The cat is dead. I would never think of skinning it alive. Unfortunately
I cannot be more specific, but there was an article in Discover Feb.
1991 about Mr. Dehmelt experimenting with a single electron and a
single positron. He killed the cat all right.
When it comes to second order of quantum phenomena, my argumentation is
out of the scope of discussion list I think. Its arguments flow from few
observations, i.e. refraction, static electricity field, gravitation,
color, relation between el. current and tension in electricity
transmission and superconductivity. I might stick telepathy into it but
I shy away from it because I am not telepathic and therefore I cannot
study and argue the phenomena first hand even though I have ideas.
Nevertheless, what we lack is the mechanism of retention of static
electrical field and the magnetic field.. The key to their understanding
lies in Mr. Newton's Law of Action and Reaction. It is very relevant.
E=mCC is a gross understatement when it comes to the second order.
What we perceive as energy is our capability to turn energy into work.
This separates inertial energy of a thrown stone from its thermal
energy, separated from its (E=mCC) nuclear energy (still thermal sort
of), which is again separated from its color or second order energy. The
total is way higher. Vacuum is so full of energy that it's not even
funny. But it is dynamic, not static, and we have one hell of a time in
using it for the simple reason that we do not know the clock-work. Its
dynamics is the reason why I do not like the term Ether.
I have no objection to share what I think I know, but I do not wish to
start pushing my stuff through Keely net, because it might land me in
trouble. If you solicit it, you can have it. It's free. Otherwise sorry.
When it comes to matter-mass relation. In my world, matter is not
necessarily represented by mass. The mass is a result of particular ways
in which gravitation interacts with matter in its current form. The
interaction always results in inertia, and it results either in what you
call mass, or what you call no mass. It is again all dynamic. Mass, same
as energy, is a property of matter. Energy always and mass under
conditions.
I am saying exactly the same thing as you are saying so far, except that
I separated matter from mass. You are trying to make them identical.
Please don't ask me what is matter. I have no clue. I only see it as a
carrier of properties, and I think I know its shape in different
relationships.
1/2 electron spin is one half of electron. In my world, electron
consists of two strings (better said chains), one of which is positive
and one of which is negative. The difference between electron and
positron lies in their first order magnetic polarity (shape of helical
wave), which keeps their identity. The el. charge is given by their
distortion due to either presence of "static" el. field (which will also
make them move), or by their motion in gravitational field..
El. charge is misconception. The "charge" is exchange of two polarities
of what I call elforins. They are the particulate of el. force field.
The only difference between photon and electron is that while electron
consists of two strings paired partially, the photon consists of the
same strings paired completely. The partial pairing of electron string
gives it its capability to absorb incoming positive el. force field
particulate, transform it into negative particulate and reradiate it as
negative particulate. Do not beat me for using the word particulate. I
use what I think you might understand. This is totally heretic and new
to you. The completely paired photon looses the ability to perform the
el. force particulate transformation, looses magnetic polarity as well.
Entrapment in material structure photon the property of usually standing
thermal wave, or propagating wave in case of forced or spontaneous el.
current. As radiated or free photon, the wave is always that of el.
current, traveling along the photon and propagating the photon through a
medium. The el. current is a reverse of light.
The Bohr's orbits. QM is pushing this despite the fact that in electric
arc, spark, and hot metal emission, electrons radiate photons. Where are
the orbits in these three instances?
Averaging the numbers. White light contains a whole spectrum of the
first order frequencies, therefore first order energies. I might be
mistaken here, but I suppose that the meter clicks when "charge" builds
up sufficiently in it to produce the click. If so, you do not know how
many photons of what energies were needed to build up that "charge".
If it is el. current impulse that produces the click, then the amperage
of a particular click will tell you what was the relative energy of a
particular photon, providing a single photon produced current can be
measured. The constant charge of electron comes from the idea of
electron transfer between two rubbed bodies. Allow me a stupid question
here. When you induce positive el. charge in a body by proximity of
negatively charged body and the positive charge is a mono-pole, where
did the electrons from that positive body go? What I am saying here is
that electron does not have a constant charge. It only has capability to
exchange particulate of el. force field. It probably has a ceiling of
that capability under the conditions, but that is it. If it were
otherwise, the electron cloud around a cathode in a vacuum tube would
disperse evenly through out that tube before the el. potential between
the anode and cathode is established. It would create pressure for that
matter.
The constant charge is a calculated mean value. If I am not mistaken,
someone got Nobel Price for discovering fractional charges. That should
crunch it.
Regards the mutual capture of photons, I agree that it is an unavoidable
possibility and probability. In my world, the closed valence bond is an
incorporated photon and it is responsible for absorption and radiation
of radiated, or if you wish free CS photons.
Only that the properties are now different. Whether two free photons can
capture each other or not is something that I doubt, but not too hard. I
would be more inclined toward the number four. Two of them should fuse
and split as photons again, or split into electron and positron
annihilate and continue as photons again. Four of them could become the
first tetrahedron of massive matter. That is six quarks by the way. I am
running out of scope again.
Best regards to all, Slavek.