You may have seen condensation that forms around the trail of ionization left by the passage of a electron or nucleus through a cloud chamber, but you have not seen an electron.
You may have seen a flicker due to scintillation on a screen from cathode rays, but you have not seen an electron.
You might have seen an arc, the light created by atomic excitations in molecules of air by the passage of energetic electrons, but you have not seen an electron.
You might have seen the blue glow of synchrotron radiation in a particle accelerator, created by the bending of electron trajectories in a magnetic field and subsequent photon emission, but you have not seen an electron.
Processes which make electrons visible are often several atomic interactions removed from the actual electron itself. If someone says they have SEEN an electron or other subatomic particle, they clearly did not understand what was going on.
After all, if we could actually SEE electrons, they would have been discovered long before 1897 and J.J. Thomson.
(Inspired by a commentor to a previous post)
14 comments:
What is this then if not an electron?
What do you suppose I am looking at here?
@ W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:
I'd also be interested in your interpretation of what we are 'seeing' when humans observe an electric arc?
Although, I have to agree with you, Dr. Bridgman, electrons are not directly observed by Man.
My take on what Man 'sees' when watching an electric arc is that it is the photons, en masse, that register on visual receptors in our eyes.
Electrons are not directly observable & measureable, per se, but there are a number of indirect ways to observe & measure electrons that can be crossed-checked with each other, this multiplicity of cross-checking indirect observations & measurements of electrons has allowed science to draw conclusions about a number of properties and characteristics that electrons have.
Electron theory is based on a solid foundation.
However, the implication of Dr. Bridgman's post does not have a solid foundation.
Our knowledge of electrons is by indirect means, but electron's properties and characteristics are well understood based on actual observations & measurements, admittedly indirect, though they are.
The same can not be said for "dark" matter for instance.
There are no direct observations & measurements of "dark" matter, but more important, there are no indirect observations & measurements, either.
The only "indirect" observation, really only an assumption, is the logical construction that there must be "dark" matter because without it the gravity "only" model fails.
A logical construction is not a direct or indirect observation & measurement.
The contention that "dark" matter has one "observable" characteristic -- it exercises the force of gravity on surrounding baryonic particles is based on an assumption.
That is why "modern" astronomy is so determined to limit or outright reject electromagnetism from space. (Outright rejection is impossible at this point because near-space electromagnetic phenomenon have been confirmed by NASA.) Because once there is an alternative theory or explanation, for why baryonic matter behaves the way it does, say in the arms of a galaxy during rotation, which explicitly doesn't rely on "magic beans", "dark" matter, the gravity "only" model simply can't say, "there has to be 'dark' matter because that's the only way gravity can account for the galaxy's arm rotation speed." And gravity is the only 'acting' force in the Universe.
So, there is a fundamental and critical distinction between the indirect evidence for Electron theory and the assumptions of "dark" matter.
Electron theory rests on actual indirect observations & measurements that can be crossed-checked with various other observations & measurments that allows science to draw solid conclusions about electron's properties and characteristics.
So-called "dark" matter has only the "but for" test. But for the failure of the gravity "only" model, "dark" matter would have no indirect observable & measurable properties and characteristics.
That is not an indirect observation & measurement as science understands the term, rather that is a assumption based the supposed validity of another theory.
There are no observations & measurements that allow cross-checking other indirect observations & measurements for "dark" matter.
But for the failure of the gravity "only" model, as displayed in observation & measurement of galaxy arm rotation speed, "dark" matter has no observable & measurable properties and characteristics at all -- whether direct or indirect, nor does cross-checking provide any scientific evidence for the existence of "dark" matter.
Dr. Bridgman, your attempted implication that supposed "dark" matter is analogous to Electon theory fails by it own weighty baggage train of unfounded assumptions.
Back to the drawing board.
"Seeing" is to perceive with the eyes. When you need tech to "see" it, such as your link, one of the more correct terms is "detect".
Sixty years ago, you couldn't 'see' or even detect, neutrinos - evidence for them was indirect since the 1920s. Eighty years ago, you couldn't 'see' neutrons - evidence for them was that atoms were about twice as heavy as the number of protons they contained. Was this fact evidence of their non-existence? If a new particle which meets the requirements for 'dark matter' is found, and those searches are taking place, it will be 'seen' by indirect means.
So many in this discussion claim they know more about plasmas than I, and you don't know which processes you're 'seeing' with an electric arc (your link)? Here's a hint, would you see this arc in a vacuum?
Perhaps you should learn a little atomic and radiation physics so you can understand the processes that emit light. In astrophysics, we learn how to use these photons to determine what is happening in distant plasmas.
W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:
Why again with the misdirection? That does not speak well for a scientist.
Address an individual, rather than look cross-eyed at them and speak to the corner.
Anaconda: "My take on what Man 'sees' when watching an electric arc is that it is the photons, en masse, that register on visual receptors in our eyes."
And, in a vacuum, if the electric current was in 'arc mode' the electrons would give off photons.
But Bridgman, your explanation of why "dark" matter might be found, is wholly unconvincing. You didn't offer anything as to why "dark" matter is like the electron and your neutrino offer simply didn't say much.
It sounds like you need to go back to school and crack a book on 'charge seperation' in space.
NASA has a tutoring program for kids online, you can get plugged in and learn what you missed out on when you where in "modern" astronomy school: Electric Currents from Space. NASA even uses the term, Birkeland currents, in this section.
Read and learn Dr. Bridgman.
Actually, synchrotron radiation is pretty important, too, because it is caused by electrons spiralling in a magnetic field -- an electric current, imagine that.
Of course, there are magnetic fields all over deep-space and all of them are caused by electric currents -- unless you want to spring some "new physics" on us...
Tom,
In response to: "'Seeing' is to perceive with the eyes. When you need tech to 'see' it, such as your link, one of the more correct terms is 'detect'."
So according to you, if someone wears glasses or contact lenses or uses any tech at all, then they aren't actually seeing, but merely detecting?
What were you saying about semantics again?
"Sixty years ago, you couldn't 'see' or even detect, neutrinos - evidence for them was indirect since the 1920s. Eighty years ago, you couldn't 'see' neutrons - evidence for them was that atoms were about twice as heavy as the number of protons they contained. Was this fact evidence of their non-existence?"
Does this mean you think Meinong's Jungle is real and that there are invisible pink unicorns aboard Noah's Ark?
"would you see this arc in a vacuum?"
Here's a hint, there is no such material thing as a vacuum.
"There is no vacuum." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689
"Perhaps you should learn a little atomic and radiation physics so you can understand the processes that emit light."
Perhaps you should learn a little elementary school physics so you can understand that visible light is electromagnetism.
"In astrophysics, we learn how to use these photons to determine what is happening in distant plasmas."
How do you use something that is alleged to have no mass?
A quick response as another one of those joys of home ownership, a broken water main into the house, is unexpectedly occupying my free time...
Re: Cygnus X-1: I haven't done any work on Cygnus X-1 in nearly a decade, so the odds of 'conflict of interest' are rather small.
Re: eyeglasses as 'detecting'. Not really, that is a variation among the observers. They just can't focus on it.
Re: arcing: these terms were not defined in a total vacuum - that was not possible in the days these terms were first defined. They actually had to *reduce* pressure even further in 1931 to reproduce the 'nebulium' spectral lines. You're seeing photons from excitations/recombinations of the residual atoms and ions. Significant synchrotron radiation at optical wavelengths at the energies of standard power transmission? Let's see. Dielectric breakdown of air is about 1e6 V/m, so your electrons aren't going to be very relativistic (gamma <~ 2?) as above that value, their energy will be going almost entirely into ionizing the air and releasing more electrons into the stream. Cyclotron frequency for electrons is about omega_c ~ q*B/m ~ 2e11 Hz*B(tesla). With visible light frequencies in the range of 3e14Hz, you'll need a pretty strong B-field (>>1 tesla!), or much more relativistic electrons, to push the critical synchrotron frequency, about 3*gamma^3*omega_c, into the visible range.
Re: pulsars: Yet nowhere in Scott's rebuttal does he *demonstrate* that the processes he mentions can be combined in a way that reproduces the pulse profiles, time stability, or spectra from radio to X-ray, observed for pulsars, or even a reasonable approximation of them. Scott likes to praise Healy & Peratt (1995), yet their model is a simulation of the electrodynamics in a magnetosphere around a compact object as well, not that different from the mainstream models. Healy & Peratt (1995) is of orders-of-magnitude better quality than Scott's pulsar claims (which don't even have enough specifics to be called a model which is why I filled in a guess on the pulse mechanism).
Since you don't believe neutronium can exist, then do you believe there can be degenerate electron matter? After all, they have many similarities, just fermions with different masses crammed into their lowest possible ground states. Do you believe Bose condensates, bosons crowded into ground states, are real?
It is well known that electromagnetic processes operate in space. The existence of Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere in no way validates: Peratt's galaxy model, Don Scott's pulsar model, or external mechanisms for powering the Sun. These three models either generate no numerical predictions, or generate predictions that have been ruled out by observations.
Later,
Tom
Tom,
"It is well known that electromagnetic processes operate in space."
I guess we're all happy then.
Welcome to the crackpot community. I'm inmate 001.
Meet the asylum guards:
"Magnetism...is a joke in astronomy." -- Phil Plait, writer, August 2008
"I can't remember a single thing V [Velikovsky] said in his book 'Worlds in Collision' that was astronomically correct. " -- Phil Plait, writer, March 2005
"Our knowledge [sic] of the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism on a planetary scale simply do not support his [Velikovsky's] conjecture." -- Michael W. Friedlander, physicist, 1998
"There's no observational evidence that I know of that indicates electric and magnetic forces are important on cosmological scales." -- Jeremiah P. Ostriker, astrophysicist, 1991
"He [Velikovsky] invents electro-magnetic forces capable of doing precisely what he wants them to do. There is no scientific evidence whatever for the powers of these forces." -- Martin Gardner, mathematician, 1957
W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:
So, you haven't worked on Cygnus X-1 in a decade. Then why did you try and blindside Don Scott with calculations that were related with Cygnus X-1?
In other words, you were the one who brought up Cygnus X-1, I called you out on your attempt to blindside Scott, that's all.
"Arcing" is a broad term and the power variations cover a wide spectrum.
Bridgman, you asked a question, I provided an answer, then you attempt to move the goal posts because you don't like my answer.
Next time be more specific about the parameters of your question.
And my point in mentioning synchrotron radiation was simple: Synchrotron radiation is commonly detected in outer-space.
Sychrotron radiation is a signature of the presence of electric currents.
Bridgman, do you believe that so-called "neutron" stars have a density of 100 million tons per centimeter, which would fit in the tip of my pinkie finger?
And do you think "neutron" stars can rotate at 60,000 m.p.h. or more than 1000 times a second?
Why is it that the study and discipline of nuclear physics does not recognize the existence of so-called "neutronium"?
What is the quantification of "infinite density"?
How much more dense is "infintite density" than 100 million tons in the tip of my pinkie finger (cubic centimeter)?
Science derives "unknowns" from the "knowns". Correct? That is why it's important to know and understand the electromagnetic phenomenon science has been able to detect and confirm by in situ observation & measurement.
Actually, science has more actual confirmation of electromagnetic phenomenon in space than any of the exotics "modern" astronomy has come to rely on to avoid falsifying the gravity "only" model.
Your failure to grasp the nettle on issues where the gravity "only" model has been falsified, but for the invention of crutches to keep the patient walking is revealing of your attitude and "modern" astronomy's weaknesses.
Keep up the good work.
Focus. This is going into far too many random directions from the original topic.
Anaconda: "Then why did you try and blindside Don Scott with calculations that were related with Cygnus X-1?"
Okay, I'll bite. WHEN did I do this?
Anaconda: "And my point in mentioning synchrotron radiation was simple: Synchrotron radiation is commonly detected in outer-space. Sychrotron radiation is a signature of the presence of electric currents."
Wrong. It is a signature of relativistic charged particles in magnetic fields. Thermally-distributed and other energy distributions of charged particles in magnetic fields can also generate synchrotron radiation. This is what is commonly observed. See Synchrotron spectra.
Got to go. The plumber will arrive any minute.
@ W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:
I read in Don Scotts's rebuttal to your piece this passage:
"As his [W.T. "Tom" Bridgman] final "Homework Problem" [p 48] he challenges me to calculate the density of a binary pair of stars that orbit a common center in a period of one millisecond. Why? What has this got to do with anything I have said? Please read pages 173 to 188 in The Electric Sky. In there, one of the things I do say is, "The rate of this [pulsar] charge/discharge phenomenon depends on the strength of the input (Birkeland) current, the capacitances (surface areas of the stars) and the breakdown voltage of the (plasma) connection. It in no way depends on the mass or density of the stars." It is also independent of the orbital periodicity of any binary pair." -- Don Scott, electrical engineer
Bridgman, compare your use of the term, "milisecond" and your context with the following:
"More precise measurements of Cygnus X-1 demonstrated variability down to a single millisecond. This interval is consistent with turbulence in a disk of accreted matter surrounding a black hole—the accretion disk. X-ray bursts that last for about a third of a second match the expected time frame of matter falling toward a black hole." Source.
And this:
"X-rays from Cygnus X-1 are seen to vary irregularly - in strong contrast to the regular pulses emitted by X-ray pulsars. The X-rays from Cygnus X-1 can grow substantially brighter or dimmer over time scales as short as 0.01 second. The natural deduction from the rapid variability of Cygnus X-1 is that the X-rays are coming from a region less than 0.01 light-second across. (0.01 light-second is 3000 kilometers, or roughly the diameter of the Earth's Moon.)" Source.
Now, perhaps I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion you were referring to Cygnux X-1 because of the common reference, "milliscecond", both you and the cite use, but it seemed clear both you and the cite were referring to binary pairs.
If my assumption was wrong then my apology, but I would appreciate it if you would let the readers know what you were referring to when you placed that "millisecond" reference in front of Scott and why you thought it was important?
My statement regarding "synchrotron radiation" is correct and you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Your link at best suggests it's possible some synchrotron radiation is thermally generated (the link in no way contradicts my statement that synchrotron radiation is a signature of electric current), and frankly, it is rather a tortuous path to suggest mechanical processes can generate synchrotron radiation. In the plasma physics laboratory, a synchrotron accelerator uses high energy electricity to generate synchrotron radiation.
Has mechanical, thermal energy (random heat) ever generated synchrotron radiation in the laboratory? My bet is that it hasn't, your link is just a abstract, theoretical set of equations that have never been proved by physical experiment in a laboratory.
But, hey, prove me wrong and link a citation to a report on an actual experiment where random, thermal energy produces synchrotron radiation.
Bridgman presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "And my point in mentioning synchrotron radiation was simple: Synchrotron radiation is commonly detected in outer-space. Sychrotron radiation is a signature of the presence of electric currents."
Bridgman responds: "Wrong. It is a signature of relativistic charged particles in magnetic fields."
Do you dispute the recognized principles put forth in Maxwell's Equations that magnetic fields are a function of electric currrent?
Your arrogance and contempt for your fellow scientists and readers of this website is boundless if you think you can slide right by Maxwell's Equations to falsely suggest ordered electron movement in a magnetic field isn't electric current.
The definition of electric current is ordered electron movement which creates magnetic fields.
Please, you come off as completely disingenuous. Your link is mathematical "fog" that does not make you look reasonable or correct. First, mathematical equations are not infallible, they are no more accurate than the assumptions that go into them, and as I interpret the link at best it sugests part of the synchrotron spectrum can be generated by thermal dynamics, certainly not all.
Heat (random atomic motion and vibration) works against ordered, vector movement of electrons.
Bridgman, if you attempt to slide your misleading statements past the readers, here, on this website, it only diminishes your credibility.
And yet with all of Scott's indignance with how I interpreted his model, he provides not one demonstration about his combinations of binary stars, birkeland currents, surface currents, and breakdown voltages can produce the period, period stability or pulse profiles from radio to gamma-ray energies. At least with a mathematical model, it is available to others to critique and test. Without the model, we only have Dr. Scott's word for it - the very definition of "argument by authority".
If Dr. Scott's pulsar model actually exists and can be demonstrated that it actually uses known physics and reproduces many observed pulsar characteristics, I would no longer have anything to complain about.
That said, the only reason I can see for Scott to not present a functional model is that it really doesn't exist.
I still haven't seen anything but whiny excuses about my Electric Sun analysis of November-December 2008. No EU advocate has presented a model that I can calculate the proton and electron fluxes and energies at any distance from the Sun. Again, produce a model that actually does this and I stop complaining.
Synchrotron radiation can be produced by individual charged particles in a magnetic field. What happens when you have more than one particle and they are traveling in different directions and/or velocities? Are you saying they cannot radiate synchrotron radiation? When radiated in random directions (from randomly moving, incoherent sources), you add the individual intensities, not the vector strengths.
I know of no published thermal synchrotron experiment in the open literature but I know of some scenarios were DoE might have done such experiments not in the open literature.
Your claim does impact many things that we can regularly measure. Are you saying gases excited by an electric current can emit spectral lines but gas heated to high temperatures cannot? Which particle-based radiation emission mechanisms are you claiming can't operate when the particles are moving in random (and not necessarily Maxwellian) distributions? On what do you base your criteria for such a claim?
W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:
A general rule of thumb to remember is when a direct question is asked of an interlocutor and he does not answer, or answers in a round about fashion, there is a reason for the failure to directly respond, or take the circuitous route.
Such is the case with the first part of your comment.
Anaconda asked: "I would appreciate it if you would let the readers know what you were referring to when you placed that 'millisecond' reference in front of Scott and why you thought it was important?"
The first part (paragraph) of your responding comment is circuitous.
You don't answer my question directly, rather you whine about Scott's precieved failure to answer to your critique by noting he didn't provide a quantified model addressing "[How does Scott's idea] produce the period, period stability or pulse profiles...?"
And, yes, your "millasecond" comment is related to your study of Cygnus X-1.
Why?
Because the implication of your statement is that Scott has no model for "the period, period stability or pulse profiles", but that "modern" astronomy does have a model as articulated in so-called "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis.
The course of study you earned your Ph.D. upon (Cygnus X-1 is even part of your web address for your original critque -- a dead give away).
The implication is false for a couple of reasons. First, Scott did provide principles that constrain his ideas as expressed in Peratt's and Healy's work which he provided by a link, and he noted that "electrical oscillation" provided a better model than revolving "lighthouses" considering the "standard model" requires that some of these "lighthouses" spin as fast as 60,000 m.ph.
Scott's electrical oscillation idea has more empirical confirmation than anything in the "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis.
Bridgman, your characterization that he didn't provide models relies on the readers, here, not taking the time to look at Scott's response, a disingenous ploy on your part.
Second, your implication rests on the idea that the "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis is actually a detailed model.
Your contention being that Scott's ideas aren't as fleshed-out as the so-called "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis.
But the problem is they aren't detailed nor are they quantified as you would have readers believe.
Rather, we had broad outlines based on a priori, abstract mathematical equations derived from an all-encompassing theory's "field equations", then we had "back-fill", ad hoc additions once objects were observed & measured, where the equations were rejiggered to match the observations and duplicitous claims were made that the equations had predicted the observations & measurements all along when such was not the case, and after rejiggering the equations, one still finds different estimates because you can't quantify "infinity" in the case of "black holes" and the extreme densities (100 million tons per cubic centimeter) of "neutron" stars are also a crap shoot.
Reviewing the history of the development of "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis is an exercise in seeing George Orwell's 1984 "memory hole" in deep-throated sucking action.
You count on the lack of historical knowledge of your readers.
Bridgman states: "At least with a mathematical model, it is available to others to critique and test."
Horse feathers! You can confirm the equations are internally consistent, but that does nothing to confirm they are consistent with reality. Mathematical equations divorced from reality are purely abstract assumptions, and as I stated in a prior comment, if the assumptions are based on inaccurate, or non-existent hypothetical observations & measurements, then the mathematical model is worse than no model because it misleads the scientist to believe something has been rigorously quantified when, in fact, it hasn't.
Certainly, there is no superiority of the "black hole" and "neutron" star hypothesis when one makes close inspection. The reality is that there is a veneer or patina of objective rigorous quantification, but when that veneer is stripped away, it is rotten and full of worms underneath.
Bridgman states: "I still haven't seen anything but whiny excuses about my Electric Sun analysis of November-December 2008."
Yes, quantification is a weakness of the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis, that's why Scott labels it as a hypothesis. At least he is forthright in his acknowledgment, which is more than can be said about advocates of the gravity "only" model like you.
Bridgman states: "Synchrotron radiation can be produced by individual charged particles in a magnetic field." Aka 'electric currents'.
Bridgman states: "What happens when you have more than one particle and they are traveling in different directions and/or velocities? Are you saying they cannot radiate synchrotron radiation?"
Apparently, as per your admission, science doesn't know (no laboratory experiments to confirm or deny the hypothesis).
Bridman: "I know of no published thermal synchrotron experiment in the open literature..."
Possible conspiracy theories don't count.
Bridgman states: "Are you saying gases excited by an electric current can emit spectral lines but gas heated to high temperatures cannot?"
I don't know, you tell me, you're the scientist here, I'm only the scientific observer.
But don't try and slip by on a naked fiat, please provide reports from laboratory experiments for your contention.
What I am saying, here, is that magnetic fields are caused by electric current, not by frictional thermal heating.
At best, Bridgman, you are saying it's possible, but science doesn't operate on that basis. You're hanging naked out there with not so much as a fig leaf for cover.
Bridgman states: "Which particle-based radiation emission mechanisms are you claiming can't operate when the particles are moving in random (and not necessarily Maxwellian) distributions?"
You miss the central point (or should I say, you attempt to obscure the central point): Magnetic fields can't be generated without electric currents.
Synchrotron radiation and magnetic fields observed & measured together, in tandem, are direct evidence of electric currents.
I have only just found your blog, Tom, and I am in hysterics. I must commend you on your patience in the face of some abject stupidity (sorry, my patience ran out long ago.)
You have someone with the audacity of thinking they can debate with you, yet think that your mention of a millisecond binary is an oblique reference to Cygnus X1??? Do they not understand the concept of "so out of one's depth it is embarrassing"?
And there really is nothing more satisfying than demonstrating to an electrical engineer just how little they know of e/m theory ;) Please keep up the good work, and I'll be sure to drop by regularly. It's a lot more entertaining than reading the latest PRD or NPB.
Post a Comment