Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical

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
 
U

Uncle Al

Jan 1, 1970
0
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: [email protected] or
[email protected]

Idiot.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Uncle said:


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
 
P

Prai Jei

Jan 1, 1970
0
Uncle Al (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

[snip a spurious list of chapter titles]

A book with this title would not have any chapters. There would be nothing
after the title.
 
M

MathFreak NoMore

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

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
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
MathFreak said:
What did you do in the military service? I hope not
cleaning the grease traps, 18 hours a day.


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
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

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
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
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


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
 
A

Autymn D. C.

Jan 1, 1970
0
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
 
A

Autymn D. C.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Prai said:
Uncle Al (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

[snip a spurious list of chapter titles]

A book with this title would not have any chapters. There would be nothing
after the title.

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
 
L

Lloyd Parker

Jan 1, 1970
0
Prai said:
Uncle Al (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

[snip a spurious list of chapter titles]

A book with this title would not have any chapters. There would be nothing
after the title.

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.

OK, you're an idiot. What else?

z.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,

What?

and as such they cannot
"carry" work or momentum but /are/ their shift in those.

Trying for idiot^2?
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

Tell your doctor to increase your medication.
 
A

Autymn D. C.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Lloyd said:
OK, you're an idiot. What else?

idiot = lonester
Learn to get a point.
z.I also correctd their description of

which?


Trying for idiot^2?

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.
Tell your doctor to increase your medication.

for what, exactly? If you can't answer any of these, I owe you your
head smashed in.

-Aut
 
Top