What is called a light quantum photon. Photon lifetime

8.1. Electromagnetic field energy

The state of the electromagnetic field in the resonator can be specified by listing the states of all field oscillators corresponding to the allowable radiation modes (8.1). The independence of the field oscillators from each other makes it possible to represent the state of the entire electromagnetic field as a product of the states of each of its modes. The total energy turns out to be equal to the sum of the energies in each of the modes (8.2). The energy of each mode can take on discrete values ​​that are separated from each other by a value equal to the energy of the Planck quantum (8.3). This property allows us to formally assign to each state of the field oscillator a set of particles, each of which has energy (8.3), the number of which is equal to the number of this state. Such particles are called photons.

Certain difficulties in the theory are caused by the fact that the energies of the lower states of field oscillators turn out to be different from zero. That. any mode from an infinite set, even in the absence of actually observed photons in it, has an energy equal to half the energy of a Planck quantum. The total energy of the vacuum, even in the absence of radiation in it, turns out to be infinitely large. In the case under consideration, the method often used in physics for redefining the energy of a system by shifting the initial level of its reading seems hardly acceptable. The origin of the non-zero energy value of the lower state has a deep physical meaning, since it follows from the commutation rule for the generalized coordinate and momentum operators. It is this property of operators that ultimately leads to a correct description of the effect of spontaneous radiation, which is not explained by "classical" quantum mechanics, and a number of other "subtle" effects observed in experiment. Following the introduced terminology, the lower states corresponding to the "half of photons" can be called dark photons or zero-oscillations of electromagnetic vacuum. At the same time, it should be noted that the result obtained in the form of an infinitely large energy of the electromagnetic vacuum, apparently, is physically meaningless and indicates the internal inconsistency and incompleteness of the quantum relativistic theory of radiation available today.

		Setting the state of the electromagnetic field in the resonator in the form of a set of field oscillators that do not interact with each other.
		The energy of the electromagnetic field as the sum of the energies of the field oscillators.
		The energy of a photon corresponding to a radiation mode with a wave vector k.

8.2. Electromagnetic field impulse

A photon, as an ultrarelativistic particle, in addition to energy, must also possess momentum, related to the energy by the standard relativistic relation (8.4). The expected expression for the momentum of a photon can indeed be obtained within the framework of the formalism of field oscillators accepted in quantum electrodynamics. The explicit form of the momentum operator (8.5) can be written in a natural way by analogy with the classical expression and, taking into account the previously obtained expressions for the vector potential and field operators (7.29 - 7.30), can be expressed in terms of the operators of generalized coordinates and momentum of field oscillators (8.6). The “correct” expression for the momentum of the electromagnetic field (8.7), expected from the non-quantum relativistic theory, directly follows from the last relation. In contrast to the considered contradictory situation with energy, in the case of an electromagnetic field momentum, due to the vector nature of the terms included in the sum, the total momentum of a space that does not contain electromagnetic radiation in a certain sense turns out to be equal to zero.

		The square of the four-vector energy-momentum for a photon and the expression for the momentum of a photon.
		Electromagnetic field momentum operator in a resonator.
		Electromagnetic field momentum operator in the form of expansion into oscillators.
		Impulse of the quantized electromagnetic field.

8.3. Polarization of radiation and "spin" of a photon

If in the framework of classical physics the concept of polarization of electromagnetic waves does not require special comments, then the elucidation of the meaning of this characteristic in the case of a corpuscular description seems to be very meaningful.

Even in the language of classical physics, a number of considerations can be given indicating a close relationship between the polarization of radiation and back photon, which in the case of a particle moving at the speed of light is usually called helicity. To elucidate the relationship between the polarization of radiation and the angular momentum transferred by it, it suffices to consider the process of interaction of the Thomson atom with radiation of circular polarization. With steady forced rotation of a quasi-elastic electron with the frequency of rotation of the electric field of the wave, the angle between the vectors of the electron velocity and the field strength remains constant. In this case, the rate of radiation energy transfer to the system turns out to be proportional to the rate of transfer of angular momentum to it (8.8). Substituting the Planck formula for the radiation energy into the obtained expression leads to the assumption that the z-projection of the angular momentum of a photon with circular polarization can have a value equal to Planck's constant. In this case, it seems logical to attribute to the photon its own angular momentum equal in magnitude to one of Planck's constants.

Other considerations also lead to a similar conclusion, based on the relation between the magnitude of the spin of the system and the transformation properties of the polarization states of the radiation during the rotation of the coordinate system. It is so obvious that when the coordinate system is rotated around the z axis, the direction of which coincides with the direction of propagation of a plane monochromatic wave, two possible states of its linear polarization are transformed through each other (8.9). In the case of states of circular polarization (8.10), the rotation of the coordinate system only leads to their multiplication by the phase factor (8.11), which exactly coincides with the similar factor that arises during rotations around the z axis of systems with unit spin. It is this property of the polarization states that makes it possible to assign an intrinsic angular momentum equal to unity to a photon of a plane monochromatic wave of circular polarization.

Assigning a unit spin to a photon is somewhat arbitrary, since spin is usually called the internal angular momentum of a particle in those frames of reference, relative to which the particle under consideration remains motionless. It is the absence of a reference frame in which the particle can be at rest that ultimately leads to the prohibition of the existence of photons in spherically symmetric states. It is for this reason that the state |S=1, M S =0> in the case of photons turn out to be unrealizable in nature.

		Rates of transfer of energy and angular momentum to the Thomson atom by electromagnetic radiation of circular polarization and the relationship between angular momentum and energy of classical electromagnetic radiation.
		Transformation of states of linear polarization during rotation of the coordinate system.
		Relationship between circular and linear polarization states
		Transformation of states of circular polarization of radiation during rotation of the coordinate system.

8.4. Total Momentum and Parity of a Photon

When solving problems of the interaction of radiation with an atom, it is more convenient to consider an electromagnetic field as a set of spherical waves, which are the solution of the d'Alembert equation, written in spherical coordinates (8.12). In a sense, this equation for the vector potential can be considered as an analog of the Schrödinger equation for the electron (2.4 - 2.5). Both equations have a similar structure and contain the square of the angular momentum operator. The difference is only in the absence of a term containing the Coulomb potential (photon is an electrically neutral particle) and in the vector nature of the desired solution. The latter requires some clarification: strictly speaking, the wave function of an electron in the classical Schrödinger equation is not a scalar, since it contains a spin part corresponding to two possible states of the proper angular momentum of the electron (spin 1/2). In this sense, the difference between the vector potential (“wave function”) for a photon and the “scalar” (and actually two-component) wave function of an electron consists only in the magnitude of the spin of the compared elementary particles. It should be recalled once again that the value of the spin characterizes the number of states of a stationary object that transform through each other during coordinate rotations.

As in the case of solving the problem of electron motion in the Coulomb field of the nucleus, it is reasonable to look for a stationary (that is, time-dependent according to the harmonic law) solution of this equation in the form of a product of two functions: radial and angular (8.13). As the latter, one should use any of the previously introduced spherical functions (5.7) that make up the complete set of eigenfunctions of the angular momentum square operator. The constructed solution (8.13) contains two factors that transform under rotations of the coordinate system: spherical functions and the polarization vector. Formally, by analogy with the problem of an electron in a hydrogen atom, the order l ball function Y lm I would like to compare the angular momentum of the photon, and the polarization vector - the spin of the photon equal to unity (particles with unity spin behave during rotations like a classical vector). The total momentum of a photon (as in the case of an electron) must be the sum of the orbital and spin.

Unfortunately, the above analogy is not entirely satisfactory due to the fact that the rest mass of the photon is equal to zero. This obvious feature of the photon makes it impossible for the existence of a coordinate system in which it would be at rest. As a result, the concept of spin, traditionally defined as an intrinsic moment of momentum of a particle at rest, loses its meaning for a photon. It also turns out to be impossible to correctly define the spin of a photon as a characteristic of the number of states that transform through each other during rotations: the state of motion at the speed of light, which is obligatory for a photon, always selects one direction in space, a change in which during rotation would mean a change in the wave vector of the photon and, therefore, number of the corresponding mode. The impossibility of a correct separation of the orbital and spin moments of a photon can be explained in yet another language: the transverse condition for electromagnetic waves essentially imposes an additional restriction on the mutual orientation of the wave vector and the polarization vector. As a result, the "orbital" and "spin" motion of a photon cannot be considered independent. That. in the case of a photon, it turns out that it is possible to speak only of the total angular momentum of the particle.

In addition to energy, momentum, and total momentum, a photon can be assigned definite parity, which characterizes the behavior of the wave function under coordinate inversion. The specified operation changes the sign of the usual three-dimensional space vector to the opposite. Ball function with indices l, m=l when inverted it behaves like 2l- positively directed spinors, each pair of which is similar to a space vector (8.14). That. the parity of such a function turns out to be equal to (-1)l. When rotating the coordinate system, the spherical function with the indicated indices is transformed through a set of all possible spherical functions of order l. Since, in the absence of weak interactions, the inversion operator with the Hamiltonian of the system, it also commutes with the operator of the squared angular momentum, which enters the expression for the Hamiltonian, and, consequently, with the rotation operator associated with it. As a result, it turns out that the entire set of spherical functions of order l has the same parity.

Due to the fact that the wave function of a photon is vector in nature (i.e., contains a polarization vector, the parity of which is negative), the total parity of a photon turns out to be equal to (-1) l+1 .

8.5. Vector particles in states with different integer angular momenta

To construct a classification of photons in terms of momentum and parity, it is advisable to solve the auxiliary problem of finding admissible values ​​of the total moments of a nonrelativistic vector particle with a given orbital momentum. As the simplest example, we can consider a vector particle in the p-state (with an orbital momentum l=1). The basis states of such a system can be given as products of the states of the orbital and spin moments (8.15). It is reasonable to call such a basis a set of states with certain projections of the orbital and spin moments. The projection of the total moment of the system on the vertical axis is still determined based on the result of the action on the state of the rotation operator around the z axis. The state with projections onto the z axis of the orbital and spin moments equal to unity can also be attributed to the state of the new basis with the total momentum j=2 and its maximum possible projection M j =+2(8.16). The remaining 4 states from the group with j=2 are symmetrical linear combinations of the initial basis states (8.15) with the same sums of projections of the orbital and spin moments (8.17). It is easy to verify the last assertion by operating the arbitrary rotation operator on the state |j=2, m=2>, as a result of which the indicated state should turn into a linear combination of the group of new basic states of the form |j=2,M j >(8.18). This whole group corresponds to states that are completely symmetrical linear combinations of all conceivable combinations of four spinors taken with the same weight factors. In turn, from these linear combinations it is easy to compose states of the original basis with certain projections of both moments.

The remaining antisymmetric linear combinations of states of the old basis with |M|

That. from a given set of 9 products of states with certain projections of moments, it was possible to construct the same number of new basic states with a certain value of the total moment and its projections. In full accordance with the quantum mechanical rules for adding moments, the set of newly constructed states contains total moments lying in the interval from |l-s| to l+s.

8.6. Photon classification

The set of states with total momentum listed by algorithm (8.15) for a vector particle turns out to be redundant for a photon that does not have “longitudinal” states with a polarization vector directed along the wave vector. To reveal "extra" states of longitudinal polarization, it is useful to establish their parity. In order for the physical properties of a hypothetical "longitudinal" photon to remain unchanged, the symmetry transformations performed on it should not affect the wave vector (and the polarization vector parallel to it). That. only rotations around the wave vector turn out to be possible, as a result of which the object must exhibit symmetry properties corresponding to its total moment j. That. the coordinate part of the photon wave function must contain a spherical function of order j. When inverting coordinates that does not affect the direction of the vector k, the spherical function completely determines the parity of the entire photon wave function - (-1) j. It is the state with such a parity that turns out to be “superfluous” and should be crossed out from the complete list of possible photon states:

		Parity = (-1) (-1) l	Parity= F(j)	Classification name
				Electric dipole photon
				Magnetic dipole photon.
				Longitudinal state (not noun).
				Electric quadrupole photon.
				Magnetic quadrupole photon.
				Longitudinal state (not noun)

One of the main tasks of experimental physics is to test the assumptions of theorists about how our world works and functions. Moreover, this test concerns not only hypothetical theories and controversial assumptions, but also the most seemingly “reinforced concrete” statements. Let them look absolutely inevitable for the theoreticians; the experimenter's task is to make sure, using all the tools of modern science, that this statement does not contradict experience.

Take, for example, photons - quanta of the electromagnetic field. In modern physics, it is believed that photons are massless and that they do not have an electric charge. For the overwhelming majority of theoreticians, it cannot be otherwise - after all, it is clear where electromagnetism comes from in modern physics, and there the properties of photons automatically turn out to be just such. In addition, even a small deviation of the mass or charge of a photon from zero will lead to completely unusual effects that we do not observe in the experiment. Therefore, if a photon has a non-zero mass or charge, then they must be completely negligible. But what are the upper bounds on these quantities? This question must be answered by experimental physics (together with astrophysical observations, which play the main role here). Omitting details, we will only point out that the current state of this analysis is reflected on the Particle Data Group page with photon properties.

Surprisingly, this page does not contain another important value - photon lifetime. After all, if a photon is allowed to have a non-zero mass, even if it is negligible, then it can decay into even lighter particles, say, into a pair of neutrinos, if the lightest neutrinos turn out to be massless. That is, the photon will become an unstable particle, and any unstable particle is characterized by its average lifetime.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, we immediately emphasize two things. First, we are talking about the lifetime before the spontaneous decay of free photon in a vacuum. Under normal conditions, photons, of course, can live for a very short time - from the moment of emission to the moment of absorption. But this does not apply to the properties of the photon itself, these are simply those limited external conditions in which the photon was placed. We are interested in the “personal” lifetime of a photon as a solitary, not absorbed particle.

Secondly, let's agree on terminology. The numerical characteristic "lifetime" expresses the duration of the existence of the particle in the rest system. In another frame of reference, in which the particle moves at a relativistic speed, the time to decay increases due to the effect of time dilation - one of the basic effects of the theory of relativity. For example, when it is said that a muon has a lifetime of 2 microseconds, it is the muon at rest that is meant; High-energy muons live much longer, and that is why muons, formed somewhere in the upper atmosphere, reach the Earth's surface.

So, let's assume that photons are not massless, but have a mass equal to the currently acceptable upper limit according to the Particle Data Group. Now, if we sort through the now known astrophysical data, we can find the “most ancient light” - that is, the photons that flew to us the longest and yet did not decay. Try to find this information yourself.

Task

Hint 1

The oldest light is electromagnetic radiation, emitted before all other types of radiation that we can now observe. It is approximately known how long the photons of this light flew, their energy is well known, and this is enough to find the desired lifetime.

Hint 2

The oldest light is relic microwave radiation. Over the past decades, several special satellites - RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, Planck - have carefully measured this radiation and compiled detailed maps of it. This radiation lies in a certain range of wavelengths, which means that its photons have energy in a certain range.

After that, it remains to be understood how many times this energy is greater than the estimated mass of the photon and how the relativistic time dilation depends on the energy of the particle.

Decision

Characteristics of the CMB are easily found on the web (see, for example, Wikipedia, a note about WMAP, Astro Picture of the Day about the results of Planck, information from a poster about EM radiation). The CMB is a "picture of the Universe" when only 380 thousand years have passed since the Big Bang, which is much less than the current age of the Universe (13.8 billion years). Therefore, the “age” of this light can be taken equal to the age of the Universe, that is, approximately 10 10 years (in order of magnitude estimates, numerical coefficients of the order of 2 can be neglected).

During these 10 10 years, the world not only did not disintegrate at all, but not even close to falling apart. Indeed, the WMAP and Planck satellites not only saw the CMB, they measured it with an accuracy of 10–4, and it is precisely with this accuracy that its complex spectrum is in good agreement with modern cosmological models. Therefore, we can safely assume that the lifetime of relic microwave photons is at least 4 orders of magnitude longer than this value, that is, no less than 10 14 years.

Its current temperature is approximately 2.7 kelvin, which corresponds to a single photon energy of approximately 0.23 meV (million electron volts). Of course, this temperature was higher before - as the Universe expands, this radiation cools down. For a rough estimate, we can assume that the average temperature over the entire time was about 1 meV. If the hypothetical mass (more precisely, the rest energy mc 2) take a photon equal to 10 –18 eV, then the relativistic parameter γ = e/mc 2 ≈ 10 15 .

Since the lifetime of an unstable relativistic particle is t = γ t 0 , where t 0 is the required proper lifetime of the particle, we arrive at the result: a photon with such a mass must have a lifetime t 0 more than one month.

Afterword

The problem proposed here was apparently first analyzed in detail in an article published in the journal Physical Review Letters just a few days ago (How Stable is the Photon? // Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021801 (2013); the full text is available in the eprint archive arXiv:1304.2821). A more accurate calculation showed that, instead of 1 month, the limit can be increased to 3 years, and also led to an additional independent limit on the photon mass. On fig. 2 shows the final result of this article - the area of ​​excluded and allowed values ​​of the mass and lifetime on a logarithmic scale.

Perhaps the answer received may surprise at first: how is it, because we know for sure that EM radiation lives much longer! But do not forget that all types of radiation that we have detected so far, even low-frequency radio waves, have a photon energy several orders of magnitude greater than its hypothetical mass. In order for such photons to become non-relativistic, this energy must be reduced to 10 -18 eV, which corresponds to an EM wave with a period of a quarter of an hour and a wavelength of a third of a billion kilometers. Now, if we can register EM waves of this type, moreover, they are guaranteed to come to us not from the vicinity of the solar system and not even from the nearest stars, but from deep space, then this estimate can be significantly improved.

Another important point: it is worth remembering that this estimate refers to the chosen mass of 10 -18 eV. If we take an even smaller mass, then γ -factor will become even larger, which means that the lower bound on the photon lifetime decrease. For example, with a mass of 10 -26 eV, the intrinsic lifetime of a photon can generally be 1 second, and this will not contradict any experimental data! True, in this case, purely theoretical difficulties come out: the “width” of a photon as a resonance becomes much larger than its mass, so all photons, even those emitted at the edge of the Universe, will already need to be considered virtual, not real particles. But experimenters usually do not care about such details.

In fact, in our solution, we turned a blind eye to a large number of subtle effects that were discussed in the article in Phys. Rev. lett. For example, the presence of mass in photons can lead to a different law of cooling of the photon gas in the expanding Universe. True, the resulting mass restrictions (they are visible in Fig. 2) turned out to be much weaker than those already available. Another effect is that when light travels not in a vacuum, but in a gas or plasma, it ceases to be a free photon and acquires some effective mass. Cosmic plasma, of course, is very rarefied, so the mass will turn out to be negligible, but it is likely that it may turn out to be even larger than the value that we used. A precise analysis has not yet been carried out, and if this turns out to be the case, then the estimate will have to be revised.

(photon - from lat. photon) and gravity?

With such an indignant question, the fighting army of physicists will attack me, and looking at the epigraph, the lyrics too.

We are not in a hurry with final conclusions, we begin to explore this amazing and multifaceted particle-wave photon.

Today we understand that all the radiations around us can be divided into their constituent particles. For example, we all know that light is ultimately made up of photons. A photon as a quantum particle is characterized by corpuscular-wave dualism: in some cases it behaves like a material particle, and in others like an electromagnetic wave. And if we delve into the knowledge of quantum physics, we will find that the photon by its nature is, generally speaking, neither one nor the other.

Photon, on the one hand, demonstrates the properties of a wave in the phenomena of diffraction and interference on a scale comparable to the wavelength of the photon itself. For example, single photons passing through a double slit create an interference pattern defined by Maxwell's equations. On the other hand, experiments show that a photon is not a short pulse of electromagnetic radiation, for example, it cannot be divided into several beams by optical beam splitters. A photon behaves like a particle that is emitted or absorbed entirely by objects much smaller than its wavelength, such as atomic nuclei or electrons.

The photon got its name from the Greek word φῶς, "phōs" (light). The concept was introduced by the chemist Gilbert Lewis in 1926, who published a theory in which photons were considered "uncreated" and "indestructible". The Lewis theory did not bring laurels to its creator, as it was in conflict with experiments, but the term photon physicists liked it and entered the scientific literature.

Around this wave (particle) throughout the 20th century, such passions were in full swing that I involuntarily thought that behind these passions one of the most important features was lost, which should be identified with it as a carrier of gravitational interaction.

Looking ahead for a moment, I will say that back in 1960, the American scientists Pound and Rebke carried out the most subtle experiment in which it was shown: “a photon (quantum of electromagnetic energy) also has a gravitational mass, which is equal to the inertial mass m =hv/c 2» .

Photon gravity transport

In our case, it does not matter at all what is more in the photon - particles or waves, the main thing is that it transfers energy.

Photon energy e depends on the radiation frequency ν:

e=hν

where h = 6.626 10 -34 J s is Planck's constant.

Light is the distribution of photons in space, which behave like a stream of special particles.

A photon has mass and momentum. The presence of mass in a photon m follows from the general relationship between energy and mass, introduced in 1900 by the French mathematician Henri Poincaré.

e=mc 2 (with is the speed of light in vacuum)

m = e/ c 2

For a photon e = e p = hν, whence the photon mass is equal to:

m p =hν/c 2

Photon is like an elementary particle, but has no rest mass m0. The photon mass should be considered as the field mass. This means that light has a mass associated with the electromagnetic field of the light wave.

In addition to energy and mass, a photon has momentum p p. The momentum of a photon was discovered experimentally by A. Compton, in 1927, for this work he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. The relationship between the energy of a photon and its momentum follows from the general formula of the theory of relativity:

m p - photon mass

So, photon, like any moving particle or body, has energy, mass and momentum. These three important physical quantities can be called corpuscular characteristics of a photon:

ep = hν; m p \u003d hν / c 2; p p = hν/c

Like any material particle, a photon is capable of carrying energy, and, accordingly, mass.

This is very important at this stage of the reasoning, and my attempt to assign "alien" properties of the transfer of gravitational forces that are not related to the photon should be crowned with success.

Two difficulties: recoil, light pressure

The action of gravity between two bodies is the transfer of energy (mass) from one body to another.

A photon, according to its technical (passport) characteristics, may well play the role of a carrier or carrier of energy.

Logically, and knowing that the photon carries energy, why don't we assign the function of gravity transport to it. No, not to us - to nature! Moreover, someone or something carries this gravity, and the photon is the most common and numerous particle in the Universe.

Here we face two serious difficulties.

1st difficulty - return.

Here is a quote from an authoritative source published in the last century and intended for university students: “If any initially resting body emits electromagnetic waves in a certain direction, then this body receives an impulse G T =-G P, directed in the direction opposite to the radiation, and equal to the momentum carried away by the radiation. This phenomenon is similar to the "recoil" of a gun when fired.

Similar formulations are found in every physics textbook.

The second difficulty is the pressure of light.

So, two difficulties, two barriers connected directly with the photon, which do not yet allow him to be recognized as a full-fledged hero who could become a carrier of gravity.

The presence of these difficulties did not allow and still does not allow scientists to extend the influence of electromagnetic waves to gravity. A stereotype of thinking transferred by Newton's automaton to the microworld. A stereotype of thinking developed by a misconception of ongoing processes associated with particles that have no rest mass and move at the speed of light. The quantum behavior of a photon is not visualizable and conflicts with common sense.

A paradoxical phenomenon has developed in physics - the Sun, on the one hand, attracts the Earth, and on the other, creates pressure on it! The pressure of light, predicted by Kepler and Maxwell, and then allegedly proved experimentally by P. Lebedev in 1900, puts more pressure on physicists. In nature, antagonisms and opposites are never observed at the same time. Two forces created by one source cannot and should not be directed towards each other. Moreover, one force, with which the Sun attracts the Earth, exceeds the second (pressure force) by 10 13 (ten trillion) times!

The vacuum in Lebedev's experiments reached 10 -4 mm Hg. Art., with such a rarefaction it was impossible to tune out from the radiation pressure of air molecules. (An analysis of Lebedev's experience and conclusions can be found on the author's website, articles: "" and "".

In 1927, N. Myshkin published in the journals of the Russian Physical and Chemical Society the sensational results of his experiments on the effect of light on a torsion balance - a device that responds to the slightest changes in gravity. The sensation was that light showed the property of attraction, not repulsion! In the early 1970s, Ulyanovsk engineer V. Belyaev experimented with a torsion pendulum and found the same effect! In the early 90s, Muscovite E. Demin, perhaps not knowing anything about his predecessors, applied for the discovery of the light attraction effect! In 2006, another experiment refuting the pressure of light was noted by V.E. Kosciuszko. Its torsion pendulum exceeded Lebedev's pendulum in accuracy by two orders of magnitude.

All experiments say one thing: the pressure of light is not proven, or rather, it does not exist.

To deal with the first difficulty, we divide the gravitational interaction into two components: the gravity of the source and the gravity of the receiver, and we will consider them separately, purposefully, purposefully. Along the way, we continue the difficult conversation about the photon.

related posts

44 comments

So, two difficulties, two barriers directly related to the photon, which do not yet allow him to be recognized as a full-fledged hero who could become a carrier of gravity:

1) return,

2) the pressure of light. """ - You are free to make such statements. These difficulties were resolved by Nicolas Fatio de Duyet, a contemporary and acquaintance of Newton. Repeated many times after his countryman, the Swiss Lisage, the Russian scientist of the 19th century Yarkovsky, and now living Leonid Efimovich Fedulaev , Semyon Alexandrovich Nikolaev and many others. You should read more on those before you take up the pen. Otherwise, it turns out that the Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer.

And why not all physicists were listed?
As for those listed, who in their publications promote “pushing” (pushing) and you along with them, then first I must ask the question: “Where will you get the energy to push?” Unless you stand with the whole friendly company on the shady side of the Earth and, at your command, “Hey, let's go!”, push Mother towards the Sun.
However, for pushing again, some kind of support is required.
Now for the difficulties. Your authorities, like Le Sage, Fatio, have never heard of the "pressure of the world", and you bring them to me as authorities.
P.S. I propose to withdraw the last remark back.

Gennady, how can you explain the physical and energetic meaning of the wavelength and frequency of light, taking into account the fact that a photon, like any particle of the microcosm (electron, proton and infinitely deep), is a torus twisted both cyclically and spirally?
What is the difference between a blue photon and a red photon, or is it all 1 photon with several things? radii, lengths, frequencies, speeds?
Why do EMWs of different lengths have different absorption by matter? (Light does not pass through reinforced concrete - is it reflected? + Absorbed?, radio waves pass? Or go around reinforced concrete walls?). X-rays can pass through. Reemission. Possession of much more energy that "enough" to pass through?

Anton, you asked at least 5 fundamental questions. For what? Are you too lazy to read this in classical physics? If I reprint and quote physics textbooks, I will be accused of plagiarism. As you can see, I have a slightly different task. Take, for example: Course of General Physics, IV Savelyev, books 4 (Waves Optics) and 5 (Quantum Optics Atomic Physics ...), you will find answers to all your questions there.

I see you didn't understand the question. Pride is no help in enlightenment.

"I see you didn't understand the question. Pride is no help in enlightenment.
—————-
There were 5 questions that I didn't understand?
As for your enlightenment, it is not in my competence.

How can this theory explain the gravity of black holes?
What about the independence of mass from temperature?

“How can this theory explain the gravity of black holes?
What about the independence of mass from temperature?
————————————
I spoke about black holes, but the second question: “What about the independence of mass from temperature?” What did you want to know: Does the body have energy, having mass? Or something different? The question is not correct.

Just thought of this idea, googled it and came across your site. Great idea, I like it.

What idea did you think of? I have many on my site.

That a photon is also a carrier of gravitational interaction. But I came to this in a not entirely rational way and this is just an assumption.

“That a photon is also a carrier of gravitational interaction. But I came to this in a not entirely rational way and this is just an assumption. ”
————————————-
Rational or irrational, but you are one of the few who are trying to get to this point.
There is only one rationality here - a huge force that keeps the planets in their orbits.
When venerable scientists say that hypothetical gravitons carry gravity and begin to identify them with neutrinos, which you cannot find during the day with fire, then they begin to build huge LIGO-type laboratories and catch single impulses that came from Space, then this is “chickens laughing”.

According to TZES, there is an elementary gravitational photon consisting of the structures of the world ether. Such a conclusion within the framework of the theory of TSES was made guided by the principle of similarity, relying on the already known data on the structure of the structures of the proton, electron, and electric families.
The structures included in the proton family are about 1800 times larger than the structures of the electron family. The elementary structures of the electron family are approximately 40,000 times as massive in energy as elementary photons.
How many orders of magnitude smaller are the elementary mass structures of the magnetic family, which have gravitational charges, it is still not clear at all, but less. Even less in their own energy are elementary gravitons interacting with gravitational charges of masses - magnetic structures.
So to argue that electromagnetic photons are carriers
gravitational interactions are simply not serious. Indeed, so far, within the framework of the TZES theory, it has been possible to determine the order of the self-energy of elementary photons that fill the half-waves of radio waves and macrophotons. V. Kishkintsev

“According to TZES, there is an elementary gravitational photon consisting of the structures of the world ether”
————————————
According to the first phrase and the rest, too, several questions immediately arise: what kind of elementary gravitational photon is this; what are these structures of the world ether?
My hypothesis is simple and, I hope, understandable, it does not pretend to new tricky terms and does not rely on a non-existent local or global ether.

An article entitled: "Photon-quantum gravity" has just been published in the electronic scientific and practical journal "Modern Scientific Research and Innovation".
http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2016/10/72457
Read, perhaps many of your questions will disappear.

According to the theory of TSES and life observations, the most common energy carriers in our world should be electrostatic structures that form substances produced by electric charges on the basis. According to TZES, this is 3.0.1 produced by the proton charges and 3.0.2 produced by the electron charge. Experiments show that there are no free electrons in the conductor, and structures 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are the main carriers of electric current, auxiliary electrons are characteristic only of direct current. The practice of forming electromagnetic waves shows that their half-waves are filled due to the transition of electrostatic structures to the hydrogen state, i.e. their acquisition of magnetic structures in the corresponding states. Thus elementary photons 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are formed.
From the moment of formation, they acquire the speed of light due to exchange gravitational interactions. And elementary photons 3.1.1 fill one half-wave of radio waves, and structures 3.1.2 fill the second half-wave. Macro photons have a similar content. V. Kishkintsev

“The practice of forming electromagnetic waves shows that their half-waves are filled due to the transition of electrostatic structures to the hydrogen state, i.e. their acquisition of magnetic structures in the corresponding states. Thus elementary photons 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are formed.
From the moment of formation, they acquire the speed of light due to exchange gravitational interactions. And elementary photons 3.1.1 fill one half-wave of radio waves, and structures 3.1.2 fill the second half-wave. Macro photons have a similar content.”
——————————————-
Waves, half-waves, "elementary photons 3.1.1 and 3.1.2", "structures 3.0.1 and 3.0.2", "macro photons"! And these are all elementary particles?
But the photon itself, born by the Sun, and the Earth's crafon, recognized elementary particles, they do not divide and do not break up. Where does such a number of newly-minted three-digit ones come from in the “TZES theory”. Are you sure they exist?

The problem of your disputes and of all modern physics is that the electromagnetic waves that fill the entire outer space, including every atom and every cell, are of secondary or even tertiary importance. In reality, EMW is the only, moreover, non-material substance that makes up matter - atoms and cells. EMW is the only source of energy and life itself. The same photon is a beam of electromagnetic waves, which, according to Coulomb's law, are attracted to each other by analogy with parallel wires, through which the current flows in one direction. That is, a photon is an elementary particle that does not have mass, and, consequently, attraction (gravity)

Confirmation that photons have no gravitational mass is that the light from the sun and any star is not attracted by other stars, but flies in a straight line.

“The same photon is a beam of electromagnetic waves, which, according to Coulomb's law, are attracted to each other by analogy with parallel wires, through which the current flows in one direction. That is, a photon is an elementary particle that does not have mass, and, consequently, attraction (gravity)"
————————————
EMW are attracted to each other and at the same time have no attraction. You decide who to bet on.

“The confirmation that photons have no gravitational mass is that the light from the sun and any star is not attracted by other stars, but flies in a straight line.”
————————————
I could refer to the fact that under the action of solar gravity, the trajectory of a photon is bent. But, to me, this is completely up to the lamp, the main thing is that the photon transfers energy, and, accordingly, gravity.

According to the TZES theory, electrons and positrons consist of electrostatic structures of the third family, i.e. respectively from structures 3.2.2, 3.2.0 and 3.0.2 and 3.0.1. And photons and half-waves of radio waves are filled with electrostatic structures in the hydrogen state, i.e. 3.1.2 or 3.1.1. In the hydrogen state, the electrostatic structure 3.0.1 or antistructure 3.0.2, /formed by electron charges/ acquire a constant companion in the form of a magnetic antistructure 2.0.2 or 2.0.1. Their constructive structure is provided by exchange gravitational forces, they also provide the spatial movement of these elementary photons at the speed of light from the moment of formation. As a result, elementary photons become suitable for filling half-waves of radio waves and all kinds of photons. As a result, there are macro photons and antiphotons, in the form of separate flocks. Plus positive and negative half-waves of radio waves. See in detail the materials on the theory “Tables of obviously elementary structures! The energy value of an elementary photon is 0.0012 eV.

It's a shame on my message dated 02/21/17 the discussion broke off. And, after all, the elementary photon 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 took upon themselves the responsibility for determining the movement by inertia in general of all material bodies. After all, the most elementary inertial engine is mounted in them, operating due to exchange gravitational interactions, moreover, with exchange at the limiting frequency. Due to which photons move with the limiting electromagnetic speed, they prefer rectilinear motion, since it is difficult for external gravitational structures to arrange interaction with the gravitational charge of an electrostatic or magnetic structure.
In short, the nomenclature of elemental energy carriers included in the TZES is capable of explaining many natural wonders, and therefore deserves serious discussion.

“It's a shame on my message dated 02/21/17 the discussion broke off. And, after all, the elementary photon 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 took upon themselves the responsibility for determining the movement by inertia of all material bodies in general.
“In short, the nomenclature of elemental energy carriers included in the TZES is capable of explaining many natural wonders, and therefore deserves serious discussion.”
——————————————
Dear V. Kishkintsev, I thought you understood why I did not respond to the last comment, it turns out - no. I explain.
First, I do not know such a theory of TSES, and probably never will (in my opinion, it falls far short of a theory).
Secondly, about serious discussions. On the pages of my site, discussions should be about the content of the articles published on this resource, and not about exotic "theories of TSES".

I must apologize to you for giving an incorrect link to my article, it has moved to another magazine. The article is titled: “Gravity of the Earth. Photon-quantum gravity” was published in the journal: “The scientific heritage” No. 5(5), 2016, p. 79-94 / URL: http://tsh-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/VOL-1-No-5-5-2016.pdf "

It has now become clear to many physicists that energy fields consist of elementary field structures. Therefore, new theories appear almost every month, but all of them suffer from ignoring the participation of two types of field structures in the formation of electric and magnetic fields.
Among them, the theory of TSES is the only one that proposed the systematization of the carriers of electrical and magnetic energy according to the six states of the nucleon, i.e. recognition of the participation of antimatter in the formation of energy. As a result, according to TZES, there are two types of electrostatic structures that form the matter around us with the help of two types of electric charges, and most importantly without energy costs. These are structures 3.0.1 and 3.0.2. On their foundation, two types of elementary photons are formed, which complete all macro photons and half-waves of radio waves. A detailed monograph on the possibilities of TZES has so far been published only in Germany and Moldova. Separate chapters on the Internet, their largest number is on the website of the Rospatent library http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/avtors/k.html. With the help of energy carriers included in the TZES, it is even possible to explain the nature of inertia and warm energy, and much more. The publication of a monograph published in Germany requires recognition that the electron is the largest structure-particle of antimatter. And destructible in electric sparks of electric welding. V. Kishkintsev

Laughter is laughter, and in TZES the most elementary field energy carriers are systematized according to the six states of the nucleon, which clearly declare their functioning in our world.
It is impossible to quote TEZS in this commentary, but its copy. enough on the Internet. The topic of this discussion is the gravitational photon. I have so far decided to introduce into the TZES, only the gravitational proton, it helps the mass - magnetic and electrostatic structures to create substances from leptons and nucleons due to exchange and gravitational interactions, and the graviton is a carrier of energy over unlimited distances. The gravitational fields of celestial bodies are formed from gravitons. He did not dare to include six gravitational structures in the TZES due to the lack of experimental prerequisites. For the same reason, the mass-magnetic family was limited, apparently temporarily, to four structures.
A complete set of six energy carriers is still only in the electric family. But even such truncated material ideas about energy carriers make it possible to elementarily explain the nature of postulates in physics and many newly discovered phenomena that have no explanation.

Well, you Mr. Kishkintsev, well done! You continue to bend your line about your TZES, which has a gravitational photon and a graviton in its foundation. Both particles are of unknown origin. Then what does your TZES hold on to - on clay feet.
Once again I warn you that comments should be on the merits of the published material

By the way, I knew V.E. Kosciuszko, was in his apartment and held his "pendulum" in his hands. The fact is that before the creation of the TZES, I was engaged in weighing constant masses of gases at different temperatures, and even the First Symposium of the Nuclear Society was announced as the author of the third weight amendment based on the results of the Chernobyl events. Reliability of my research with gases V.E. Kosciuszko admitted, but V.B. categorically rejected his results and mine. Braginsky, and was supported by V.L. Ginsburg. So my application in GOSPATENT No. OT-10764 is still an application for discovery. Although it follows from it that the Sun and stars have solid masses hidden by temperature. Defending the authenticity of the application OT-No. 10764, I created the TZES.
Structures 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 are the largest carriers of thermal
energy and electric current. More on V.E. Kosciuszko in Volume 16 of the Encyclopedia of Russian Physical Thought My article.

“By the way, I was familiar with V.E. Kosciuszko, was in his apartment and held his "pendulum" in his hands. The fact is that before the creation of the TZES, I was engaged in weighing constant masses of gases at different temperatures, and even the First Symposium of the Nuclear Society was announced as the author of the third weight amendment based on the results of the Chernobyl events. Reliability of my research with gases V.E. Kosciuszko recognized "
—————————
I also acknowledge your research on the weighing of gases and make a reference in my article: “Gravity of the Earth. Photon-quantum gravity” was published in the journal: “The scientific heritage” No. 5(5), 2016, p. 79-94 / URL: http://tsh-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/VOL-1-No-5-5-2016.pdf
Kościuszko intended to repeat the light pressure experiment with a new torsion balance at the end of 2016. Since you personally know each other and even visited him, then surely you have some information on new experiments? If you don't mind, please send links.

Unfortunately V.E. Kosciuszko died, I don’t know the reasons, and who now has his unique pendulum. On this topic, the Eötvös correction is known and recognized, the effect of the dependence of the weight of bodies on frequency, Yu. Grigoriev's experiments with neutrons incident in neutron guides, the results of my experiments, and even Braginsky's experiments with a pendulum and many experiments with rotating and vibrating masses - this is evidence that the speed of mass movement reduces the frequency of interactions of gravitons from the gravitational field of the Earth, and in proportion to the speed of a moving body or the speed of oscillations of the constituent elementary masses. Similar, as Fang Liangzao's experiments show, is also characteristic of electrons interacting with electrostatic fields of different strengths. This is proof of the existence of elementary masses with gravitational charges. Therefore, I propose to carefully look at my TZES, she gives me gifts every month, she can become generous and give you a real idea

V.E. Kosciuszko was an excellent experimenter. Sorry man.
About your " TZES, she gives me monthly gifts»
If she gifts you so often, then why share with someone.

Dear Gennady Ershov, you keep ridiculing the TZES, which is positive to a certain extent: you acknowledged that the TZES appeared. However, while knowing that to create any force, energy costs are needed, do you want to find out why the strength of all surrounding bodies is created without energy costs ??? I. Unfortunately, you are far from the only one who thinks that this is how it should be.
And, from the emerging theory of TZES it follows that the bodies around us do not require energy costs, because they are created by exchange physical forces. The largest carriers of such forces create electric charges. There are two types of them, a positive type of charge. It was attributed to the positron, although it is the same as that of the proton. Doesn't it bother you?
TZES found that this was a gross mistake. From antimatter there should be an electron and its electrostatic structure. Further, MAI teachers A.V. Chernetsky and Yu.A. Galkin found that an electric spark generates energy.
This effect can be explained only from the standpoint of TZES, recognizing that in an electric arc, electrons are destroyed with the formation of additional electrostatic structures. generating additional electrical current.
And, these MAI teachers are far from the only ones. Electrons are destroyed in a variety of technological processes. And, is it permissible or not? I've been asking this question since the beginning of this millennium? However, to date, not a single reaction has been discovered in which new electrons would be born. Although the electrons in our World have taken upon themselves very serious
responsibilities, and although they are extremely numerous around us, but their reduction. as it seems to me, it can even influence the earth's weather. In other words, it's time to recognize the TZES and calculate how many electrons humanity can annually destroy. V. Kishkintsev

“Dear Gennady Ershov, you keep ridiculing the TZES, which is positive to a certain extent: you acknowledged that the TZES appeared. However, while knowing that to create any force, energy costs are needed, do you want to find out why the strength of all surrounding bodies is created without energy costs ??? I. Unfortunately, you are far from the only one who thinks that this is how it should be.
And, from the emerging theory of TZES it follows that the bodies around us do not require energy costs, because they are created by exchange physical forces.
—————————
I am not making fun of anyone or anything, everyone follows their own path. But I will never be an adherent of the theory in which the strength of all surrounding bodies is created without energy costs?
« it's time to recognize TZES and calculate how many electrons humanity can destroy annually»
Are you suggesting that I calculate the number of destroyed electrons?

I re-read your comments and found the following statements:
1) “Thus, elementary photons 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are formed.
From the moment of formation, they acquire the speed of light due to exchange gravitational interactions.”
2) I read the comment above: “The structures included in the proton family are approximately 1800 times larger than the structures of the electron family. The elementary structures of the electron family are about 40,000 times as massive in energy as elementary photons"
Hence the question: How can the elementary structures of the electron family, which are 40,000 times more massive than photons, pick up the speed of light?

According to the measurements of electron acceleration carried out in China by Prof. Fang Liangjao, then electrons can only be accelerated by an energy approximately not exceeding 0.5 of their own energy, i.e. they cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. This sounds wild within the framework of modern physics, but no one has yet refuted the Chinese experimenter. His considerations confirm the internal composition of the electron proposed by TZES. And, TZES from this point of view, no one refutes.
So think Gennady, who is right A. Einstein or Chinese prof.

Your logic is interesting: “but no one has refuted the Chinese experimenter yet. His considerations confirm the internal composition of the electron proposed by TZES. And no one refutes TZES from this point of view.” If no one has yet refuted the Chinese, this does not mean that the same thing - you will not be refuted either.
As for Einstein and his correctness, I have published several articles with a refutation of his general relativity, for example, Mercury's Perihelion. Also read the latest articles: "About Black Holes"

An elementary photon consists of electrostatic magnetic structures structurally interconnected by exchange gravitational interactions. Occurring at a frequency close enough to the maximum possible, therefore, gravitational fields weakly interact with light macro-photons. The movement of an elementary photon begins from the moment of its formation, this is evidence that it is the exchange gravitational interactions that provide its movement. Which suggests that it is precisely the polarization-spatial interactions in solids that ensure their motion by inertia. Thermal, chaotic interactions are not capable of such. Tochilin's experiments with a cart, the wheels of which are not set in motion, and his followers confirm this point of view.

« elementary photon consists of electrostatic magnetic structures structurally interconnected by exchange gravitational interactions. Occurring at a frequency close enough to the maximum possible, therefore, gravitational fields weakly interact with light macro photons.»
You are tireless in your research, in addition to elementary photons, new “light macro photons” have appeared.
To be honest, I didn’t understand anything from the above quote, but do you understand what you write?

In the first sentence of my note dated 12/29/18, two words are missing, the words should be: An elementary electromagnetic photon consists of electrostatic and magnetic structures, structurally interconnected by exchange spatially polarized gravitational interactions. And then everything is fine, for those who recognize the TZES.
G. Ershov is naturally interested in the question whether gravitational photons exist or not. According to TZES and nature, these must exist, these are structures of the gravitational proton 1.0 and the ethereal proton 0.0. This is a weak point in the TZES that needs to be worked out. The fact is that carriers of gravitational energy clearly exist. Because they create
a certain employment in the gravitational charges of mass-magnetic structures and anti-structures. Differences in this employment are experimentally observed in
changes in the weight of the same macro masses, when their speed of movement and even temperature change. However, there is no clear experimental evidence that antigravity exists, at least not yet. In such a situation, gravitational antistructures are not included in the TZES, and the ethereal family consists of only one ethereal proton. This is still a problematic moment in the TZES requiring experiments and discussions.

“G. Ershov is naturally interested in the question whether gravitational photons exist or not. According to TZES and nature, these must exist, these are structures of the gravitational proton 1.0 and the ethereal proton 0.0. This is a weak point in the TZES that needs to be worked out.”
—————————
I am ready to wait a little more when you work out this important issue for me ...

From the point of view of wave theory, ordinary daylight is a set of electromagnetic waves with different λ. When passing through a triangular glass prism, it decomposes into component colors forming an iridescent spectrum. The wave nature of light easily explains many optical phenomena, such as reflection, scattering, refraction, and interference. However, with the help of such representations, it is not possible to explain the regularities observed in the photoelectric effect.

An article rewritten from a textbook, moreover, with errors.

This site uses Akismet to fight spam. .

Your comment is under moderation.

The methodology of modern physics, which arose on the "yeast" of the theory of relativity, has led to an unprecedented reeling of minds and to the emergence of many scientific theories based on it, more like the fantasies of medieval scholastics.

So, for example, Professor Veinik, notorious for having suffered for criticizing the theory of relativity (he simply ridiculed it), writes in "Thermodynamics" - a textbook for students: "...an important drawback of quantum mechanics is the lack of guiding ideas that would made it possible to judge the structure of the particle. As a result such a banal elementary particle as a photon, fell into the category of exceptional (apparently, this was facilitated by the fact that light was considered a wave for a long time, as well as the formula E = mc 2 Einstein). In fact, a photon does not differ in principle from an electron and other elementary particles (this can be judged from photographs...). It was enough to understand the structure of an electron or a photon in order to get a complete picture of the entire microcosm and the laws that govern them. According to the general theory (Veinik - N.N.), an elementary particle is an ensemble of microcharges. The latter include: mass (substances), space (metrons), time (chronons), electron, termon, Planck's constant, etc. The number of different elementary particles is infinitely great.”

Thus, we see how space-time, wave-particle, the uncertainty principle, the equivalent of mass-energy and other "entities" continue to generate new monsters in the form of termons, metrons, chronons and substances. As for photography, if Veinik had been shown a picture of a highway at night, he would have defined the “banality” of a car leaving a trail of headlights on a photograph in the same way. "The sleep of reason breeds monsters" (Goya).

“The cause of all natural phenomena is comprehended with the help of considerations of a mechanical nature, otherwise one has to give up any hope of ever understanding anything in physics.” (Huygens "Treatise on Light"). The same idea was expressed in different versions by the most famous researchers and thinkers of different times: Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Descartes, d'Alembert, Fresnel, Faraday, Helmholtz and many others. Thus, Maxwell in his “Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism” wrote: “At the present time, we cannot understand the propagation (interactions - N.N.) in time otherwise than by something like the flight of a material substance through space, or as a state of motion or tension in a medium that already exists in space ... Indeed, no matter how energy is transferred from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy is located after it has left one body, but has not yet reached another ... Therefore, all these theories (wave, interaction and electromagnetism - N.N.) lead to the concept of a medium in which propagation takes place, and if we accept this medium as a hypothesis, I think it should take a prominent place in our research, and one should try to build a mental representation of its action in all details; this has been my constant aim in this treatise.".

But let us now try to imagine the appearance of a photon according to Veinik: an “excited” electron flew, flew along an orbit, and suddenly a certain “banal essence” detached from it, which, having no reasons and grounds for that, regardless of the speed and cyclic frequency of the electron, acquires its frequency of oscillation (after calculating the amount of energy that it must take?), And the mass - what happens! The effect here is not generated by causes, and physical considerations are not supported by logic and the laws of mechanics. What kind of “mental representations” of Maxwell are there?!

So, Maxwell claims that energy can be transferred to a distance in only two ways: either together with matter (mass), or by waves through an intermediate medium. The existence of an allegedly special type of matter - an electromagnetic field - is the result of the penetration of unscientific thinking into physics. This is not even caloric, which quite successfully described the vibrational energy of atoms and molecules of matter and, at the same time, thermal (electromagnetic) radiation. This is just an attempt to disguise one's ignorance and impotence in front of the mystery of nature.

The great minds of mankind are struggling with this riddle, starting with ancient Greek, ancient Arabic, ancient Indian and ancient Chinese thinkers, from Newton, Hooke, Huygens, ending with modern researchers who, although they have achieved great achievements in the use of light (lasers, etc.), however, their knowledge about the essence of light are still very far from the true.

Newton's views on the nature of light were highly contradictory and inconsistent. Although he was the founder of truly scientific thinking, the fear of putting forward scientific hypotheses without a sufficient supply of experimental and observational facts led him to the other extreme: to the constraint of thinking and to the lack of consistency in the conclusions. Thus, his views on the interaction of bodies at a distance led him to the idea of ​​the existence of an intermediate medium; but when considering the nature of light, he rejects this environment only because "there is not a sufficient supply of experiments by which the laws of action of this ether would be accurately determined and shown."

Of course, in his time, posing the question of the properties and composition of the ether was premature, since even such sciences as optics, electromagnetism, atomic and molecular physics and many others were absent. And even in our time, such sciences as the nucleus of the atom and elementary particles are still "floating in the fog." What to say about the ether - the next step in the structure of matter?

However, observations, facts, experiments and knowledge about the properties of the ether became more and more, and all the great and any significant theories arose only thanks to the "mental construction of its action." Einstein and Infeld called it "forests" for building theories, which can be removed in favor of the existence of the general principle of relativity. But now it is difficult to imagine that such sciences as optics and electromagnetic theory would have arisen if the general principle of relativity had appeared before them.

“Wave theory defeated Newton's theory of expiration with the irreproachable qualitative and quantitative accuracy of its predictions” (S. Vavilov) and not only that. First, the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source cannot be explained by the theory of outflow. Newton just believed that the speed of photons is added to the speed of the source. Secondly, the expiration theory predicted an increase in the speed of light in a denser medium, while Huygens' wave theory predicted a decrease in this speed. Direct experiments on measuring velocity in a dense medium, carried out by Fizeau and Foucault, confirmed the wave nature of light.

The wave theory of light was confirmed both by the theoretical and experimental works of Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Lebedev and other researchers. Maxwell, for example, in his "Treatise ..." wrote: "... the luminiferous medium, when light passes through it, serves as a receptacle of energy. In the wave theory developed by Huygens, Fresnel, Young, Green and others, this energy is considered partly potential and partly kinetic. Potential energy is considered to be due to the deformation of the elementary volumes of the medium, which means that we must consider the medium as elastic. Kinetic energy is considered to be due to the oscillatory motion of the medium, so we must assume that the medium has a finite density. The theory of electricity and magnetism adopted in this treatise recognizes the existence of two types of energy - electrostatic and electrokinetic, and it is assumed that they are localized not only ... in bodies, but also in every part of the surrounding space ... Therefore, our theory is consistent with the wave theory in that both of them assume the existence of a medium capable of becoming a receptacle for two types of energy. At the same time, both Maxwell and Faraday, as people of broad scientific views, pointed out that the ether is needed not only for the wave theory of light (electrodynamism), but also for the transmission of interactions. This very important argument is still ignored by modern researchers as a result of the need to see the "new dress of the king" - the curvature of space-time.

Here is how the storyteller Andersen wrote about this: “They pretended to be skillful weavers and said that they could weave such a wonderful fabric that has an amazing property - it becomes invisible to any person who sits in the wrong place or is impassibly stupid ... “I not stupid, thought the dignitary. Does that mean I'm in the wrong place? Here's one for you! However, you can’t even show it!”

S. Vavilov wrote: "The wave theory triumphed, it seemed, the final victory ... But the triumph turned out to be very premature ... The wave theory turned out to be helpless before the quantum laws of the action of light."

We now ask ourselves the question: is it possible that this single fact against many others could change the opinion of scientists so dramatically?! Yes, there is discreteness of radiation; yes, the photon flies as a monolithic particle. But isn't there a similar behavior of sound in air? Or vice versa: isn't the behavior of electromagnetic waves similar to sound?

Hertz and his followers perfectly saw the property of electromagnetic radiation to transmit into the surrounding space spherical waves not localized in space. (By the way, they are not quantized, as modern luminaries claim, since they are not the result of electrons jumping from one orbit to another, but the accelerated movement of free electrons in a conductor). Due to this property of long electromagnetic waves, we watch TV and listen to the radio receiver from any point of the sphere around the emitter. However, as soon as the frequency of electromagnetic waves crosses a certain boundary in the direction of increase, the directionality of the radiation appears.

The same thing happens with sound. True, such properties of sound were discovered quite recently, in connection with the production of ultrasound. It turned out that ultrasonic waves have a sharp directionality and can be considered as particles localized in space. So much for the "helplessness of the wave theory"! It turns out that every time researchers themselves are helpless to explain something, they blame it on classical mechanics.

As Feynman showed, the laws of oscillations depend on the frequency, since the nature of the processes occurring in the medium depends on it. However, he himself was satisfied only with the derivation of the equation of oscillations, when the pressure and temperature in an elastic wave change adiabatically. None of the researchers, including Feynman, considered high oscillation frequencies relative to the mean free path of particles, when the processes occurring in this case lead to the absorption of heat. In this case, it is quite obvious that the oscillation cannot be propagated by a spherical wave due to the distribution of the directions of motion of individual particles. It can only be sharply directed, since the frequency of oscillations is less than the "frequency" of the free path of particles.

From the analogy with the properties of ultrasound, the conclusion follows that locality does not contradict the wave theory at all. Moreover, will it not turn out that air behaves like a metal, and ultrasound has transverse waves?

In addition to locality, photons, unlike radio waves, have another important property related to their origin: strictly dosed energy. This property of photons associated with the structure of atoms should not be extended to the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves. And here, all the more so, Planck's constant as a characteristic of photon energy should not be considered in a broader sense, as has been done at every step in physics lately. Planck's constant has nothing to do with the discreteness of time, space and mass.

In connection with the strict dosing of photon energy, a new science has arisen - quantum mechanics, in which several unresolved issues have remained from the very beginning to this day. First: why do the electrons of an atom, moving along a circular or elliptical orbit, do not emit photons, although they experience centripetal acceleration? Second: what is the mechanism of emission and absorption of photons?

The first question is related to the misconception that is repeated in all textbooks and scientific papers on quantum mechanics. So, for example, in Semenchenko’s “Selected Chapters of Theoretical Physics” we read: “Electrons cannot move around the nucleus for a long time, since, according to the laws of classical electrodynamics, any rapidly moving electron radiates electromagnetic energy. As a result, the kinetic energy of the electron decreases, and in the end it must fall into the nucleus. And Kaigorodsky even calculated in "Physics for All" the time of the fall of an electron on the nucleus - hundredths of a second!

I ask the reader to look at the Weber equation of classical electrodynamics, which consists of three terms. The first term is Coulomb's law, the second is the change in the interaction force as a result of potential delay, the third is what relates to our topic of radiation. Here we see that the Weber formula includes distance scalar between interacting particles. This means that at a constant distance between the nucleus and the electron, both the first and second derivatives are equal to zero. Therefore, in this case, there should be no potential delay and radiation. This means that not every rapidly moving electron radiates energy. An electron moving in a circular orbit should not radiate! It is amazing how long such a significant mistake has gone unnoticed!

The solution to the second question was suggested by Huygens. He suggested: "Light arises due to the shocks that the moving particles of bodies inflict on the particles of the ether." Before the advent of the de Broglie relation for wavelengths, this phrase of Huygens seemed to "hang in the air." The de Broglie relation was supposed to become the foundation for studying the causes of the appearance of both the relation itself, and as a consequence of the de Broglie waves, the appearance of photons. However, the conclusion about the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, made by Born, Heisenberg and Bohr, as well as the rejection of the ether, made by Einstein, led physicists away from this problem.

Apparently, it should be assumed that the de Broglie waves are a real process of the "jump" movement of particles, the cause of which is the non-uniform delay of the potential, and the photon is a segment of local (sharply directed) ether waves, which have at the beginning and at the end a slightly different oscillation frequency (the width of the spectral line ), which is associated with the deceleration of the electron speed when it jumps from one stable orbit to another.

The jogging motion of particles as a consequence of the non-uniform delay of the potential can be a solution to one more of the questions of quantum mechanics - the existence of stable discrete orbits of an electron. The stable orbits are apparently the result of the resonance of cyclic and shock oscillations.

Thus, despite the many incantations of orthodox relativists that there is no and cannot be a return to classical physics, to the ether, to mechanical views, to causality and to wave representations of light, we must do this, otherwise “we will have to give up all hope ever understand anything in physics"

Literature:

1. A.I. Veinik. Thermodynamics. Higher School, Minsk, 1968, p. 434.
2. H. Huygens. Treatise on Light. Leiden, 1703. Transl. from lat. on Sat. ed. G.M. Golin and S.R. Filonovich "Classics of Physical Science", Higher School, 1989, pp. 131-140.
3. J. K. Maxwell. Treatise on electricity and magnetism, vol. 1, 2, Oxford, 1873. Per. from English. Science, M., 1989.
4. I. Newton. Optics, or a treatise on the reflections, refractions, bendings, and colors of light. London, 1706. Trans. from lat. ed. G.S. Landsberg, Gostekhizdat, Moscow, 1981.
5. S.I. Vavilov. Eye and sun. Science, M., 1976.
6. G. Hertz. On very fast electrical oscillations. Ann. der Ph., b. 31, s. 421...448. Per. with him. on Sat. ed. G.M. Golin and S.R. Filonovich "Classics of Physical Science", Higher School, 1989.
7. G. Hertz. About electrodynamic waves in air and their reflection. Ann. der Ph., b. 34, s. 609...623. Per. with him. on Sat. ed. G.M. Golin and S.R. Filonovich "Classics of Physical Science", Higher School, 1989.
8. R. Feynman, R. Layton, M. Sands. Feynman Lectures on Physics. Per. from English, vol. 3, 4, Mir, M., 1976, pp. 391...398.
9. VK. Semenchenko. Selected chapters of theoretical physics. Enlightenment, M., 1966, p. 131.
10. A.I. Kitaygorodsky. Physics for everyone, vol. 3 (Electrons), Nauka, M., 1979.

V.V. Manturov

ABOUT THE SIZE OF PHOTONS

It is shown that it is reasonable to talk about the size of a photon only when the photon is represented as a toroidal (donut). There was no discussion about how to determine the size of the donut. However, it turned out (unexpected for the author since September-October 2012) that the photons that arise when de Broglie waves descend, for example, from a free electron - their parent and carrier, are two to three orders of magnitude higher in energy intensity than those photons that are emitted in the spectra as a result of the emission by an electron of an excited atom (in particular) of hydrogen. Looks like it was meant to be?

The answer to the question, what is the size of a photon, is both simple and not very simple. Let's start with the fact that for waves of the radio frequency range, talking about the size of a photon is meaningless.

Firstly, a photon as an electromagnetic wave in nature and a radio wave of the same nature differ from each other not only in lengths and, accordingly, in frequencies and energies acquired by them, but also in the structure due to the physical mechanism of occurrence,.

In fact, radio wave radiation occurs when current is discharged between two electrodes of a spark gap (linear lightning is classified as electrodeless). And they propagate radially away from the axis of the Hertz vibrator, spark gap or oscillator. The entire set of polarization planes of such radio waves is determined by the direction of the spark gap axis, the "memory" of which they retain.

Secondly, propagating in space, they, radio waves, acquire, as it were, a spherical shape. Although in fact they are also "born" bagels. (All this is similar to how the shape of a balloon changes from its original, original, when it is inflated or inflated.) Unlike a balloon, the size of radio wave donuts, transforming into an almost sphere, grows at the speed of light, and without limit. Therefore, they are "theoretically" represented as flat monochromatic.

As for photons no more than centimeter wavelengths, they are, and, first of all, and forever - donuts, toroids of constant size. Since the size of a photon includes the length of its electromagnetic wave, and hence the frequency. And since a photon is a de Broglie wave, abandoned by an electron (charged particle) or leaving it,. And the de Broglie wave (VDB) arises, is born with the beginning of the motion of a charged particle. It, VDB, is formed in the form of a toroid (donut), in the hole of which there is a charged particle, the electron is its parent and carrier. The VDB "sits" on the electron, accompanying it in motion. And only when the VDB and its parent and carrier leave each other, then their continuation becomes a photon, which inherits the direction of motion of both the electron and the VDB. Thus, we see that, unlike radio waves, neither the simplest nor the most ingeniously invented oscillator takes any part in the appearance of both the VDB and the photon. Nature acted simply, pragmatically and rationally: it did not supply every photon with an oscillator. She limited herself to the fact that each VDB and each photon are self-sufficient: they have a single-valued wavelength . Hence the unambiguous size of a photon. Therefore, they do not need to be supplied with oscillators. After all, it was only a person who needed to know the frequency of the photon. So let him calculate it, since the length and frequency of the wave are uniquely related through the speed of light. Thus, the second and essential difference between VDBs and photons and radio waves related to them in nature is that photons and VDBs do not need oscillators.

So it was thought until recently and it was thought correctly, but not in all cases, as it turned out, Nature limited itself to this (see below).

Thirdly. Photons and VDBs not only do not propagate radially, but retain their size during the entire time of overcoming the universal distances. This is due to the fact that in their "device" by Nature there is a tightening mechanism, the effect of a "hoop". This effect was not known to physicists, as well as the fact that the basis of this contraction effect is a kind of "rod" (fourth difference) in the form of a magnetic flux quantum. The magnetic field in it is calculated in thousands of Tesla (recall: P. L. Kapitsa managed to reach about 50 Tesla with the help of an explosion).

It is these features (there are others) that make a photon look like a corpuscle, like a particle. It turns out that the formation of an electromagnetic wave in the form of a donut with such a quantum of magnetic flux is nothing but a particle. And yet this is not a particle, but a wave in the form of a toroidal soliton, which is always based on one quantum of the magnetic flux, enclosed (contracted) by many surface circulations of the vector potential. Therefore, both the magnetic and electric fields of both the VDB and the photon are always perpendicular to each other, which confirms Maxwell's electrodynamics. The differences between VDBs and photons, on the one hand, and radio waves, on the other hand, are shown more fully in ,.

All solitons are more or less (tsunami) similar to corpuscles. The environment from which they are carved does not expire from their volume, but is preserved. This is another difference. Look at the rings of smoke exhaled by a skilled smoker, or from Wood's box, or from the vent of Mount Etna.

Retreat. And maybe only in the "body" of the tsunami, propagating radially from the place of origin, the mass (volume) of the acquired water, although theoretically preserved, but due to a change size(2πR, where R is the distance from the source of tsunami formation) decreases, the thickness of the “donut” becomes thinner. The tsunami in December 2004 was born by a long (more than 100 km) linear fault and therefore brought down its thickness of the linear part of the “donut”, which did not have time to “lose weight”, and, consequently, all almost the initial destructive power on the densely populated coast of Indonesia. It, the tsunami, moved in the form of an almost straight segment of a “donut”, and did not lose its energy, spreading kilometers deep into the coast, land, and inflicted destructive blows, like a hard and elastic rubber shaft, retaining, to a large extent, due to its linearity, the diameter bagel thickness.

The photon moves or propagates flat (perpendicular) to its velocity vector, i.e. along the axis of the toroid. And the radio waves, we recall, are radial from the axis of the spark gap. A photon is a quantum of energy and a quantum of magnetic flux, contracted by many circulations of the vector potential to the shape of a toroid-donut, is a corpuscular solenoid with a clearly defined geometry, and, consequently, a size. We immediately declare that the size of a toroidal photon is the sum of two transverse thicknesses of the donut body plus the diameter of the hole left by the electron. A VDB cannot exist without a hole and an electron in it, since at first there was an electron (a charged particle). Which (charge) began to move or was already moving.

A = (mc/e) v (1)

and earlier de Broglie received the wavelength of his name,

λ = (h/mv), (2)

we have (below formulas are written without vector symbols)

λA = (hc/e) (3)

λ = (hc/eA), (4)

but in , is established from (1) and the relation mcv = eA = E = hν

λ = hc/(hν), (6)

where (hν) is the photon energy quantum. It is not necessary to open the brackets in (6): here the criterion necessary for calculations is laid down - a photon energy quantum or VDB. After all, we are talking about the size of a photon whose energy is given (hν). What remains is pure arithmetic. The size Z of a photon and a VDB is equal to

Z = 4(λ/2π) + hole diameter (6Z)

Let's give some examples.

Example No. 1. What is the wavelength of de Broglie and a photon of a gamma quantum of 511,000 eV? These two gamma rays are emitted during the so-called annihilation of an electron and a positron. In fact, there is a real recombination of two opposite charges-ions, and with the preservation of the material particles themselves, as in the recombination of atomic and molecular ions. From the fact that they are in the singular and five or more orders of magnitude smaller in size and mass, they do not lose their ionic status. It is not lost, it is preserved.

Now we use the formula (6) we have obtained. But in order not to suffer with numerical calculations, we take into account that, according to Einstein, the entire mass of an electron (positron) during annihilation allegedly “turns” into energy, into the gamma-ray quantum of 0.511 MeV specified by us, i.e. 0.511 MeV \u003d m e c 2. Let us substitute in the denominator (6) exactly the right side (m e c 2) of this numerical value. Get Compton wavelength of an electron

λ e \u003d h / m e c \u003d 2.426 310 58 * 10 -10 cm (7)

But this is, after all, the de Broglie wave, and, therefore, the photon. And at the same time their size (6Z).

We have come to a contradiction. In fact, it is known, after all, that with the so-called. annihilation, an electron and a positron collide and form a dipole-dumbbell (e + e-), the size of which is known as twice the classical electron radius

R e \u003d e 2 / mc 2 (8)

And this is the smallest distance to which an electron and a positron come together during a collision (recombination) and remain in this pressed state. They kind of clung to each other.

R e \u003d α 2 a o \u003d 2.817 940 92 * 10 -13 cm, (9)

where a 0 \u003d 0.529 177 249 * 10 -8 cm is the Bohr radius, this is the radius of the orbit closest to the nucleus.

Comparison of (7) and (9) shows that they differ by three orders of magnitude. But in both cases we are talking about the recombination of an electron and a positron.

What's the matter? The fact is that during a collision (annihilation), an electron and a positron do not turn into energy in the form of two 0.511 MeV gamma quanta, which are actually emitted, but form a dipole in the form of a dumbbell (e + e-) with charges separated by a distance (8) and (9). And it "dives" into the Dirac sea and becomes one of the nodes of the infinite grid of "dark matter". In order for the masses of an electron and a positron not to turn into energy, this pair (at an “infinite” distance from each other) has enough (exactly as much as necessary) Coulomb energy, as evidenced by (8).

And in (7) the wavelengths of de Broglie and photons that have turned into gamma quanta of 0.511 MeV are given. Thus, (9) is the size of the particles, electron and positron, and the hole that they form in the VDB and leave when they leave it, and (7) is the length of their de Broglie waves and, accordingly, photons.

I wonder what is the speed of an electron at the moment of collision with a positron, those. at the moment of their so-called annihilation? As you know, the momentum of a photon, gamma-quantum is determined by the formula

M e v = E/c (*)

We know the energy: E \u003d 0.511 MeV \u003d m e c 2 We substitute into (*) and we get v \u003d c. We emphasize: V = C. The electron has reached the speed of light, and its mass has not increased in any way. And this is confirmed by the radiation of just such (exactly 0.511 MeV) in magnitude gamma quanta by many universal luminaries in galaxies. No deviations.

Example No. 2. It is known that the charge of the proton is the same as that of the positron. The idea arises that Compton electron length(and this is the size of the VDB) corresponds, as it were, to such an energy level of an orbital electron, as if, falling on a hydrogen nucleus, it acquired an orbit of radius (7). Let us assign n = 0 to it.

Now it is generally accepted that the main quantum number is a sequence of integers n = 1,2.3,4,5,. We therefore did not imply that theoretically there andn = 0. And this is very important!!! For supporters of the idea of ​​hydrino.

But the electron in the hydrogen atom does not fall on the nucleus, on the proton, the electron is not captured by the nucleus. Why? Yes, because Nature could not allow hydrogen atoms to "annihilate" in the same way as in the above case. Hydrogen atoms, more precisely, their nuclei-protons, are the building material, the bricks from which Nature has built and is building more and more complex elements of the periodic system of Mendeleev. Protons do not have the right to turn into (p + e-) = n. Otherwise, neither the Big Bang, nor the Higgs bosons, and nothing else would have helped. The universe would not have come into existence. The universe exists due to the impossibility of such an outcome. It is assumed that, apparently, for the same reason, experts in spectrometry have not found lines in the hydrogen spectrum in the range from n = 1 to the n = 0 introduced by us. Hydrino does not appear.

Dark matter, performs its electrodynamic functions and not only. And it is very possible that dark matter also serves as a kind of building material for nucleons and nuclei. Nearly 100% of the universe is made up of hydrogen and helium. And everything spins in vortices, burns with stellar nuclear boilers, explodes, is absorbed by black holes and is reborn again. And even life, no one knows how, arises, evolves, spreads, reaches high intellectual ups and downs and is thus supported. Because of this, it seems that the optical range of light (and GOD said: LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!) is limited by the Rydberg 13.6 eV.

Example #3. Let us determine the value of the energy quantum of the de Broglie wave of an electron in the main stationary orbit of the hydrogen atom, i.e. for n = 1. To do this, we use formulas (4) or (5). Let it be (5)

Formula (1) we have found is indispensable. Let us replace v in (1) by v = c/137 = αс

hν = mc 2 /137 = αmc 2 (10)

And since the numerator on the right in (10) corresponds to an energy quantum of 511,000 eV, we get

hν = (511000 /137)eV (10a)

This will be (on a slide rule) approximately 3730 eV. And since,

A = (emc/ ћn), (11)

Then, at n = 2, the energy level of the electron and its WDB will decrease to about 1865 eV. But then it turns out absurdity, complete absurdity!!!??? And let's repeat. There are no such energies in the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom. The entire spectral range of the hydrogen atom, i.e. its total ionization energy is

R∞ = 13.605 6981 eV. (12)

What's the matter? And let's compare it in frequencies.

Let us express the frequencies (which is equivalent to their energy quanta) of photons and de Broglie waves that arise when a VDB leaves (leaves) an electron, both freely moving and orbiting, at n = 1. We denote them as follows: ν λ .

ν λ = (с/λ) = (mce 2 /hћ) = c/2πr (13)

It is easy to see that the frequency is equal to the number of revolutions of the electron per second.

Let us represent in the same way the Rydberg frequencies ν∞

ν ∞ = cR = c(me 2 /4πћ 3 c) = e 2 /4πћr (14)

The ratio (13) to (14) shows us that they are based on fundamentally different energy arsenals

(ν λ / ν ∞) = 2.137 = 2/α (15)

And now we divide (10a) by (15) and get the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom 13.6 eV.

It doesn't fit in my head.

And yet, the first conclusion is as follows: the frequencies of both photons and VBRs, due to the descent of VBRs from a free and ground state electron, its parent and carrier (VBRs abandoned by an electron or leaving it), are in principle based on an energy arsenal, which in 2.137 = 2/α times exceeds the energy of photons in the spectral range of hydrogen atoms.

Note. Looking on the Internet at the page "What is a photon?" (it was from there that I learned that physicists are concerned about the question of what is the size of a photon), somehow I came across an article by F.M. Konarev “Misconceptions of Niels Bohr”.

F. Konarev, as it turned out, faced this nonsense back in 1993. But he did not dig deeper, and therefore he apparently failed to determine the magnitude of the energy bond of an electron in the lower orbit (n = 1): “The binding energy E 1 of an electron (with a nucleus - VM, see below) at the moment its at the first energy level of this atom is equal to the ionization energy E J of the hydrogen atom, that is, E 1 = Ej = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with an energy of 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. Naturally, when a photon is absorbed by an electron, their energies add up, and we must write down ...: 13.60 + 10.20 = 23.80 (28).”

And the spectrum gives 3.40 eV. As you can see, he, Konarev, could not cope with the illogical energy balances when an external photon acted on an electron of the main energy level, and went into a "rage".

Let us omit a number of his theoretical calculations and hear angry:

“An amazing fact. For almost a hundred years, we believed that an electron in an atom revolves around the nucleus, like a planet around the sun. But the law of formulas for the spectrum of the hydrogen atom ... (which he deduced, and we omitted them, since we do not agree with the original aspects - VM) denies the orbital motion of the electron. There is no energy in this law that corresponds to the orbital motion of an electron, which means that it does not have such a motion.”

Therefore, F. Kanarev decided that Niels Bohr was mistaken and thereby caused damage to science and humanity. Well, apparently, over these two decades (since 1992), many have read his claims to the founders and certain achievements of science and worldview. And they were also surprised. And the author of these lines, too, by a sinful deed, fell into this trap. Until you call it something else.

In fact, when acting on an atom of the ground state by a photon, we really believed that the energy of this photon is added to the energy of an electron in the first, ground, state. But it turned out that this is not so. This can be explained: the electron got to this energy level not due to energy manipulations in the spectral band, not only due to the spectral radiation of a previously excited hydrogen atom. He gets there in approximately the same way as the planets get into the lair of the Sun, the stars. Suppose the planet was at first independent with its kinetic energy, and when it fell into the sphere of the Sun's gravity, it turned out that its kinetic energy, the planet, was not enough to overcome the predatory force of the star. And was captured, perhaps with some excess of energy. So it is in this case under consideration with the hydrogen atom. There is an excess of kinetic energy, but it is two orders of magnitude lower than the critical one.

But no matter how it was, but the analogy is present here: the hydrogen atom is formed from independent of each other, a proton-nucleus and an electron with an accompanying de Broglie wave sitting on it. Moreover, this pair, the electron and its VDB, already had a kinetic energy equal to

α.0.511 MeV = ~3730 eV

It is not for nothing that this energy state (level) of an electron in orbit n = 1 is called the ground state. It, the main one, serves as an almost insurmountable boundary separating zones with levelsn = 0.1 from the zone with levelsn = 2,3,4,… In these zones, the laws of formation and existence of VDBs and photons are fundamentally different. Outside the spectral band of the hydrogen atom, the kinetic energy of an electron obeys the law (11) multiplied by e.

EA = (hν) = mc(e 2 / ћn) = mcv, (16)

those. decrease in inverse proportion to the main quantum number, and in the spectral zone (n = 2,3,4,…) - according to the Rydberg law, i.e. (1/n2).

It was shown above how different the energy arsenals are, on the basis of which the physical processes of the formation of VDBs and photons (in the first zone) and the formation of spectra (in the second zone) occur in them. Nature, as it were, separated the arsenal of energy, intended for the emergence of life and its prosperity, from the arsenal of energy of its inanimate part.

If VDBs and photons in the main (let's call it that for brevity) band are formed in the form of a toroid (donut) even before the capture of a free electron by a proton, then there is no reason to either insist on this analogy or deny it about the shape of VDBs and photons in the spectral band. After all, it turns out that in terms of energy they are 2.137 times (15) less, but this also means that their sizes according to de Broglie's formula (2) and our (6) are so much more extensive. This means that we do not know for sure what the shapes of photons in the spectral range are. We also do not know how the division of energy and the initial quantum of the magnetic flux occurs in the atom. The physical mechanism of these metamorphoses is not known to us.

USED ​​SOURCES

1. A. G. ALENITSIN, E. I. Butikov, and A. S. Kondrat’ev, Acoust. Brief physical and mathematical DIRECTORY, M, "Nauka", 1990;

2. Manturov V.V. From crystalline nucleons and nuclei to unraveling the distribution of prime numbers M, 2007;

3. Manturov V.V. Nuclear forces. Suggestion of a clue, Technique of Youth, 02, 2006;

4. Manturov V.V. Let's say a word about the vector potential;