Bonjour Xavier,

When considering the electron stabilized with respect to a proton, we are obviously considering the hydrogen atom. Here are my personal observations:

When stabilized in the hydrogen ground state, quantum mechanics as well as least action adiabatic equilibrium states reveal that the electron may not be actually moving in translation (not "orbiting") in the sense understood from the Bohr atom, but would be stabilized within in a more or less stationary volume within which it would remain localized.

The charge needs to be involved because it is the only parameter that allows calculating with precision (by means of the Coulomb equation) the observed energy level related to the 13.6 eV electromagnetic photon that escapes when the electron is captured in the ground state.

13.6 eV is the precise momentum related energy level corresponding to the ground state distance between the negatively charged electron and the positively charged proton.

While in the ground state, the electron is adiabatically induced with 27.2 eV that does not necessarily involve translational motion, even if this level of energy could allow it. Since its momentum energy is now oriented towards the proton (due to the Coulomb force), its translational motion about the proton seems to be inhibited to the benefit of some form of "pressure" in the direction of the proton.

Bonjour André, Thank for your comment.

Your conception of the hydrogen atom is disappointing for me. Historically the first approach in QM where built on the motion of the electron around the proton. The wave equations suppose a wave properties for the electron but are still built with the variation of the action. The choice of the wave or the particle is theoretical and still raises difficulties.

In this view how do you explain the measurement of observed magnetic momentums? As you know I suppose that there is exchange of very small grains of mass between the proton and the electron which give an explanation of the motion between the two particles. The both particles have a rest mass which vary during the motion their sum being constant.

The first question to ask is how to measure the mass of an elementary particle.

I think it is possible only comparing with the mass of other particles, with known mass. Obviously it is difficult to measure the gravitational mass, therefore one should measure the inertial mass, which mean collision or response to an electromagnetic field which measure not the mass, but the charge to mass ratio. 

Dear Xavier,

I know that my approach is difficult to connect to conventional physics. It is however grounded on conventional concepts.

Regarding QM, my analysis led me to dig as far as the origin of the concept, which led me to find out that the whole idea came from the discovery by de Broglie that the stable electronic orbitals corresponded to resonance states. I found this precious piece of information in a book that maybe you have in your library or may possibly have access to. It is mentioned by Einstein in the first chapter:

Einstein A., Schrödinger E., Pauli W., Rosenfeld L., Born I., Joliot-Curie I. & F., Heisenberg W., Yukawa H., et al. (1953) Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur. (Hommage à Louis de Broglie à l'occasion de son 60ième anniversaire de naissance, chaque collègue contribuant un chapitre, Einstein contribuant même 3 chapitres distincts, l'ouvrage complet offrant un survol relativement détaillé de l'état des connaissances en physique fondamentale en 1952). Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.

Schrödinger then found that the wave function can represent these resonance states. Then Heisenberg came up with his corresponding statistical method. Both approaches solidly grounded of Planck's reduced quantum of action after it was directly defined by de Broglie from the Bohr ground state orbit parameters.

I think that over the decades, sight was lost that the actual physical process is what de Broglie concluded, which is that the stable electronic states in atoms are "resonance states".

To me, the wave function is just a mathematical tool, a convenient means of localizing the resonace volumes within which the electron stabilizes.

I observe that early on, everybody, even de Broglie, seem to have become fascinated with the wave function since it was so convenient, but maybe lost sight of what it was actually meant to describe.

It is convenient that these states can be represented by the wave function, but fundamentally, i concluded that these resonance states determine only "volumes" within which a particle oscillates when captive of a resonance state. The volume in question is then only the set of positions that an electromagnetic particle that can then be seen as remaining localized is likely to "visit" as it is shoved around within this volume.

So my conclusion is that the electron can be seen as being permanently localized even when stabilized into one of these resonance states whose volumes can be described by QM.

I have read your approach regarding the exchange of "grains of mass", which looks consistent to me, and brings a new angle of exploration.

You mention momentum, this is another notion that I dug back to the origin. I found that it was established before the Coulomb force was discovered that adiabatically induces energy (not velocity) in charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance.

When this was discovered, the concept of momentum was not re-visited and was even carried on to the submicroscopic level by means of the Lagrangian and then the Hamiltonian, connecting the concept to electromagnetic fields, but retaining the notion that translational motion needed to be involved for kinetic energy to even exist.

My exploration of the adiabatic nature of kinetic energy induction in charged particles by the Coulomb force led me to understand that momentum is not necessarily dependent on velocity.

When velocity of charged particles is impeded, the adiabatically induced energy that sustains a velocity when not hindered does not disappear, it simply then applies a "pressure" in the vectorial direction of the force.

This is what I concluded is happening to electrons stabilizing in the orbital resonance states.

What causes the resonance can be linked to the magnetic aspect that you mention, and is due to the demonstrable fact that the magnetic field of elementary particles oscillates at the energy frequency of the particle. The more energetic the particle or its carrying energy, the higher the frequency. Since the magnetic oscillating frequencies of the inner components of the proton are immensely higher than those of the electron and its carrying energy, the magnetic interaction becomes predominantly repulsive at a precise mean distance from the proton, a mean distance that exactly corresponds with the Bohr ground state in the Bohr atom.

Simply put, the magnetically sustained resonance simply causes the electron to oscillate axially about the mean orbital distance in a very precise manner. which leaves the other ambiant circumstances determine the size and shape of the resonance volume.

The reason why this magnetic interaction can counter the inverse square with distance attraction between the electron and the proton simply is that the magnetic interaction obeys an interaction law of higher order than the Coulomb inverse square law. It obeys the inverse cube law of distance between the same particles.

The physical proof of this inverse cube with distance interaction law between the magnetic aspects of two electrons captive in parallel spin alignment was obtained in 2014 by Kotler et al. See first paper below.

The proof of the oscillating nature of the magnetic field of point-like behaving particles, for which both poles geometrically coincide by structure can be found in the lab experiment described in the second paper, which was carried out 15 years before the Kotler experiment.

I also conclude that the mass of both particles has to vary with distance, however, the variation can only be due to the adiabatic variation of the particles carrying energy with distance between them, while their ultimate rest mass remains invariant.

I hope some of this makes sense to you.  

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

Hi Gianpiero.

In the case of the electron, there are means to confirm its mass from the electromagnetic perspective.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Walter Kaufman conducted experiments accelerating electrons to relativistic velocity involving deflection of their trajectories in a bubble chamber.

The relativistic equation that allows correctly predicting the correct deflection angles at any velocity allowed also calculating the rest mass of the electron when the velocity is set to zero in the equation.

Confirming observations were made as far back as the 1930's regarding the creation of electron-positron pairs from 1.022 MeV or more photons being destabilized when grazing atomic nuclei, and reconversion of pairs to electromagnetic photons that confirm the exact amount of electromagnetic energy that constitute the rest mass of the electron (and the positron of course).

From the countless experiments in high energy accelerators for close to 90 years, there seems to remain little doubts about the exact rest mass of the electron.

Here is a picture of an experiment af FERMILAB (experiment E632) where a positron hits an electron (point A), converting both of them to a single 1.022+ MeV photon, that reconverts to a pair (point B) moving in opposite directions with the total energy that the incoming positron had just before converting at point A.

@André Michaud. You are still stuck with the corpuscular ideation. But not any experimental result supports this corpuscular idéation. Shariar Afshar has proved that the photons never become corpuscular. And so on, lots of proofs against any "corpuscular aspects".

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf

The most accurate determination is the 2014 result by Sturm et. al, to a relative precision of 2.9 x 10-11. What is measured is the ratio between between the electron mass and the mass of C12 atoms (which defines the atomic mass unit).  I believe the measured accuracy is much higher than what can be furnished by the SI kilogram standard. NIST lists a relative uncertainty of 1.2 x 10-8 when the mass is expressed in kilograms instead of atomic mass units u.

The measurement is not without theoretical input, but so are all measurements beyond perhaps observing the  number of coins in your pocket.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Results?search_for=electron+mass

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/full/nature13026.html

Dear André, Many thanks for your large and interesting comment. The notion of resonance is also clearly present in the corpuscular approach, and seams fundamental. The alone way to choice between two approaches is the experiments. When the periodic motion is disturbed by impurities in a solid this lower the fusion point, this simple property known as Raoult law, is use to make the snow liquid with addition of salt. I discuss this resonance in my memories of research.

The difficulty is that a great number of people share the same approach before to recognize it as the best!

Dear Jacques,

If you think I am talking about the old idea of corpuscles, you really do not understand what I explained.

I talk about localization of stable electromagnetic quanta (photons, electrons, positrons, up quark, down quark).

We have had clear proof since Wien and Planck in the 1890's of localization of photons upon absorption, and we have exhaustive proof about localization of electromagnetic emission of photons when electrons are captured by ionized atoms, even when they simply de-excite from an exited metastable orbital moving to an orbital closer to the nucleus.

It is not possible to understand their permanent localization during transit without clear understanding of the relation between the triple orthogonality of electromagnetic energy and the tri-spatial space geometry.

De Broglie came to the conclusion in the 1930's that it was not possible to describe permanently localized quanta in the too restrictive frame of 4D Minkowski space geometry. I followed the trail and found that he was right.

If interested, the second part of this paper recently published in April puts this new space geometry in perspective with respect to other space geometry approaches.

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

@Michaud. No, you have only proved that the absorption reaction is of limited size. No more.

But if the Fermat's spindle remained as tight as the emission reaction and the absorption reaction, no interferential colors could work at all, no anti-reflective coating could work out of the normal incidence, no quarter-wave plates could work, no interferential colors, no Goos-Hänchen effect in plane polarization, no Imbert-Fedorov in circular polarization. No radiocrystallography, no Scherrer law...

So many proofs of the non-negligible width of each photon...

Dear Xavier,

I absolutely agree with you on the resonance issue.

I have been convinced ever since I got this hint about resonance from de Broglie that understanding the electromagnetic resonance process that causes electrons to be captured in the least action electromagnetic equilibrium states defined by the wave function was key to a clearer definition of permanently localized quanta.

My conclusion was that permanent localization is not in contradiction with QM, the wave function generally describing the volumes and shapes of the resonance volumes, and the electromagnetic resonance mechanics describing how localized quanta (the electron specifically in this case) can be brought to move axially to visit, so to speak these resonance volumes.

I studied resonance within atomic and nuclear structure and I see that you have explored resonance at the molecular level.

A clear case of convergence, don't you think?

Dear Jacques,

What you describe are observed effects, not proofs.

I have not studied these effects, but I am convinced that the interactions between the frequency of the internal oscillation between the electric and magnetic states within each quantum interacting with the frequencies of internal oscillation all other surrounding electromagnetic quanta can explain these resonance states.

My opinion is that when all aspects of the resulting resonance states of elementary quanta systems, which includes the carrying energy of the massive quanta, have been studied and put in proper perspective, logical explanations will be found for all these effects.

 In french : le miroir alaire d'une sarcelle d'hiver, normalement vert, est magenta en lumière rasante.

Impossible avec des photons réfléchis qui seraient moins larges que la profondeur de la couche transparente  réflexive.

In english : A teal has two green "mirrors" on its wings. But at high incidence, these  mirrors appear magenta ; their green color is interferential.

It works so only if each reflected photon is much more wide than the depth of the interferential layer.

A reflected photon is far from its absorber, in our retina. Only the geometry of the Fermat's spindle rules its width at the feather.

Dear Jacques,

You assume that the incoming photons are reflected by a flat surface. Not so at the submicroscopic level where the scattering event occurs.

At this level, the oscillating energy of the incoming photon interacts with the much more energetic oscillating energies of the particles making up the atoms that constitute the absolutely not flat reflexion surface, not even speaking of the interference of the particles making up the atoms of which the  thickness of the glass is made that it must go through.

I have not studied this case, but I am positive that the scattering process can only be much more complex than what you propose at the electromagnetic quanta level.

You have no experience of amateur astronomy. When a mirror is polished at lambda/14, it is uncommensurable with the atoms of aluminium. And it is a very good mirror.

It is a good mirror made of elementary electromagnetic particles stabilized into atomic structures, themselves stabilized in molecular structures that combine by electromagnetic interaction to make up the macroscopic mirror whose surface is polished smoothlessly from our macroscopic perspective, but that still is not smooth at the submicroscopic level where light quanta interact electromagnetically with the particles that make it up.

No need to have experience in astronomy. Simple electromagnetic understanding of elementary particles allows becoming aware of this.

Smooth surfaces simply cannot exist at the elementary particles level. They can assemble only axially in atomic 3D structures

But it is an excellent mirror, well resolving M13, and magnificient on M31, the Galaxy of Andromede.

Some practice could correct the most wrong theories.

Dear Jacques,

I do agree with you on this point. Possibly the best that can be done currently.

@Xavier Oudet. In solid state physics, we know that the dressed conduction electron has different effective masses along a same crystallographic direction, even locally negative.

@Jacques Lavau. Even in a good crystal there are numerous defects, as a result the same electrons with the same QS and crystallographic site have different energies, so different masses. You can see Atoms and Crystal Structures.

From somewhere I seem to remember stationary electrons, where there is a vertical uppward electric forcé qE,to counterbalance the

downward gravitational field g, so that qE=mg, so you derive a ratio

q/m of the electron.

Close analysis of the interactions involved seem to  reveal that this axial "upward" force that counterbalances the Coulomb force that draws the electron towards the proton in a hydrogen atom would rather be the predominantly repulsive inverse cube magnetic interaction that starts to dominate over the inverse square Coulomb attraction when the electron moves closer than the mean least action rest orbital.

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Andre

Im not refering to atoms, but perhaps small particles with residual electrostatic charge

of q=ne. Then you suspend these small particles with an electric field vertically.

You do this with a number of suspendend particles, to see jumps in q

Unfortunaltely I cannot yet find the exact reference.

Juan> Unfortunaltely I cannot yet find the exact reference.

Are you perhaps thinking of the 1908 oil-drop experiment by Millikan an Fletcher? Which revealed that charge comes in discrete units. And which has later been tried for searches of free quarks.

I doubt that such type of experiments can be used to measure the electron mass very accurately. But they may provide a cross-check.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

Dear Juan,

Indeed, I thought you were referring to an electron being stationary in an atomic orbital. I see you were talking about a different case as Kåre mentions.

Dear All: there is one point which has not yet tackle, if the photon is the energy lost by the electron, nevertheless the proton and the electron are in interaction and this energy must also concern the proton. The notion of small grain mass to describe the interaction with exchange of flux between the proton and the electron allows an explanation, the energy in question belong to the proton as well to the electron, (see The wave and the Quantum state or the Quantum State and Periodicity). Thanks for your interest Xavier.

Dear Xavier,

You are absolutely right.

When considered from the Coulomb law perspective, the Coulomb law mandates that when two charged particles interact, both particles are induced with the same amount of energy as a function of the distance separating them, this means that when the electron is stabilized in the hydrogen ground state, being adiabatically induced with 27.2 eV of energy, the inner charged components of the proton are also induced with this amount of added adiabatic energy, probably distributed as a function of the intensity of their fractional charges (2 up quarks and 1 down quark), which is infinitesimal with respect to their stable adiabatic carrying energy that exceeds 310 MeV each. This remains to be clearly confirmed and experimentally measured.

The 13.6 eV photon released when the electron is captured is the momentum energy that it gathered as it accelerated while in process of being captured. We know that momentum kinetic energy has inertia, so when the electron is suddenly stopped in electromagnetic equilibrium at ground state mean distance, this energy is released exactly like when a moving mass hits an obstacle at our macroscopic level.

Since the electron is close to 2000 times less massive than the proton, it is the electron that picks up the most momentum related velocity with respect to its mass. But since these are such an insignificant amount of energy with respect to the inner proton components energy, maybe it simply is not released by the inner proton components and remains part of the adiabatic energy increase of the proton inner components.

The 27.2 eV induced in the electron and the corresponding extra adiabatic energy induced in the inner proton components on their part while the electron is stabilized, being adiabatic in nature, is never released, and since it depends only on the distance between the electron and the inner components of the proton, it simply diminishes with distance if the electron is ejected when provided with a new quantum of 13.6 eV that would allow it to escape,

If your representation is in agreement with this, then I think that your representation is correct, or at least in agreement with my understanding.

Dear André,

Thank for your comment. I glad to realize that your approach is very close of the mine. For the two fluxes of small grains mass, each one correspond to 13.6eV and maintain the relative motion of the both particles.

I introduce the notion of exchanges of small grains mass for the first time in 2000 in the Quantum State and the Doublets, and the two fluxes later. Xavier

Dear Xavier,

I am glad that you see coherence between our two representations. I perceived it also. From my perspective, any mathematical representation is valid as long as the energy levels are coherently represented.

I always put in perspective that mathematics is only a language, with wich we describe physical processes. Just like concepts can be described precisely with any of our spoken languages, I also think that many mathematical forms can correctly represent physical reality. Indeed, this is our only means to clearly describe this submicroscopic level that escapes our direct observation ability.