Connect with us

Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by [email protected], Oct 25, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

    See the original text.

    12 Classical justification of the wave-like
    Ed 01.12.31 ----------------------------------------
    behavior of electron beams
    --------------------------
    Abstract
    --------
    Relying on this fact that not only role of the medium (intermediate
    gas)
    cannot be ignored in the electric discharge between cathode and anode,
    but
    also it is very important, the diffraction and interference phenomena
    which
    an electron beam can reveal are justified. This act is done after
    analyzing
    the manner in which stroke propagates via the gas valence electrons. In
    this
    respect an experiment is proposed as a test. We conclude that the
    cathodic
    ray does not carry charge, ie is not a ray of electrons being shot but
    is
    a longitudinal wave arising from the vibration of the valence electrons
    of
    the molecules of the carrying-wave medium. In this way the mechanism of
    production of and the difference between the longitudinal and
    transverse
    waves and that our longitudinal wave is only due to compression
    (not expansion) impacts are explained.

    Our ability for complete deflecting and making away the electron beam
    (behind the anode), existence of sharp shadow of anode in the electric
    discharge tube, existence of dark-bright striated columns in this tube
    (similar to Kundt tube in acoustics), and the action mechanism of image
    intensifying in the image intensifier tubes are all described as
    witnesses
    to confirm the wave-like motion for electron beam proposed in this
    article
    and reject the shooting motion for it.

    Deflection of the trajectory of electron beams in electric and magnetic
    fields is justified in wave-like motion of "going" and "backing" for
    evaluation of which an experiment has been proposed. It is shown that
    how
    for transferring of momentum there is no necessity to suppose shooting
    motion for electron in the cathodic ray.

    Two separate parallel cathodic rays repel each other. This will be
    contrary
    to what the electromagnetism predicts if a cathodic ray is to carry
    charge.
    This phenomenon is justified by the model presented here.

    I. Introduction
    ---------------
    Transferring of charge in an electron beam suggests a shooting motion
    for
    the electron in the beam, while the wave-like behavior of the electron
    beam,
    like showing interference and diffraction, suggests existence of a kind
    of
    vibratory and wave-like motion in the beam. What is at present under
    consideration in the world of physics for inclusion of both of these
    kinds
    of motion is considering the de Broglie wave for an electron which has
    a
    shooting motion, although details of such an action mechanism has not
    been
    known yet.

    This article intends to justify important various observed phenomena in

    an electron beam using only the classical physics. Details of such a
    justification must be known or determined with a quite clarity in order
    that
    it can be free from the shortcoming of the above mentioned mechanism.

    II. Fact suggesting wavy motion for cathodic ray
    ------------------------------------------------
    Imagine a pile of molecules of a crystalline lattice as in Fig. 1.
    Suppose that an impact is exerted on the face xy of this pile in the
    positive direction of the z-axis. Suppose that due to this impact the
    whole pile is displaced to the extent a in the positive direction of
    the
    z-axis during the time t. The question is that whether or not any other

    event happens inside the pile when bearing the impact and being
    displaced
    to the extent a.
    y,_
    |\,
    /'\,`'\ /'```~\ /'```'\
    ( `\,``'\ /'```'\ /'```'\
    \_ ( `\'```'\ /'```'\ /'```'\
    /'``\_ ( `*---)(-------)(-------)---> z
    ( /'``\_ | _/``\_ _/``\_ _/
    \_ ( /'`|`'\ /'```'\ /'```'\
    /'``\_ ( | )( )( )
    ( /'``\_ | _/``\_ _/``\_ _/
    \_ ( /'`|`'\ /'```'\ /'```'\
    ``\_ ( | )( )( )
    ``\_ | _/``\_ _/``\_ _/
    `|` ``` ```
    x V
    Fig. 1. A pile of molecules of a crystalline lattice

    Certainly if the molecules or the units shown in the lattice are
    connected
    to each other quite rigidly, the whole pile will act as a single unit
    and
    without any disturbance inside itself will be displaced to the extent a

    after the time t. But when this ideal state (of rigidity) does not
    exist,
    although the whole pile will be displaced to the extent a after the
    time t,
    exerted impact will cause propagation of impulse waves inside the pile
    just
    at the moment of exertion of the impact on the surface xy. In other
    words
    when the force is exerted on a molecule or on some molecules of the
    surface
    xy it causes partial displacement of the molecular surfaces of the
    lattice
    (parallel with the surface xy) relative to each other considering lack
    of
    relative connection between these surfaces. Naturally these relative
    displacements are propagated along the z-axis as impulse or sound wave,

    and this is the case while the whole pile is being displaced to the
    extent a along the z-axis in the time t. In other words the pile that
    after the time t reaches the position z=a won't be the same first calm
    pile, but due to the impact there is some agitation of the impulse and
    sound waves inside it. Average speed of the pile is a/t while it is
    obvious that this is not the speed of the above-mentioned impulse or
    sound waves (and it is so more).

    Similarly consider the closed container of Fig. 2 which contains a
    perfect
    gas which is maintained in constant pressure and temperature. This
    container
    has two similar canals blocked by two similar pistons.

    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
    _________| |
    __|^^^^| |
    ""|____| |
    ^^^^^^1^^|2 |
    a | |
    | |
    | 2' |
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^|:---:|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    |: :|1'
    |:---:|
    | b
    |
    Fig. 2. Displacement in a is transferred to b although its
    sound is not heard in b directly.

    Suppose that an impact is exerted on the piston a such that the piston
    reaches from the position 1 to the position 2 after the time t. It is
    clear
    that considering that the temperature and pressure of gas are
    maintained
    constant the piston b will be displaced from the position 2' to the
    position 1' during this same time interval, t. But does only this
    happening
    occur? Obviously not. In fact the impact exerted from a onto the volume

    of gas causes propagation of sound longitudinal waves (which are due to
    the local alteration of the gas pressure) throughout the whole volume.
    It is clear that these waves are propagated in the volume of gas in a
    straight line along the direction of the canal containing the piston a
    and even it's possible that a part of them will pass across the wall of

    the container on which the waves strike and then the sound will be
    heard
    outside the container and another part of them will be reflected back
    to the
    volume of the gas, although the displacement of gas is not straight but
    is
    downwards towards the canal containing the piston b. (of course, by
    straight
    line we mean that the front of wave is propagated from the opening 2 in
    a
    straight line just like the straight-line propagation of light waves.)

    Now see Fig. 3. Suppose that the point masses are connected to each
    other
    by similar springs.

    *-||||-*-||||-*-||||-*

    Fig. 3. Similar point masses connected to each other
    by similar springs.

    For these masses and springs we consider two states: first when the
    masses
    are such close to each other that the springs are compressed, and
    second
    when the masses are such away from each other that the springs are
    stretched.
    It is clear that in the first state that the compression of the springs
    causes a kind of repulsion of the masses from each other only
    longitudinal
    wave can be propagated in the string, while in the second state that
    the
    stretch of the springs causes a kind of attraction between the masses
    only
    lateral wave can be propagated in the string.

    Now consider some point masses which there exists a repulsive force
    between
    them and an state similar to the above-mentioned first state governs
    them.
    (This repulsive force does not of course cause these masses to become
    away
    from each other because the supposition is that they have been
    positioned
    chiefly in their centers (eg by stationary positive centers)).
    Observing
    Fig. 4 consider a group of these masses designated by the surface a.

    a
    * * * * * *
    a) * * * * * *
    * * * * * *

    a a'b
    * * * * * *
    b) * * * * * *
    * * * * * *

    a a'b b'c
    * * * * * *
    c) * * * * * *
    * * * * * *

    a a'b b'c c'd
    * * * * * *
    d) * * * * * *
    * * * * * *

    Fig. 4. Mechanism of propagation of a longitudinal wave

    a" a
    * * * * * *
    * * * * * *
    * * * * * *

    Fig. 5. An expansion can not be propagated as a longitudinal
    wave

    Suppose that due to an impact this group nears the next group (b) (Fig.
    4(b)).
    In this state we have a concentration in the region a'b and an
    expansion in
    the region a. The concentration of the region a'b will open out towards
    the
    two sides: on the one hand will cause cancellation of the expansion in
    the region a and on the other hand will create a concentration in the
    region
    b'c (Fig. 4(c)), and in return an expansion will be created in the
    region
    a'b. Similarly the concentration b'c will open out and not only will
    cancel
    the expansion a'b but also will create a concentration in the region
    c'd,
    and also an expansion will be created in the region b'c (Fig. 4(d)). In
    this
    manner the longitudinal wave will be propagated. Attention to this
    point
    is emphasized that as it is seen due to the impact producing this wave
    each particle does firstly the motion of going in the direction of the
    wave and then will return to its initial position, and in the state of
    going creates concentration and in the state of backing only cancels
    expansion (created at first deliberately by the impact).

    Attention to another point is necessary. As we said the group a is
    positioned forcedly beside b (in the position a') during a short time
    by
    an intentional impact (that even may be mechanical) and initiates
    propagation of the wave in the above-mentioned manner. Now the question

    is that if instead of positioning of the group a in the position a'
    this
    group is positioned in a" (at the left of a) in the same forced manner
    mentioned above (Fig. 5), or in other words if instead of having the
    forced concentration of Fig. 4(b) we create the forced expansion of
    Fig. 5,
    whether or not we shall have the propagation of a wave in the same
    above-mentioned manner. The answer is negative because as we said the
    force
    between the particles is in fact repulsive and just this repulsion
    causes
    the concentration a'b in Fig. 4(b) opens out towards the two sides
    canceling
    the expansion created by the impact and causing a new concentration,
    but
    in Fig. 5 there is no concentrated force to cancel the expansion but
    the
    expansion a must wait until the repulsive uniform distribution of the
    whole particles causes the cancellation of it; thus, we can say in
    simple
    words that what can be propagated wavily is cocentration (which is
    of course accompanied by expansion) not expansion. And just these
    concentrations, propagated as wave, can cause exertion of (driving)
    impact or, in other words. of pressure on any obstacle existent in the
    way somewhere farther in the path of the wave. In other words we can
    say
    that the impact has been transferred by the longitudinal wave and will
    be
    exerted on the obstacle, while extension (related to expansion) cannot
    be transferred by a longitudinal wave and be exerted on the obstacle
    (but
    this occurs by lateral wave (related to attraction between the
    particles).
    Namely we can say that extension is transferred and exerted on obstacle
    by lateral wave).

    What is the use of the above discussions? To conclude that the cathodic
    ray
    does not carry electric charge but it is only a beam of a longitudinal
    wave
    being propagated in a medium of valence electrons of the molecules of
    the
    gas of the discharge tube. Consider the circuit of Fig. 6.

    \ ----------------------------->~\
    `>-------------->------------(-------------------,._
    ____/'----------------------------->_/ `-,
    | cathode anode| `,
    | | `,
    | - |+ | `
    |-----------|...|-------------------| )
    | V
    )
    /\, ,
    / `\, ,'
    / `\, ,'
    ._ `\, ,'
    ( `''-<.._ `---- ,-'
    ( ``' ------<---------------------'`
    ( ,----
    ` ,/'
    \ ,/'
    \ ,/'
    \/'
    Fig. 6. Production, deflection and separation of a cathodic ray.

    Exerting proper electric and magnetic fields the cathodic ray can be
    made
    so away from the circuit as to make the supposition of backing of the
    electrons (that their shooting motion is to make the cathodic ray) to
    the circuit quite irrational. A simple calculation can show that if we
    suppose that the cathodic ray carries negative electric charge, since
    negative charge is being sent out of the whole closed circuit of Fig. 6
    and then successively negative charge enters onto the monitor screen
    shown in the figure, after a short time we must expect to have such a
    huge
    amount of positive electrostatic charge in the circuit and the same
    amount of negative charge on the monitor screen as appearance of action

    between these two huge charges to be quite noticeable, while this is
    not
    the case in practice.

    (Don't exemplify by saying that but TV screen is
    charged by the cathodic ray, while it is positively charged when the
    TV is turned on and will become, in some cases, suddenly negatively
    charged when it is turned off, or while in principle with antistatic
    screens we can have no charged screens.) But if the cathodic ray is
    to be only trajectory of a wave, not a mechanism for charge
    transferring,
    the above problem won't exist.

    We can also observe the shadow of the anode, produced by the marginal
    rays,
    on the glass wall behind the anode in a proper electric discharge tube.
    Certainly this will be an important question that how we can justify
    the
    formation of this shadow if we already believe in shooting motion for
    the
    electrons in the cathodic ray. But if we believe in the wave-like
    motion of
    electrons, proposed in this article, not only the formation of the
    shadow
    is justifiable easily, but also the formation of the dark-bright
    striated
    columns in the electric discharge tubes can be justified. It is
    sufficient
    to conceive that the wave-like motion of the cathodic ray, between the
    anode
    and cathode, can be reflected on itself after striking the anode, and
    produce
    the interference and many nodal and bulgy points which are the same
    dark
    and bright strips in the dark-bright striated columns. The situation is
    similar to the Kundt tube in acoustics.

    Another case confirming the wave-like motion of electrons as proposed
    in
    this article and refuting the shooting motion of electrons is the
    happening
    taking place in image intensifier tubes and other similar electronic
    devices
    (eg electron microscope). In these tubes, as shown in Fig. 7, different

    electron-trajectories intersect at a small aperture leading to the
    formation of an inverted intensified image.

    |--------------------|==============|
    / | ,/'|
    ,'' -,_ --| ,/' |
    ' '-,_ ,/' _,-|
    '___ '-,_ ,/' _,-' |
    | ```'' --....__ '-,_ /',-' ___....-|
    a ( ``__'._*'_'_` | b
    | ___,,,-- ''~```_,-'` \,`-,`````'''-|
    ,''' _,-' `\, ` -,_ |
    , _,-' `\, '-|
    `,_,-' --| `\, |
    \ | `\,|
    |--------------------|==============|
    | |
    | | |
    |___________|..........|____________|
    | |
    |
    Fig. 7. Image focused on the photocathode "a" will be seen
    intensified
    and inverted on the phosphore screen "b" after emission of
    electrons.

    Certainly if the motion of electrons was in the shooting form, these
    electrons would collide with each other leading to their scattering and

    disorder in motion, and consequently the image would not be
    intensified,
    while this is not the case. But with believing the proposed wave-like
    motion
    of electrons, this aperture could not create any problem, just as we
    know
    that different rays of a physical wave can collide with and pass
    through
    each other.

    III. Electron beam is a longitudinal wave beam propagated in a
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    medium of molecules
    -------------------
    We know that the electric discharge between cathode and anode will not
    occur in a "perfect vacuum" whatever too much the electric potential
    difference be given between the cathode and the anode (of course
    provided that the cathode and anode don't act like a capacitor and so
    don't produce any intensive electrostatic field between themselves
    which could probably release some electrons from the cathode toward
    the anode in consequence of the field emission phenomenon). It is
    obvious that the minimum potential difference necessary for starting
    the
    elrctric discharge between cathode and anode, which we call it as
    starting
    potential, depends on the pressure of the gas in which the discharge
    occurs.
    What the experimental workes show is that with decreasing the pressure
    from a
    high pressure, this starting potential decreases up to a minimum
    potential
    near the zero pressure after which the starting potential will be
    increased
    approaching infinity with more and more decreasing of the pressure
    approaching the perfect vacuum (see Introduction to Atomic Physics by
    Enge,
    Wehr and Richards, Addison-Wesley, 1972). This fact states that we must

    consider a chief role for the medium (ie the particles) between the two

    electrodes. So we can say that a low pressure gas is an insulator which
    will
    become a conductor under a minimum potential difference (starting
    potential).

    Here it is proper to see why a gas between the cathode and anode can
    become
    a conductor under a minimum potential difference. After exerting the
    potential difference between the two electrodes, these electrodes,
    depending
    on their configuration, will play role of a capacitor and consequently
    will
    be loaded with some electric charge with even very very small amount,
    which
    in turn will make an electrostatic field between the two electrodes
    with even
    very weak intensity. This field polarizes the gas molecules existing in
    the
    field, and this polarization will be the biggest aid in making the gas
    conductor. I think an experiment can evaluate the validity of this
    aspect.
    This experiment is exerting an external electrostatic field through the
    gas
    and comparing the starting potential in this state to the starting
    potential
    in the absence of any external electrostatic field. I think if the
    polarization caused by this external field be such that the negative
    poles
    of the polarized molecules orient toward the anode, the starting
    potential
    will be decreased; and in the case of the negative poles being toward
    the
    cathode, the starting potential will be increased.

    Thus, considering the above material the space through which the
    cathodic
    ray is propagated can be considered as a medium of gas valence
    electrons
    having weak connection to their nuclei. A compressive impact is exerted
    into this medium of electronic particles that similar to the story
    (about
    the piston and its impact) told in the previous section (II) while this
    impact can be due to a mechanism of electric discharge probably
    occurred
    somewhere else via the anode (not even in the direction of impact (or
    the
    path of the cathodic ray)) causes propagation of waves (similar to the
    same
    stated sound and impulse waves) radiated in a straight line
    perpendicular
    to the surface of the cathode (which don't pass the anode necessarily
    because don't carry charge and are only wave-carrying motion of going
    and
    backing). Certainly it will be said that but an electroscope on the way
    of
    the cathodic ray gathers negative charge (it will be charged
    negatively).
    Answer is that gathering of negative charges in the electroscope is not

    because of any negative charge carried by the cathodic ray, but it is
    because the radiation of the cathodic ray into the Faraday cylinder
    connected to the electroscope prepares the ground for this cylinder,
    which
    makes up a part of the body of the tube containig the cathodic ray (and
    is
    the target of this ray), to play the role of another exit canal in
    addition
    to the main exit canal, ie the anode, for the electrons causing to flow
    electric current in the discharge tube; pay attention to the modeling
    presented in Fig. 2 and imagine that in addition to the exit canal b
    there
    exists another exit canal somewhere else on the wall. And then in
    addition
    to the main current of electrons flowing toward the anode, causing an
    electric current in the circuit, a part of the electron current flows
    toward the electroscope (as if there is an electron pressure on the
    whole
    tube wall during all the time of discharging (similar to air pressure
    exerted on the inner surface of a balloon filled with air) such that
    this
    pressure causes the electroscope to be charged); and of course this
    means
    that a net positive charge, equivalent to the negative charge gathered
    in
    the electroscope, is transferred to the circuit which considering its
    small
    amount such a transferring seems rational and natural (compare with the

    huge charge the cathodic ray, really carrying charge, is to gather on
    the
    target during a short time).

    We can see the validity of this reasoning more clearly in practice:
    Before turning on the electric discharge tube (and radiating the
    cathodic
    ray) transfer net positive charge to an electroscope which its Faraday
    cylinder, while making up a part of the body of the tube, is not in the
    straight direction of the cathodic ray. You will see that as soon as
    turning on the apparatus and before you turn the cathodic ray toward
    the
    Faraday cylinder or even before complete formation of this ray the
    positive
    charge of the electroscope begins to be discharged; and this proves
    transfer of electrons to the electroscope in the same above-mentioned
    manner. Even sometimes without previous charging of the electroscope
    (positively) the electroscope collects gradually negative charge while
    the cathodic ray has not been directed toward the Faraday cylinder
    (particularly when the metal part of the electroscope is connected to
    the
    positive pole of the source of supply and the electroscope plays more
    or
    less the role of a capacitor).

    But the reason why radiating the cathodic ray into the Faraday cylinder
    can prepare the ground for the electroscope to be charged via the space
    of
    the tube is a researchable problem. Whether this is because of the
    merely
    electric stimulation caused by the vibrating charges carrying wave
    (making
    up the cathodic ray) striking on the surface of the Faraday cylinder
    that
    similar to a needle piercing the membrane of a balloon filled with air
    create an escape canal for the pressing electrons of the whole space of
    the tube till the electroscope is charged or whether this is because
    the
    going and backing electrons carrying wave in the medium, which are
    striking
    on the surface of the Faraday cylinder, as any other longitudinal
    waves,
    as mentioned before, exert pressure on any obstacle on their way and
    then
    exert pressure on the electrons of the Faraday cylinder and lead them
    temporarily to the leaves of the electroscope making an electric dipole

    from the electroscope such that its positive pole is the Faraday
    cylinder
    thereafter this positive cylinder takes (negative) electrons from the
    tube space and altogether gets a net negative charge. That which of
    these
    two cases occurs is a problem that experiments should establish (the
    experiments, among numerous other ones, that in aspiration to perform
    them I am compelled to keep remaining as always hopelessly and
    helplessly).
    I think the first case can be verified when the canal ray produced in
    the
    tube is directed into a Faraday cylinder connected to an electroscope
    to
    be observed whether the electroscope collects negative (not positive)
    charge or not. If so we should conclude that this time the
    above-mentioned
    electric stimulation has been occurred by the canal ray not the
    cathodic
    one. Or in principle we can try to focus another external ray (eg an
    electromagnetic ray or another cathodic ray) on the Faraday cylinder
    existent in the tube (by its passing across the tube wall) and see
    whether
    or not the above-mentioned stimulation occurs and whether or not the
    electroscope collects negative charge.

    Thus, we accept that as we said this is the compressive (or
    concentration)
    impact that in the form of the cathodic ray or the same longitudinal
    wave
    motion in the valence electrons of the gas of the tube space is
    propagated.
    Certainly if the cathode has hole this compressive impact will be an
    extension (or expansion) impact for the medium existent on the other
    side
    of the cathode ie on the path passing through the cathode hole in the
    direction opposite to the direction of the cathodic ray (note the
    explanation about this impact presented in the previous section) which,
    as we said, is not capable of propagation in the form of wave and then
    we
    don't have the cathodic ray on this side. But as soon as the valence
    electrons separate from the gas molecules adjacent to the cathode to
    transfer negative charge (or electron) to the anode, in a similar
    manner
    transitory produced positive ions are accelerated toward the cathode to
    transfer charge (that finally after colliding with the cathode cause
    separation of mass from the cathode). The positive ions, accelerated in
    this manner toward the cathode, exert a compressive impact on the gas
    molecules (or in fact on the positive parts (or positive ion parts not
    the valence electron parts) of the gas molecules) behind the anode via
    the
    above-mentioned hole of the cathode, that causes creation of a
    longitudinal
    wave motion of going and backing through the positive ion parts of the
    molecules (existent on that side of the cathode which is opposite to
    the
    anode) which is the same positive (or canal) ray. This compressive
    impact
    is an extension impact for the positive ions of the gas molecules
    existent on the other side of the cathode, ie that side which is nearer
    to the anode, which is not capable of propagation as wave; and then we
    don't have positive or canal ray in this side. It is evident that
    neither
    the positive ions can cause creation of a longitudinal wave of going
    and backing motion in the valence electrons nor the electrons can
    create
    such a wave in the positive ions because their influence on each other,
    as we said in the previous section (the discussion related to the
    springs),
    since is not repulsive is not capable of propagation in the form of
    wave.

    If we set a thin screen of a proper metal (eg gold) as a window on the
    body of the tube containing the cathodic ray such that this ray strikes

    on this window then we can observe the existence of the cathodic ray
    outside the discharge tube in air (Lenard ray). Exit of the cathodic
    ray
    into air can not be justified with this supposition that the cathodic
    ray carries (negative) charge because considering irrationality of the
    supposition of return of the electrons back to the tube this means that

    the electric circuit of the tube is losing electrons (or negative
    charge)
    rapidly and we should expect it to obtain a huge positive charge soon
    while this is not the case. But with the supposition of the
    longitudinal
    wave motion of going and backing, explained in this article, we should
    say
    that this ray has been in fact produced due to the impulsive pressure
    of
    the longitudinal wave motion of going and backing of the cathodic ray
    striking on the tube conductive window containing valence electrons and
    eventually its transferring toward the valence electrons of the
    molecules
    of air outside the tube via this window, just like the sound and
    impulse
    waves that as we saw in the previous section can pass across the wall
    of a closed container of gas (note the explanation related to Fig. 2).

    IV. How an electron beam can be deflected in external fields
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    But the fundamental difficulty which may show itself in the first view
    for
    this model of wave-like motion of electrons is this question that how
    such
    a wave-like motion can be deflected in electric and magnetic fields
    just
    as if the electrons are moving on an straight line with a definite
    velocity.
    Now we answer this question. Consider a wave motion with a perfect
    motion of
    "going" and "backing". Suppose that we have a group of these electrons
    which
    have the same direction in each motion. Pay attention to Fig. 8.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    a
    b
    | /
    |````'''--,>/ c
    | / ``'-,_ /
    |'--._ / '>/'
    | `'>/-,_ /' '\,
    |,._ / `~.>/' `\ _ d
    | '>/-_ /''-,_ V-'
    | / '->/' V ,-''
    | / /' ~\_ ,-'`
    /' ,-V`
    -'`

    Field

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fig. 8. Deflection of a wave-like motion.

    Suppose that this group is deflected downward in the presence of a
    fixed
    uniform field, ie reaches the surface "b" from the surface "a". So an
    expansion will be generated in "a" and a concentration will be
    generated in
    "b". Now in the next stage a half of the concentration "b", in return,
    cancels the expansion "a" chiefly and the other half of this
    concentration
    causes the generation of a new concentration in "c", of course again
    the
    deflection will become more during this process. Now in position "b"
    there
    is an expansion and in position "c" there is a concentration. The above

    procedure will be repeated successively and the presence of the field
    causes
    more and more deflection. An accurate mathematical discussion (probably
    with
    using the camputer) should show that the deflection curve that is drawn
    in
    this manner is like the deflection curve of these electrons if they
    would move with an initial uniform certain speed in this field without
    any
    wave-like moving. So, any field-deflection can be explained well. For
    example
    in this manner we explain this fact that the ray path in a uniform
    magnetic
    field is a circle. For this explanation we pay attention that the limit
    of
    infinitesimal deflected paths is a circle when these partial paths are
    set
    consecutively. For example suppose that each of these partial paths is
    of
    the form 1 or 2 or 3 in Fig. 9(a). In this case by setting these
    partial
    paths successively along each other we obtain Fig. 9(b) (approaching a
    circle).

    --------, *--> _.,>
    (a) | /` /
    V '
    1 2 3


    ,---->---------, *-->------* _.,>-'^'->,._
    | | /` `V / V
    | V A' `\ A \
    (b) | | ==> < > ==> < >
    A | \ ,V \ V
    | | `A ,/ A /
    `---------<----' `*------<--* `',-<,_,.-<'`

    Fig. 9. Successive infinitesimal deflected paths approaching a
    circle.

    For evaluating the validity of the above model (presented by Fig. 8), I
    think
    preparations for a proposed experiment are not difficult very much. On
    an
    extensive flat surface, uniformly fix vertically a great number of some
    identical springs. On the free end of each spring fix a charged ball.
    All of
    the balls should be similar. Now study on the waves propagated through
    these
    balls should be possible, especially when a strong magnetostatic field
    is
    exerted normal to the surface.

    V. Transfer of momentum
    -----------------------
    Now we proceed to a some different discussion which is about the
    momentum
    transferred to the obstacle by electron beam. We first investigate the

    momentum transferred to the obstacle by the electromagnetic waves. What
    is
    certain is that some energy has descended on that face of the obstacle
    which
    is rushed by the electromagnetic wave. One of the most natural and
    easiest
    ways for conseving this energy (by its transformation) is that a part
    of
    this energy appears in the form of kinetic energy of the obstacle and a

    probably greater part of it appears in the form of thermal energy of
    the
    obstacle or the particles around the face being rushed. Since the
    kinetic
    energy of the obstacle necessitates its motion, the most evident
    thought that
    seems is that the direction of motion of the obstacle will be the same
    direction of the propagation of the incident wave. This is the "general

    feature" of the event that happens. For discovering the details of this
    event
    necessary investigations and researches should be done. The most usual
    result
    which is accepted at present is that the momentum transferred to the
    obstacle
    is in fact generated by a secondary phenomenon, ie a definite part of
    the
    wave energy is spent for warming the particles adjacent to the face
    being
    rushed (which of course this matter can be true because of the heat
    transfer
    from the surface of this face to the surroundings and of course this
    heat of
    the surface is arising from the same part of the wave energy which is
    changed
    to heat). We can imagine that the particles which have been heated in
    the
    above manner are like some particles with some definite kinetic energy
    (which is the same for each particle) that are moving toward the
    surface.
    When these particles hit the surface, if the surface is not reflector,
    the
    collision will be inelastic chiefly and almost the whole momentum of
    these
    particles will be transferred to the surface (or in fact to the
    obstacle)
    and their energy will be changed to the kinetic energy of the surface
    (ie of
    the obstacle) beside the thermal energy generated in the surface. If
    the
    surface is reflector, the collision will be elastic chiefly and the
    momentum of the surface after the collision will be almost two times
    greater
    than the momentum of the particles before the collision and the energy
    of
    the particles will be changed and conserved in the form of the kinetic
    energy of the surface and the kinetic energy of the recoiled particles
    (which is the same heat of them). (As we see there is not any necessity
    to
    the supposition of existence os some particles named as photon in the
    phenomenon in question.)

    Now we return to the cathodic ray. It is quite rational that we accept
    that
    this ray just like the electromagnetic wave causes the generation of
    momentum
    in the obstacle in the manner explained above. Besides, since we
    attribute
    a longitudinal wave motion to the electron, we can say that one of the
    (probably better) ways in which the above mentioned "general feature"
    can
    occur (ie the incident energy be conserved in the form of the kinetic
    energy of the obstacle and the heat) is that the strokes which the
    longitudinal vibrations of the electrons exert on the obstacle give
    some
    momentum to the obstacle.

    Thus we see here also that there is not any necessity to the
    supposition of
    existence of shooting motion of electron for justifying the transition
    of
    momentum to the obstacle.

    VI. Why two separate cathodic rays repel each other
    ---------------------------------------------------
    We should point to another phenomenon regarding cathodic ray. Consider
    two
    separate but adjacent electrodes capable of being used as cathode
    separately
    or jointly. It is observed that when we apply these two electrodes as
    cathode simultaneously, and as a result there exist two cathodic rays
    radiated from these two electrodes, the distance between the paths of
    these two rays is more than the distance between the paths of these two

    rays when we apply each of these two electrodes as cathode in a
    separate
    time; ie it seems that the two cathodic rays repel each other when they

    exist simultaneously. And now an interesting question: If the cathodic
    ray is to be the current of electrons, how do these two parallel
    currents
    (having the same direction for current) repel each other while we know
    from the electromagnetic theory that they must attract each other (see
    the
    13th article of this book). Surely justifying this phenomenon by
    stating
    that the current-carrying electrons in a cathodic ray repel the
    current-carrying electrons in the other cathodic ray is quite
    irrational
    when this reasoning is not presented for other paths of electric
    currents
    (eg in two current-carrying wires) and while there is no reason for
    ineffectiveness of the produced magnetic field.

    But if we accept that as we said in this article the cathodic ray is,
    like
    an acoustic wave, only the path of propagation of a wave in the medium
    existent in the discharge tube, then we can say that in the above
    experiment,
    if the trajectories of the rays are anyhow straight, this is not the
    rays
    themselves that influence each other (and repel each other) but the
    mechanism of simultaneous production of the two rays has taken a
    divergent
    orientation. As extra explanation suppose that instead of one impact
    being exerted on the crystalline block of Fig. 1 (causing its total
    displacement and propagation of impulse or sound waves inside it, as
    explained) two adjacent, simultaneous and parallel impacts are exerted
    on it. Certainly the effect of these two impacts is two times more than

    a single impact, but this is not of importance for us. Important for us
    is the following supposition: Suppose that the two striking objects
    that
    will exert parallel and adjacent impacts on the block repel each other
    (strongly) during their preparatory acceleration for exertion of their
    impacts. Such repulsion causes the exerted impacts to be no longer
    parallel with each other but to be in divergent directions; naturally
    the paths of the impulse or sound waves propagated due to these two
    impacts won't be parallel to each other either but are divergent.

    Now let's return to the cathodic ray tube. The mechanism of electric
    discharge that anyhow causes the electric current to flow in the
    circuit
    by passing electron from the cathode to the anode is such that in the
    moment of passing the electron through the cathode towards the space
    between the cathode and anode (which eventually leads to the
    transferring
    of charge from the space to the anode) exerts an impact on the valence
    electrons of this space that results in the creation of the same
    cathodic
    ray. The expression "passing the electron" in the recent sentence
    rather
    means static pressure of negative electric charges (or electrons)
    exerting
    the impact producing the cathodic ray on the pile of the space of the
    tube.
    If this exertion of pressure is to be accomplished in two adjacent
    electrodes,
    since the negative charges (or the electrons exerting the two impacts)
    repel each other during the time of the exertion of pressure, we must
    expect, like in the above-mentioned model, the directions of the
    exertion
    of the impacts to be divergent relative to each other and in other
    words
    the cathodic rays to be divergent relative to each other. Note that we
    want to say in simple words that the situation is as if the electrons
    that are to cause creation of the cathodic ray and also to flow the
    electric
    current in the circuit are waiting stationarily (and statically) in the

    cathode till an exertion of a high voltage causes them in a striking
    manner to exert pressure on the medium of the tube (and to create the
    ray
    and also flow the current). It's obvious that during the
    above-mentioned
    wating time these electrons of one of the two electrodes also repel
    similar
    electrons of the other electrode. Therefore, when the above-mentioned
    high voltage is exerted, due to this repulsion exertion of pressure
    will have
    a divergent direction too and then the cathodic rays will become
    divergent.

    This additional explanation was necessary to emphasize that this
    is in fact the initial static state of the electrons of the two
    cathodes that causes divergence of the relevant cathodic rays not their

    dynamic state or in fact their motion or current from the cathode to
    the
    space of the tube, because if this was the case, existence of the
    currents
    (or the same dynamic state of the electrons), when being to be parallel

    to each other, would cause, according to the theory of
    electromagnetism,
    attraction of the charges of the two currents and naturally convergence
    (not divergence) of the produced cathodic rays not repulsion of them.

    Hamid V. Ansari

    The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

    0 Physics without Modern Physics
    1 Geomagnetic field reason
    2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
    3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
    4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
    5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
    6 Electrostatics mistakes; Capacitance independence from dielectric
    7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
    8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
    9 Actuality of the electric current
    10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
    11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor; E=h<nu> is wrong
    12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
    13 Electromagnetic theory without relativity
    14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
    15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
    16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
    17 A wave-based polishing theory
    18 What the electric conductor is
    19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
    A1 Solution to four-color problem
    A2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture

    My email addresses: hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or
    hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com
    To see all the articles send an email to one of my above-mentioned
    email addresses.

    http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html
     
  2. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al Guest

    Idiot.
     

  3. You wouldn't think he'd have the time to post this crap, what with
    his high paid job of cleaning the grease traps at fast food places 18
    hours a day.

    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  4. Prai Jei

    Prai Jei Guest

    Uncle Al (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
    A book with this title would not have any chapters. There would be nothing
    after the title.
     
  5. What did you do in the military service? I hope not
    cleaning the grease traps, 18 hours a day.



    --

    "ma'naviyyAt rA bAyad az hamAn rAhe mAddiyyAt hefz
    va ziyAd kard. vali nabAyad eshtebAh kard va
    tasavvor nemud ma'naviyyat ruye serfe manAfe'e
    mAddi va hesAbe sudo ziyAn ta'min mishavad, in
    now' ma'naviyyathA az now'e alfAz va horuf ast, bA
    bAdi mi'Ayad va bA bAdi miravad."

    - Mehdi Bazargan
     

  6. No, I was a broadcast engineer, keeping an AM radio, and a B&W TV
    station on the air seven days a week. I alternated with another
    engineer, but some days were 20 hours on duty, if nothing major went
    wrong. I averaged 170 hours every two weeks.

    It was the maintenance section that cleaned them in the mess halls.
    At least that was one job they couldn't mess up, too bad. :( Anyone who
    wouldn't follow orders got duty like that, or cleaning the base after
    the buffalo migrated through the base and left tons of fertilizer
    everywhere they roamed.


    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  7. Don Bowey

    Don Bowey Guest

    I'm curious...... When was that?

    In Ketchikan, Alaska Radio (Electronics repair of all types) ran a B&W cable
    TV system using a single Dage camera for both live and film, in 1954 and up.
    They "used" KATV call letters, but had to give them up when a broadcast
    station received their license for "KATV." Without any training they put me
    on as the cameraman for a live show ONCE. I told them I didn't want to do
    it, and after the show, they didn't want me to do it either. Just cause a
    guy can fix a TV doesn't mean he knows squat otherwise.

    Don
     

  8. I worked at the Ft. Greely Ak. stations from Aug. '73 to Aug. '74.
    The radio station was built in the late '40s, the TV station was added
    in the late '60s, and closed around 1975. I did everything except DJ at
    the radio station.


    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  9. Autymn D. C.

    Autymn D. C. Guest

    The cathode ray (DC) would not scatter because its interrepulsion is
    offset by the exterdepulsion (okay, obattraction) of the anhode. Any
    oscillation is likewise a mean of transient tidal forces that are
    offset by the [still] net separation of charges between the terminals
    resultant in a DC.

    A magnetic sustem of two wires has charges of both sign; their
    attraction with longwise current is due to the intermeshing of opposite
    charges (analog of Bernoulli effect). A cathode ray has only free
    elèctròns, whereas the positive frame is fixed, so the only free
    bodies can only corepel. The alike charges in the elèctromagnet still
    corepel (Lenz).

    -Aut
     
  10. Autymn D. C.

    Autymn D. C. Guest

    Wrong, read my dialòg with a doctor about Element 115 and Bob Lazar.
    I put a short list of their mistakes in teaching. In other messages I
    also proved that the elèctròn is not a point particul or wave, and
    that the fotòn is not a particul. I also correctd their description of
    the size of particuli, with that they hav inner and outter sizes to
    eliminare action-at-a-distance and virtual bosòns. I also correctd
    their claim that nuclear weak is a fundamental force/interaction and
    replaced it with the elèctrocoloral and coloroelèctric compounds. I
    also showd that liht is not a thing but a deed, and as such they cannot
    "carry" work or momentum but /are/ their shift in those. I also pointd
    out the misnomer in "spin" in that it involvs no displacement, and
    replaced it with the proper "whorl". "Physicist" is also not a
    word--it is "Fusicist". I also made ae a'fleeting mention of the
    dubiose conclusion of superluminal escape velocities (as opposed to
    imaginary) in a black hole because the negative sign of the
    relativistic transform did not distribut outside the root.

    -Aut
     
  11. Lloyd Parker

    Lloyd Parker Guest

    OK, you're an idiot. What else?

    z.I also correctd their description of
    Trying for idiot^2?
    Tell your doctor to increase your medication.
     
  12. Autymn D. C.

    Autymn D. C. Guest

    idiot = lonester
    Learn to get a point.
    The world needs idiots to keep the truthe from mòròns like you who
    can't wit but a few words and sentences coatten in your retard-snot.
    Don't strain your brain any longer, worthles chunk of shit.
    for what, exactly? If you can't answer any of these, I owe you your
    head smashed in.

    -Aut
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-