However as I asked in a previous post, what is the electron wave composed of -IE- is it the components of an electric or magnetic field or something else? Is the displacement of the wave transverse to the direction of travel (like light) or longitudinal (like a sound wave)?

The nice part is just starting now.
Wave equation:

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/TheWaveEquation.aspx
Or simpler:

But in the case of light, the two vectors are like that:

http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/PF3.htm
One is perpendicular to the other.

We could represent this mathematical using the imaginary number and as the complex impedance in electronics.

I tried to "dress up" the conversation in a form to attract you, and I neglected a little the rigor.
Now come back to de Broglie waves.
I say the amplitude of such a type of where to write with a special letter. Do not mess with the rest:
(from wiki)

 

Another example:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_6/node2.html

Are you in the mood to handle these formulas and to say if you "agree"?
Find a practical example for them?
First you must not be afraid of them.
Personally, I prefer browsing formulas slower but more consistent, than simply memorizing them and writing them quickly.

When I learned for the quantum exam, a colleague with high grades explained to me formulas.
She told me:
"Do not ask yourself so many questions. You will never pass the exam so."
"You do not care what they are. Learn to work with them."

A colleague asked the teacher:
"Can you explain this formula?"
"What to explain, the formula says it all"

 

Is a field....the same thing as a wave? Is a wave....the same thing as a field?

If you take some twine and a 3 lb rock........and spin them over your head in a circle.......and then write the math equation that describes that motion.

Now.....let the twine go...so the rock flies away..........NOW write the math equation for that flight..........WILL THOSE TWO EQUATIONS BE THE SAME?

Which one of these motions does Maxwell describe? Neither. Maxwell's equations TRY to describe the effect of absorption only.......and he was not aware of what he was doing. AND completely wrong. He was not aware that a wave is a linear conversion of a field. Put a scope at the feedpoint of a receiving antenna. The first half of the sine you see.......is the charging of the antenna....from the absorption of the linear wave. The second half of the sine.....is the reaction....or discharge of the antenna. Only the first half sine is absorbed.....and the full sine is absorption ....plus the reaction....the second half of the sine. The reaction is a mirror. Equal....but opposite. Charge....discharge.

The moving electrical density in a field.........is completely different than the moving electrical density in a wave.

Particles.....atoms....molecules....objects......have fields.......not waves.

The field of a particle only has one polarity....and does not alternate. It's a DC field. But it does wobble a little. To find the DC frequency......we must count that wobble. This frequency will tell you ALL the physical dimensions of the particle......and also ALL the electrical properties too. The wobble(frequency) will tell you everything about the particle.

 

Is a field....the same thing as a wave? Is a wave....the same thing as a field?

For me the electromagnetic field is the medium through which electromagnetic interactions are transmitted.

In this hypothetical environment in which the waves appear.
But I have not found anything on the Internet to prove this to you.

The electromagnetic field is matter but not substance.

Do you agree to consider this discussion brainstorming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming
What steps did we skip?

 

Please continue with strange ideas.........
All this time I've been thinking about this problem................
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/synchrotron_radiation.html

The conclusion I came up with is the following:
The electron when it reaches the atom is divided into two equal parts.
Everyone has half the weight, half of the mass, .....

They rotate in opposite directions and because of this it does not radiate because it cancels each other.

Please be very critical. I need you to tell me what I'm wrong with.

 

Please continue with strange ideas.........
All this time I've been thinking about this problem................
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/synchrotron_radiation.html

The conclusion I came up with is the following:
The electron when it reaches the atom is divided into two equal parts.
Everyone has half the weight, half of the mass, .....

They rotate in opposite directions and because of this it does not radiate because it cancels each other.

Please be very critical. I need you to tell me what I'm wrong with.

Seems that any rotating charged particle would still radiate despite its direction of rotation around the nucleus. Could the electron's "spin" somehow cancel the electron's angular rotation around the nucleus so it is essentially traveling in a straight line?

I don't know and every time I throw out one of my hair brained theories, I get the feeling that I'm crawling out on a branch that's dangling above a swamp full of alligators and crocodiles.

 

so it is essentially traveling in a straight line?

above a swamp full of alligators and crocodiles.

If the electron would execute a movement of going forth and back in a straight line,
it should accelerate and stop.
It still radiates energy.

They are not real crocodiles. I am ready if someone appears and laughs at me.

 

If the electron would execute a movement of going forth and back in a straight line,
it should accelerate and stop.
It still radiates energy.

They are not real crocodiles. I am ready if someone appears and laughs at me.

I've also heard that swamps are a haven for alligator snapping turtles which can give a nasty bite!!!

 

"Which can give a nasty bite" it's about alligator or turtles?

 

Please continue with strange ideas.........
All this time I've been thinking about this problem................
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/synchrotron_radiation.html

The conclusion I came up with is the following:
The electron when it reaches the atom is divided into two equal parts.
Everyone has half the weight, half of the mass, .....

They rotate in opposite directions and because of this it does not radiate because it cancels each other.

Please be very critical. I need you to tell me what I'm wrong with.

Synchrotron radiation is created if an electron deviates from a straight path, so I'm wondering if a moving electron in a copper wire also creates synchrotron radiation?

Seems that a moving electron in any conductor would experience some acceleration/acceleration and radiation. However, the radiation would be immediately absorbed and released as heat.

 

Seems that a moving electron in any conductor would experience some acceleration/acceleration and radiation. However, the radiation would be immediately absorbed and released as heat.

We have this thing called an antenna with moving electrons caused by changing fields. I wonder where the radiation from it does?

 

We have this thing called an antenna with moving electrons caused by changing fields. I wonder where the radiation from it does?

The electrons in a copper wire in a simple closed circuit (such as a DC power supply with a resistive load) will collide with atoms and experience acceleration and deceleration. So there must be some radiation which is immediately absorbed.

 

The electrons in a copper wire in a simple closed circuit (such as a DC power supply with a resistive load) will collide with atoms and experience acceleration and deceleration. So there must be some radiation which is immediately absorbed.

There are two things happening. The random Thermal_radiation (radiation as heat) caused by the random high speed collisions of electrons with a normally zero net drift velocity that happens without an applied field. We can detect this so it's not all absorbed. Then we have a external applied field (voltage) in a simple closed circuit.

After a normal DC circuit is stable there is no electron acceleration just a constant and slow drift velocity of those electrons but there is RF generated by electron acceleration as the switch is first opened and closed if the electrical size of the conductor is large (like an antenna) in respect to the rise and fall times of the current during the switching.

 

There are two things happening. The random Thermal_radiation (radiation as heat) caused by the random high speed collisions of electrons with a normally zero net drift velocity that happens without an applied field. We can detect this so it's not all absorbed. Then we have a external applied field (voltage) in a simple closed circuit.

After a normal DC circuit is stable there is no electron acceleration just a constant and slow drift velocity of those electrons but there is RF generated by electron acceleration as the switch is first opened and closed if the electrical size of the conductor is large (like an antenna) in respect to the rise and fall times of the current during the switching.

If the path of the electrons in the wire is not straight, there must be some curvature in the path (and radial movement) which produces centrifugal acceleration and subsequently synchrotron radiation.

 

If the path of the electrons in the wire is not straight, there must be some curvature in the path (and radial movement) which produces centrifugal acceleration and subsequently synchrotron radiation.

Sure if they are wiggling back and forth or turning in a circle quickly in space but if the voltage is oscillating or changing, it's not pure DC and this energy travels at the boundary of the conductor and space as EM fields. The speed of electrons in a wire in a normal steady state DC circuit is just slow, stable while the mean free path between electron collisions in a good conductor like copper is

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html

It's pretty hard to curve the path of electrons inside a conductor at those tiny distances unless you talk about high frequencies or very high currents that would vaporize the wire.

 

while the mean free path between electron collisions in a good conductor like copper is

collisions? what kind ? How?
Acceleration and deceleration?

But in superconductors? Why not lose energy by Joule effect?


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I think the problem is too difficult for me for now.
What to do ?
Please help me to share it in smaller steps.
I think any complicated road starts with the first step.

What is the first step that I can realise?

 

In my ongoing reading on the subject of quantum mechanics, Planck's Constant is 6.626 X 10 Exp. - 34 Joule.Seconds.

So what is the actual dimension of "energy X time"?

 

Planck shows that there is a relationship between the quantum energy and its frequency:

E=h*freq.(Planck)
h=E/freq.
[h]=J/Hz=J*s

In fact, there was an argument between Planck and Einstein:
Planck said the emission is quantified:
This means that the bodies can not emit energy (radiation) but only in fixed pieces: quanta.

To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein assumed that energy absorption is still in "fixed pieces" quanta(the idea with which Planck did not agree):

E(the incident quantum energy)=W(Mechanical work of electron extraction from the atom)+ KE(the kinetic energy of the extracted electron)

E=W+KE

E(J)=W(J)+KE(J)

How did Planck come to this conclusion?
There were different formulas for the radiation of the black body for high frequencies and low frequencies.

Formulas in this two cases would only fit if we accepted the quanta:
Mathematically should not be used S integral (continuous emission) but the E sum (emission in pieces, quantum).

 

I would like to write here about the Compton effect:
A photon "hits" a free electron. What happens?

Incidental radiation decreases its frequency and the photon acquires kinetic energy.
Is not it weird?

 

Just "Keepin' the engine warm" on this topic.

I'm wondering if electrons in an atomic orbital could be considered as being in a superconductive state. Since quantum mechanics says that electrons travel in an orbital path with "gaps" above and below that path, there are no other electrons or particles for them to interfere or collide with. Hence there's zero resistance and the electrons will continue to move in the orbital path indefinitely.