillating in an electromagnetic emmision?

We have established thus far that an electron in a specific electron energy level possesses a certain energy and wavelength dependant on what energy level it occupies. The further from the nucleus the electron orbits, the less the energy it contains and the longer the wavelength of its motion. Please note at this time that this same relationship is noted in electromagnetic emmisions, and is not theoretical in any way.

According to the quantum theory, the energy is released as a photon .The photon is used to explain the fact that when an emmision occurs, no mass is lost by the atom that emitted it.



How Electromagnetic Energy is "created" and what it is.

We have already theorized and basically proven that electrons revolve or orbit around the nucleous of an atom, vibrating in varying frequencies according to their wavelengths, and thus thier energy is dependant on thier distance from the nucleus.

-Now make a mental image of the following experiment:-

Take a device which vibrates a certain frequency and tie it to the end of a string, turn it on, and spin it in a circle over your head. Let this vibrator represnt an electron of a certain frequency/energy level,and the string represent the bond that holds the electron in its orbit around the nucleus, that is the magnetic bond between the negative charge of the electron and the overall positive charge of the nucleus. Note that this is a flawed model for several reasons, but it will suffice to prove the point in question.

It is easy to understand why this bond must be at least as strong as the centripital force acting upon the vibrator and causing it to be thrown outward in a straight from the center of rotation, so in the case of the electron some force exist to keep it in it´s orbit,and this force is magnetic in nature in the case of the atom we are trying to model. Now imagine, for whatever reason, this bond is broken, in the case of our experiment the string holding the vibrator breaks and the centipital force throws the vibrator outward. Is the vibrator still vibrating? At what frequency? In what trajectory does it travel?
The already proven centripital acceleration of electrons is the mechanism by which the electron is energetically expelled from the atom in a straight line .This is the mechanical component of the theory. When the bond is broken the magnetic component which held the electron in place is released along with the electron.This is why electromagnetic waves have electrical and magnetic interaction as their observable manifestation.


Why Electromagnetic energy has no "charge".

One of the apparent disqualifiers to this theory is "If electromagnetic energy is composed of electrons, why does it have no charge?"
The fact is, it does. This is evidenced in the photo-electric effect, which up to this point has been inadequately explained without using photons in the hypothesis or conclusion. The fact is, observations prove light induces a negative charge in certain atomic stuctures.
As for the "photon", Lets call it what it is, an electron oscilating passively in a oscilating magnetic field ,an oscilation that represents precisely its predicted frequency and energy level determinable by the electron energy level it originates from .

[ This is my personal theory, feel free to point out flaws or errors as that was my intent in posting this material here.

Just keep in mind you cannot use another theory to successfully disprove this much simpler and easily understood one. Remember , when two theories explain the same phenomenon, odds are the simpler of the two is closer to correct. This new theory comes very close to absolute simplicity, and it makes more sense than a massless particle that can transfer energy. Please keep an open mind, as I did when I learned and discounted quantum physics as a probable false theory.]

I am not accustomed to using this forum, so I am just a little confused as to why there are no replies. Beleive me when i tell you that it won't be easily disprovem, since it is most likely science fact that simply hasn't yet been proven.

Please forgive me for shamelessly bumping this back up to the top, it seems unusual out of twenty people reading it, not one replied.

To me it means one of two things, either you don't understand it or you just discount it out of hand because it conflicts with other theories you except as factual.

Things are not what they seem. Consider the POSSIBILITY you have been intentionally misled.

The photon can be considered as the wave pocket. Try to consider this view, for example - it enables you to give the photon some physical meaning.

Zephir, thanks for your intrest and your reply. Please excuse me for being so forward, but try to understand I am quite knowledgable in the theories you are attempting to explain, but this thread is about my NEW theory.

In order to understand or even accept the possibility even of my new theory being correct, you will have you consider the possibility my theory is right and no photons exist. I have psoted this theory tomany boards, even sent it to the physics departments of several leading Universities in the field of physics like Texas A &M and MIT, and not one has ever found a flaw with it other than it conflicts with quantum theoryy.

I am asking you respectfully to read my theory and tell me what's wrong with it OTHER than it conflicts with the ideas of some Nobel Laureate with a jewish surname .

The EMG field quantization was confirmed experimentally before years (in 1996): Quantum Rabi oscillation: A direct test of field quantization in a cavity.

Sorry, but the theory doesn't matter - the experiment goes first. Example of th 4-photon oscillations (it's evident the photons were been isolated, right here). The gamma photons spreading can be observed directly using a spark chamber, for example... Single photon detector, and a lot of other applications,,



From phenomenological point of view I've problem to consider the electron to be just photon wave, because it contains the weak leptonic charge, which doesn't interacts with the light at all. It's a quite different kind of interaction.

Single Photon Interference - the amazing sensitivity of ICCD cameras enables to carry out the two slit experiment with single photons as the simple classroom experiment.

RWH,

Welcome to the "kitchen"....try to show a little patience...It's a little competitive. Please understand, a few of of us have our own 100% "dead cert" models of what really "might be".........Ah!, that reminds me.... time to plug my Spacial
Vacuoles T.O.E

Spacial Vacuoles

[a few of of us have our own 100% "dead cert" models of what really "might be"....]


Nothing zephyr posted above actually disqualifies my new theory, in fact it reinforces it.

I am beginning to think some of you ,like Zephyr for instance, might have already accepted theory as fact.
I asked you to consider this new theory based on it's own merits and strengths/weaknesses.
Comparing it to your pet theory and finding conflicts with it won't do if you want to disqualify my theory as a possibility.

You must disprove it WITHOUT theoretical material as an arguement or you are wasting both your time and mine! That's not how "science" is supposed to work. We've been building theory upon theory for 100 years, and we are greivously derailed by Maxwells' rewritten works.

Zephyr, I've reveiewed carefully your above posted material. I have a few questions.

You said the theory doesnt matter, only the experiment [I am assuming you are refering to the process we use to prove our theories].

Do you realize when you use a radio reciever, cell phone or photovoltaic solar panel , these are all essentially "experiments" that tend to support my theory? In fact that is where my theory originates, in the dimension of REALITY.
Are you aware of the experiments proving "photons" in the form of visable light can be transmitted by a conductor and used to grow plants in total darkness? This also supports my theory, and it was done using the "scientific method".

How does a "photon" create a voltage potential in a solar cell?

How do photons cause piezeo crystals to produce a voltage potential in radio circuitry? Why is it that every single device devised by man that emits short wavelength emr uses electricity to produce it? Electrons in/photons out, or is it more likely electrons in, electrons out?

I am an engineer, not a physicist. I deal with what I know because I have to. If I use theories in my designs and they fail, someone or perhaps many people couls die as a result. This is the main reson I resent your acceptance and vehement defense of prexistng theories as disqualifiers for mine. Seems we play by different rules.

photons in, photons out.

"Guest", I don't blame you for not attaching your identity to your words above. I use my real name because I am not concerned with being wrong and being proven so. Being wrong is a part of trying to learn. Show me where I'm wrong, and this time attach your name to your post. As far as I am concerned anonymous posts are simply things the writer wants to say, but doesn't want connected to him pesonally because he doubts himself and the ability of his ideas to withstand serious scrutiny.

I don't care about your theory, but you've told, the photons are not exist and the light is formed by electrons....

I showed you a number of single-photon experiments and I pointed out, the electron contains a measurable charge, which doesn't interact with light at all.

You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than...

What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies...

Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me - and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all.

I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry.

Hi Robert W. Hawkins

The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum covers ULF to gamma radiation. The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum.

Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart.

Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong.

Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential.


I think your theory needs some more thought.

"I showed you a number of single-photon experiments and I pointed out, the electron contains a measurable charge, which doesn't interact with light at all."

When an electron breaks it's bond with the nucleus the force which held it in place MUST be emmitted with the partical. What is confusing your limited intellect is the fact that you were taught otherwis

"You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than... "

I will say this an leave it at that. You won't try for the same reason no one else has, because the theory is solid without significant conflict with conventional known physics.
Though you have a virtually unlimited number of ways to disprove my theory by experimentation, you never will. For one thing you don't adequately understand the theories you shill, much less mine. For another my theory is thus far the best explaination for emr. Inventing a fairy dust particle and defining it by the observations won't wash in my world, I deal with absolute truths, as I said before.

"What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies... "

I think it's because when you read the OP you could not find a REAL problem with it, other than it flys in the face of your quasi-religious indoctrination into physical science, which has become a faith based doctrine instead of dealing with absolute facts. You build your house on a foundation of crap and it will teeters and fall. Where is your solid foundation?

"Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me -"

I certainly hope so, all you've done is parrot the works of others with whom I disagree and post arguements to my theory based on other theories.

" and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all. "

I would think you would be eager to prove me wrong, since I gave you an intellectual challenge to do so. What you're doing is admitting you're out of your league.

"I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry."

If you are going to continue to reply as you have I see no sense in your doing so either.

"The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum covers ULF to gamma radiation. "


All of which obey the same rules, have the same basic qualities and travel at the same velocities.

"The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum."

Yes, they can. In fact this is what confirms my theory in an unlimited number of experimental possibilities. If you ahd read the theory in the firat place you might have seen exactly how I explained the long wavelength emmisions.

"Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart."

The ONLY way emr can be emmitted, a shown by experience an experiment, is if the electron is somehow replaced as it emitted. this is the basis of my theory,and the fact that allows various electronic devices to emit emr by use of electrons as a power source.

. What happens when sunlight shines on dark object? The light absorbs the emr and re radiates it in a longer wavelength , in the form of emr. Emr in, emr out. Electron in electron out.

"Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. "

Because they are not bonded to the nucleus and in an energy shell , such electrons are NOT emmited as emr. They lack all the definitive qualities of emr as I define it. For instance, they are not ocsilating passively in an oscilating magnetic field.


"Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong."

Yes, this is correct. This experiment helps solidify my theories' viability. My theory states that emr can be emmitted when a high energy electron is captured by a particular atom, forcing a lower energy electron out of the unbalanced atom in the form of longer wavelength emr. ALL observations bear this out.

An atom of oxygen, for instance, cannot keep an "extra" electron for long in its' electron "cloud", if it were to gain one it would emit another in the form of emr.

"Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. "

Yes, this is the THEORY. now read mine again and ask yourself, doesnt it make more sense considering the photovoltaic effect? The simplest explaination is not always the best, but in this case it is.

"This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential."

Yes, it has energy enough to cross gaps of various distances, but that doesnt make it emr. Emr IS emitted , however, when electrons jump gaps, further reinforcing my theory.


"I think your theory needs some more thought."

Yes, on your part, now get to it. I presented it, now it's up to you to shred it or give up.