return to homepage The COMPTON EFFECT, DUALITY Abstract: I will show that the Compton effect has been incompletely explained due simply to the Copenhagen interpretation, and the failure to explain duality. I will complete the mechanical explanation and show the genesis of the field and the wave. I will then correct the Klein-Nishina formula by importing my new value for the electron radius. This will give us the same result as before, but with a vastly improved and more transparent derivation.
The Compton Effect is an inelastic scattering of high-energy photons by electrons. It was observed by Arthur Compton in 1923, in an experiment with X-rays. Like the photo-electric effect, it has correctly been interpreted as proof of the photon theory of light. That is, it is proof of the “particle” half of duality, and of Newton's corpuscular theory. This effect led directly to the Copenhagen interpretation of light, where Bohr insisted that light was both particle and wave, but also insisted this duality could not be understood mechanically or logically.
θ)]. Therefore the first term we have been looking at could also be written that way. We notice that the term has a constant value (4 x 10^{-30}) very near the mass of the electron (9.1 x 10^{-31}). We only need to multiply the mass of the electron by about 4.4 to achieve the value of the term. If we assume the term is expressing an energy change in the electron to go with the energy change in the photon, then we could write the term this way:
E = ˝m _{e}(c/v)^{2} = 4 x 10^{-30}
That gives us a ratio of the speeds of the photon and electron, so that what the term is telling us is that the electron is going about 1/3rd the speed of the photon in this experiment. But by writing the term this way, we also get a velocity in the equation, so that we can see how a variance in the electron velocity affects the scattering. Some readers will find both those solutions tenuous, but I can show they are correct by setting them equal to each other and solving more problems. ˝m _{e}(c/v)^{2} = r_{e}^{2}/(e^{2}/hc)^{2}m _{e}/v^{2} = 2h^{2}r_{e}^{2}/e^{4}h = E/ fm _{e}/v^{2} = 2E^{2}r_{e}^{2}/f^{2}e^{4}E _{e} = √(m_{e}/2)f e^{2}/vr_{e}
This gives us a way to calculate the energy of the electron without Relativity, by finding the frequency of the particle. Currently the frequency and wavelength are not known to change with an increase in electron velocity, but they must. The current equation for the Compton wavelength is λ = h/mc Which is a constant for any given quantum. For the electron this equals 2.4 x 10 ^{-12}m. But the wavelength of the electron should be dependent on its velocity. Current physics hides this obvious fact because they have no way of calculating this dependence. They hide it under the Relativity transform
K _{e} = (γ – 1)m_{e}c^{2}
I have already shown that gamma is false^{12} in that and every other transform, but that last equation also hides the fact that the electron must be increasing energy due to increasing velocity and increasing frequency. I have shown that although Special Relativity is true, it is misused in cases like this to cover energy increases due to other causes. Just as Relativity has been misused in the atmospheric muon problem^{13} and the gravitational blueshift problem^{14} and a thousand other problems, it is misused here. We are told that the electron mass increases 100,000 times in an accelerator, all due to Relativity. That is false, and the falsity is all due to that false equation.
Logically, it cannot be just the relativistic mass that increases in an accelerator. The kinetic energy of the electron is increasing due to increasing speed and increasing energy input from the field. A large part of this energy can go into increased frequency, so we do not have to give it all to mass. But the last equation above hides this, because it has neither a velocity variable nor a frequency variable. We have no way of knowing how much the spin energy of the electron is increasing, since that equation seems to imply that all the new energy is going into mass. If we use my new equation here, we can calculate an approximate electron frequency in the accelerator. If the maximum energy is about 50 GeV, and we assume the velocity is almost c, then the frequency is about 1.2 x 10 ^{37}/s. And the wavelength is therefore 2.5 x 10^{-29}m. That's the local wavelength of a high-energy photon, so we may assume that the accelerator has turned our electron into a photon, by stripping it of outer spins.
You will say that wavelength is way below the radius of my electron, which disqualifies my spin explanation. But, again, we have no indication that the electron at the end of such acceleration is still an electron. All we currently measure is the final energy of the particle. It is my belief that the accelerator has stripped the electron of its outer spins, so that it is no longer strictly an electron. Without its full complement of spins, the particle is now a photon. I have unified all the quanta, including the proton, electron, mesons, and photon, the only difference being the number of stacked spins. So it is quite easy to strip an electron down to a photon, by removing these spins. I have even done the math, showing the electron is 1821 times smaller than the nucleon, and that the charge photon is 1821 ^{2} times smaller than the electron. In other words, the electron is 4 spin levels below the proton, and 8 spin levels above the photon.
For this reason, I believe that Relativity has prevented us from understanding what is really going on in accelerators. My explanation here is incomplete, but it is a step in the right direction. We must recognize that even at non-relativistic speeds, the wavelength of the electron must be dependent on its speed. Therefore the Compton wavelength cannot be correct. The Compton wavelength, as currently derived, is not analogous to photon wavelengths, since when we measure photon wavelengths, we are measuring them at the macro-level: as how we see them. But I have shown^{15} that the local wavelength of the photon is much, much smaller, being on the order of 10^{-23}m (for infrared light). Therefore, the Compton wavelength of the electron must be a local wavelength of the electron, or the attempt at such. Since the local wavelength is just a particle radius, the Compton wavelength is the attempt to calculate the electron radius from Planck's constant. But, as I have shown, it fails in this, since the electron radius cannot be anything like that large, even if we include all the spins. The Compton wavelength is off by a factor of almost 10^{5}. The local wavelength of the electron is about 10^{-16}m, and the wavelength we would “see” would be stretched out by v^{2}. This is what I mean when I say that the electron wavelength is dependent on its speed. If we could accelerate the electron to c while the electron kept all its mass and spins, its “seen” wavelength would be something like 1m. Since we can't, we can instead calculate the “seen” wavelength of the electron at .25c: about 5cm. Therefore, we would expect an electrical field created by electrons moving that fast to either interfere with or augment microwaves of that wavelength, depending on the direction. Current physicists know that fields affect one another like this, but they aren't able to predict which fields will affect which, and to show why this affect is dependent on velocity. My new equations here will help them do that.
Conclusion: I have shown that my new radius for the electron fits the Klein-Nishina formula like a hand in a glove. If my new number hadn't been very close to correct, we would not have been able to simply move the square constant from the numerator to the denominator. ^{1} Mathis, Miles. Plank's Constant and Qunatization. 2008.^{2} Mathis, Miles. The Double-Slit Experiment. 2008.^{3} Mathis, Miles. Unifying the Proton and the Electron. 2008.^{4} Mathis, Miles. Superposition. 2005.^{5} Mathis, Miles. Hidden Variables. 2008.^{6} Mathis, Miles. A Disproof of Asymptotic Freedom. 2008.^{7} Mathis, Miles. Unifying the Mesons. 2008.^{8} Mathis, Miles. The Bohr Magneton. 2008.^{9} Mathis, Miles. The Fine-Structure Constant. 2009.^{10} Mathis, Miles. Angular Momentum. 2008.^{11} Mathis, Miles. Bye-Bye Pi. 2009.^{12} Mathis, Miles. A Refutation of Gamma. 2001.^{13} Mathis, Miles. The Mysterious Muon. 2009.^{14} Mathis, Miles. The Pound-Rebka Experiment. 2009.^{15} Mathis, Miles. Unifying the Photon. 2009.If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. I have joined the boycott against Paypal, and suggest you use Amazon instead. It is free and does not enrich any bankers. AMAZON WEBPAY |