Science topic

# Electron - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Electron, and find Electron experts.

Questions related to Electron

I am trying to determine the electron number density in my plasma by using the Saha Equation for degree of ionization. However I am slightly confused with how to determine the particle density (n = ni + ni+1) to solve for ne. Is there a standard value or...?

I presume as a first approximation I could determine the density of the gas with the ideal gas law and then use this number to approximate the density at my determined temperature. If I do so are there any obvious complications I may be overlooking?

Thanks in advance!!!!

Hi everyone,
I am studying the photoluminescence (PL) quenching of a complex A1-D-A2. After using electron-hole analysis, for the 1st state, the electron transfers to A1, and for the 2nd state, the electron transfers to A2; both are dark states. Can I ask which one will cause PL quenching? In the experiment, the A2 had better electron withdrawing ability.
Thank you

Interference between two levels occurs through this contraction that occurs to space-time, and therefore, if we assume that the electron is in the third level, such as the sodium atom, and according to de Broglie’s law, the third level needs 3 ripples, so if a contraction occurs from the higher level until it interferes with the electron level, such as level 4 It is in the form of 3 ripples, and if there is interference from level 6 with the electron level, which is in level 3, it occurs in the form of 3 ripples, but the difference is that level 6 is the ripple amplitude (vibration amplitude) is higher than level 4.

If we delay the arrival time of one of the two quantum entangled electrons from the monitoring screen, what will happen is that normally the two electrons must coincide (the arrival of the two electrons) at the same time to the monitoring screen. But what happened is that we delayed one of the two electrons, so what will happen is that it will happen, a contraction in the fabric of space-time so that the distance between the two electrons is equal. Therefore, the lagging electron passes through the contracting fabric of space-time between it and the monitoring screen, so that the distance between the two electrons is equal when they are observed. But because of that contraction, the delayed electron exceeds the speed of light and is quantum entangled with the other electron. Therefore, it will be in the past, and this indicates that if the electron is detected, it will affect the results of the experiment.

EDS: energy dispersive spectroscopy

XFS: X-ray Fluorescence spectroscopy

PIXE: proton induced X-ray emission

Are there experiments with electrons and the double slit experiment where either slit is closed after an electron has passed through one of the slits? I am checking to see if the wave interference pattern does not occur regardless of what slit is closed.

Generally hybrid functions in the DFT modelling description electron-electron and electron-nuclei well. Do they can also describe the strongly corrected electrons systems, e.g. 3d transition metal oxides and van der Waals interactions between molecules ?

- References to experiments are important.

The solution to the explanation of the quantum leap is that it is space-time that acquires energy, not the electron, according to this law of quantum relativity. If this is true, then the world of physics and chemistry will be modified according to the new concepts.

"Dear ResearchGate community,

I'm seeking publications that examine the electromagnetic interaction effect of two bound electrons in an atom, specifically:

- Approached ab initio on the basis of quantum electrodynamics
- Using the Wichmann-Kroll potential

I'm particularly interested in this topic as part of my research on atomic structure calculations. While I'm specifically looking for papers using the Wichmann-Kroll potential, I'm also open to similar approaches that might be relevant. Has anyone come across such publications or perhaps written one themselves? Any leads or related resources would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help!"

Best regards

Frank Kowol

Interference between two levels occurs through this contraction that occurs to space-time, and therefore, if we assume that the electron is in the third level, such as the sodium atom, and according to de Broglie’s law, the third level needs 3 ripples, so if a contraction occurs from the higher level until it interferes with the electron level, such as level 4 It is in the form of 3 ripples, and if there is interference from level 6 with the electron level, which is in level 3, it occurs in the form of 3 ripples, but the difference is that level 6 is the ripple amplitude (vibration amplitude) is higher than level 4.

What does it mean that the charge value of electrons can be accurately calculated with an error of less than 0.08% through three basic physical constants: vacuum dielectric constant, vacuum speed of light, and Planck constant?

‘How big is the proton?"[1] We can similarly ask, “How big is the electron?” “How big is the photon?” CODATA gives the answer [2], proton rms charge radius r

_{p}=8.41 x10^{-16}m; classical electron radius, r_{e}=2.81x10^{-15}m [6]. However, over a century after its discovery, the proton still keeps physicists busy understanding its basic properties, its radius, mass, stability and the origin of its spin [1][4][7]. Physics still believes that there is a ‘proton-radius puzzle’ [3][4], and does not consider that the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. Geometrically the radius of a circle is clearly defined, and if an elementary particle is regarded as a energy packet, which is unquestionably the case, whether or not it can be described by a wavefunction, can its energy have a clear boundary like a geometrical shape? Obviously the classical electron radius is not a clear boundary conceptually in the field, because its electric field energy is always extending. When physics uses the term ‘

**charge radius**’, what does it mean when mapped to geometry? If there is really a spherical charge [8][9], how is it maintained and formed^{*}?----------------------------------------

**Notes:**

^{*}“Now if we have a sphere of charge, the electrical forces are all repulsive and an electron would tend to fly apart. Because the system has unbalanced forces, we can get all kinds of errors in the laws relating energy and momentum.” [Feynman Lecture C28]

----------------------------------------

**References：**

[1] Editorial. (2021). Proton puzzles. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00268-0

[2] Tiesinga, E. (2021). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018.

[3] Carlson, C. E. (2015). The proton radius puzzle. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 82, 59-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.002

[4] Gao, H., Liu, T., Peng, C., Ye, Z., & Zhao, Z. (2015). Proton remains puzzling. The Universe, 3(2).

[5] Karr, J.-P., Marchand, D., & Voutier, E. (2020). The proton size. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(11), 601-614. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0229-x

[6] "also called the Compton radius, by equating the electrostatic potential energy of a sphere of charge e and radius with the rest energy of the electron"; https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html

[7] Gao, H., & Vanderhaeghen, M. (2021). The proton charge radius. https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;

[8] What is an electric charge? Can it exist apart from electrons? Would it be an effect? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;

[9] Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee; https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO46Phenomena_Related_to_Electric_Chargeand_Remembering_Nobel_Laureate_T_D_Lee

In general, the speed at which vibration travels through a medium is the speed of sound. If the essence of heat transfer is the transfer of molecular kinetic energy or momentum,then the speed of heat conduction should be comparable to the speed of sound. However, in general, the speed of heat conduction is incomparable to the speed of sound. Why is that? (⊙_⊙)?

It may seem absurd, but based on the above description, is it possible that the essence of heat transfer is not the transfer of kinetic energy or momentum of molecules, but the release of photons with different numbers through the transition of the energy level of the electron cloud, and these photons transfer energy to nearby molecules with lower temperatures, and so on. If so, the heat transfer process is not simply understood as the transfer of molecular kinetic energy or momentum, but as a complex electronic transition process. When thermal equilibrium is finally reached, the electron cloud within the molecule converges to a certain energy level with probability (similar to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution ?). The temperature of an object can not be said to reflect the average kinetic energy of molecules, but the average energy level of electrons ?

The above statement is the author's speculation, which may be flawed. It invites experts and scholars to provide criticism and corrections. Thank you very much for your valuable assistance.

Thanks♪(･ω･)ﾉ

We know that the internal structure of zircon is typically obtained by polishing and capturing cathodoluminescence (CL) or backscattered electron (BSE) images. This method usually allows us to understand the internal structure of zircon, such as the core-rim structure. However, this is only 2D and can only reveal the surface structure exposed by polishing. So I am wondering if there is a technology that can help us determine whether there are more complex zonations beneath the surface?

Hello everyone,

I am analyzing the calculated 3D electron density difference (EDD) data in BIOVIA Materials Studio and need to extract a 1D plot of EDD along the z-axis (0 to 20 Å). My field name in the XSD file is "DMol3 total electron density," and I'm looking to average the EDD values over the xy-plane for each z-value.

I've tried scripting this in Perl but encountered some issues, and I'm seeking help with a refined script or an example that correctly handles these calculations. Specifically, I need the script to:

- Import the XSD file and access the "DMol3 total electron density" field.
- Loop over the z-axis from 0 to 20 Å, averaging the EDD values at each step across the xy-plane.
- Output the results as a 1D plot data file (z-value vs. averaged EDD).

Any assistance with a Perl script that accomplishes this would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance for your help.

The “intrinsic energy” of a particle is well known, it is mcc so what about of the “self energy” of a particle if one want to call it so and the “limit energy” of a particle if one want to call it so? Is the électron has a proper energy? What could be the equation of its "proper energy"? And what could be the equation of its "limit of énergy"? is the electron for example could reach its "limit energy" in the sun?What could be the equation of the "proper energy" of a particle? What coulb the equation of the "limit energy" of a particle? And what could be the equation which could link these three types of energies of a particle?

**Can we put dark matter particles into a symmetry group with positive and negative matter particles?**

When physicists talk about matter and antimatter asymmetries, they always start with the positive and negative electron solutions of the Dirac equation, and do not distinguish between it and positive and negative protons, or between it and positive and negative hydrogen [1]. Should we notice that these are three different levels of things. They were produced at different moments in the evolution of the early universe. The earliest products were positive and negative particles of extremely high energy, which humans were not yet able to produce, and which we may assume to be h+ h-. They would have been a series of unstable particles that could not form a protective mechanism of their own and all annihilated or disintegrated on their own. Then came the q+q- quark series of particles. The independent quarks are still unstable, but the u, d can combine with each other to form a joint protection mechanism. This is the first layer of protection, the baryogenesis epoch in the evolution of the Universe. the imbalance of matter (baryons) and antimatter (antibaryons) in the observed universe was formed during this epoch [2]. Protons and neutrons are of equal energy and are formed almost simultaneously, they further combine to form nuclei, which is the second layer of protection, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) epoch. Then again, electrons are formed and they combine with the nucleus to form the third layer of protection. The initial main condition for these three phases is the high energy spacetime field.

From the above process, can we see the basic principles of the evolution of the universe?

**1)**

**Survival of the fittest**- when we say ‘Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair’ [5], we should not be referring to protons and antiprotons or the like, but rather pairs of elementary particles produced by the reaction γ γ' →p+p-, [3]. This is a fundamental symmetry. In the subsequent baryons, both positive and negative particles are included. They are not produced in pairs; they are already the result of filtering and division. Therefore, there is an important clue that the ‘protection mechanism’ is the primary condition on which the ‘survival of the fittest’ depends in the evolutionary process of the universe. The protection mechanism is actually a screening process that selectively preserves either positive or negative particles. For example, p+ protects u quarks and d quarks; and -u and -d break up on their own, or form p-. However, at this point the p+ and p-, although equally annihilable, form their respective centres once they separate. Around their respective centres, only the same p survives. As a result of this repetition, the weak imbalance eventually creates a region of separation of two opposite matter particles. We can think of them as the beginnings of a positive and negative universe. This actually foreshadows that our universe should not be a single universe.

**2) Consistency of Natural Laws**- Natural laws must apply to all things. The nature of dark matter particles predicted by physics should not go beyond the Standard Model. Positively charged particles, negatively charged particles

^{*}, and uncharged particles form just three symmetrical beings. Therefore, viewing uncharged particles as dark matter particles has the best match， and neutrinos are the best option [6][7][8].

**3) The necessity of multiple universes**- the universe cannot randomly choose between positive and negative matter as its building blocks. Separate multiple universes of positive and negative matter is a much more plausible explanation. Considering our current universe as one of the universes does not detract from its study, but only adds to the understanding of its creation and evolution. Considering the current universe as the only one would introduce many fundamental limitations, such as spacetime boundaries, the origin of energy, future endings, and so on. The Big Bang is the correct explanation, but there is insufficient evidence and justification for treating it as the entire source of the universe.

----------------------------------

**Notes**

^{*}“According to the standard model of particle physics, however, the opposite charges should be pretty much the only difference: particles and antiparticles should have nearly all the same properties.”[4]

----------------------------------

**References**

[2] Springer. (2020). 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment.

[3] Symmetry, Invariance and Conservation (3) - Are Annihilation and Pair Production a Supersymmetric relation? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO22Symmetry_Invariance_and_Conservation_3-Are_Annihilation_and_Pair_Production_a_Supersymmetric_relation.

[6] Yuan, Y., Abdukerim, A., & etl. (2022). A search for two-component Majorana dark matter in a simplified model using the full exposure data of PandaX-II experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08066.

[7] Akhmedov, E. (2014). Majorana neutrinos and other Majorana particles: Theory and experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3320.

[8] Adhikari, R., Agostini, M., Ky, N. A., Araki, T., Archidiacono, M., Bahr, M., Baur, J., Behrens, J., Bezrukov, F., & Dev, P. B. (2017). A white paper on keV sterile neutrino dark matter. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(01), 025.

Dear all

How can we calculate the odd electron population on atomic sites in molecules using the UHF method? Can we relate Mulliken spin density to the odd electron population on atomic sites in a molecule?

Dear all

Can you please help me calculate Mulliken's odd electron population, as mentioned in the attached document?

Where can we find the electron energy loss information in AES? and where can we find the electron energy loss information in XPS?

If we are looking at an oxide film and want to measure its band gap, which of the two methods will give us more information about the bulk and which will be more surface sensitive?

Two systems are measuring the kinetic energy of photoelectrons and Auger electrons. System 1 is using Al kα while system 2 is using Ag Lα. an XPS spectra were collected for SiO2 9nm on Si and Al2O3 5nm on Al. which peaks will we see in the spectra (Si and Al 2p) in which binding energies? (include doublets)

Everyone, physicist or not, seems to know what forces are, at least for mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic forces. And, even physicists take this sense of forces deeper into physics to recognise other forces, even those that may exist. So, what exactly are forces? How many kinds are there? Do we classify forces by their 'strength'? by their 'distance'? by their 'position'? by the 'object'? by their 'roles'? by their 'origin' ? Are forces and matter separate entities? Are force and energy separate entities?

In physics, there are many kinds of mass [1], all of which are called 'mass'; there are many kinds of energy, all of which are called 'energy' [2]; and similarly, physics suggests that there are four basic forces, electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational, all of which are called 'force'. We have been accustomed to treating these things with the same dimension as if they were different, and no longer bother to find out whether the differences are essential or not.

The classical concept of force, with direction, magnitude and point of action, obeys the principle of vector superposition, but there is no concept of propagation and field. Obviously, this force is only a macroscopic equivalence.

The concept of force in QED and QCD is propagation and exchange of 'virtual particles'. The electromagnetic force is an 'virtual photon', the weak force is an 'virtual W boson', the strong force is an 'virtual gluon', and the gravitational force is an ( virtual) 'graviton'. The definition of force chooses to exchange discrete 'virtual particles' with no definite parameters, rather than the real continuous, intersecting 'field' of matter itself.

QFT argues that 'symmetry dictates interaction (force)' [3][11], Symmetry Create a Force [4]. Invariance, symmetry, and conservation are associated and even identical concepts [5][11]. QFT believes that the first three forces have already achieved 'unification', gauge fields based on different Lie groups, and that the current focus of theoretical physics is on quantum gravity. Is this ‘unification’ what we really understand? Can symmetry be understood as field exchange?

I have tried many ways to find an acceptable description of the weak force, but without success. Most physicists simply say that the weak force is a special kind of force

^{①}. It is not attraction or repulsion, it is transformation. Can a transformation that be described by symmetry cannot be described by an intuitive force? It should not. Any transformation must involve a spatio-temporal change between interacting fields, and that should characterise the action of the force field^{②}. It is just that we are not yet able to specify it. It is generally assumed that the 'unification' of forces would be at a very high energy level [8], and at the time of the Big Bang, the forces were unified. We think of the Big Bang as the starting point because we are currently in a state that is midway from the Big Bang. But shouldn't the so-called ‘singularity’ of the Big Bang be a result in the first place? There is no reason to deny that it is the end of a previous state of the universe. It should then be assumed that forces are uniform at any stage of the evolution of the universe, and that what is not uniform is only the way they are expressed. Shouldn't the unity here be the same as the unity of QFT?

Is there a process by which force fields are generated? Observe the annihilation process, e+ e- → γ+γ. Does the attraction between the electrons 'disappear' at the end of the reaction? Where does the accompanying force field go? In turn, γ+γ → e+ e-, the photons transform themselves into electron pairs with the help of the field inside the atom

^{③}. The electromagnetic field is not newborn in this process, but has always been there, only transformed in form. Physics considers the nuclear force as the strong force^{④}that maintains the stability of the nuclear structure. According to the cosmic evolutionary process, there is a period of nucleosynthesis [9]. Where is the strong force when there is no nucleus formation? Waiting in the void? Obviously it is impossible. The only force at this time is the force of the quark (assuming it has been created) itself under extreme space-time conditions. The nuclear structure can only be produced by it and maintained by it. Therefore, force must be united with matter [7]; we cannot separate force from matter. All matter is a form of energy-momentum, therefore without energy-momentum there is no force^{⑤}. The force field is the expression of the energy field and the matter field when they interact with each other, and there is only the difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium. With this line of thought can we answer the following question:

1) Is inertia a force? Are Newton's first, second, and third laws unified? Should all motions, including motion 'at rest' with zero velocity, and the fastest motion, the speed of light, be interpreted in the same way? Isn't light the baseline of inertia? shouldn't the baseline of relativity be equally the baseline of the forces?

2) Is gravitational redshift a 'force'? Is cosmological redshift a 'force'? Is the Doppler effect a 'force'? Aren't they all interacting processes? Aren't they all processes that exchange energy and momentum? If all redshifts are forces, does that mean that gravitational and expanding spacetime are associated with electromagnetic fields?

3) Interference is an interaction, but is interference a force, either in free space or on an interferometer?

4) Is vacuum excitation, if any, a force? Is there a force in the 'probabilistic interpretation' of the wave function? Is there a force in the 'Uncertainty Principle'? Is there a 'force' in the 'fluctuation' of a quantum field? Is 'coupling' a force? They are all manifestations of interaction, how can they be unified?

5) Are the four interacting forces independent of each other? The electromagnetic force is independent of the gravitational force, and there is no interaction between the strong force and the weak force. ......? If they are completely different things, why do we define them all as 'forces'? If there is a commonality, why are they independent of each other? Wouldn't they be the same force in different situations?

6) Forces have always been there, with or without them. If they have an 'origin', what is the 'force' that produces them?

7) Electromagnetic potentials, gravitational potentials, Yukawa potentials, Higgs potentials, are they all expressions of forces? Are they entities [10][12][13][14] or are they distributional 'parameters' of the field? Is the unity of 'force' the unity of potential?

----------------------------

**Notes**

^{①}“The weak interactions have even a very much shorter range and, so far as we know, are not responsible for holding anything together. They are, however, responsible for nuclear beta decay." Weinberg also said that the weak force is a strange force because it is not described in electrodynamics. It occurs slowly, but causes atomic nuclei to decay. It is hoped that a new and similar theory will be developed to explain it.

^{②}There is no need to be confused about the fact that the weak force is able to effect a transition within the nucleus, rather than causing a split, simply because it is not strong enough; the ‘transition’ is still in fact a process of splitting to the nearest state. This process maintains the overall structure of the nucleus, but not the state of the nucleus.

^{③}Physics considers vacuum excitation.

^{④}"But the known forces, gravity and electromagnetism, were insufficient to bind protons and neutrons tightly together into objects as small as the observed nuclei. Physicists were confronted with a new force, the most powerful in nature. "[6]

^{⑤}If conservation of energy and momentum is the first principle, the exchange and conservation of energy and momentum is the source of 'force'.

----------------------------

**References**

[3] Yang, C. N. (1980). Einstein's impact on theoretical physics. Physics Today, 33(6), 42-49.

[4] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces. Springer.

[6] Wilczek, F. (2005). "Nobel Lecture: Asymptotic freedom: From paradox to paradigm." Reviews of Modern Physics 77(3): 857.

[7] Wilczek, F. (2016). Unification of force and substance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2075), 20150257.

[8] Dienes, K. R., Dudas, E., & Gherghetta, T. (1999). Grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra dimensions. Nuclear Physics B, 537(1), 47-108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00669-5

[9] Allahverdi, R., Amin, M. A., Berlin, A., & etl. (2020). The first three seconds: a review of possible expansion histories of the early universe. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16182.

Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Yeh, T.-H., & Young, C. (2020). Big-bang nucleosynthesis after Planck. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020(03), 010.

[10] Aharonov, Y., & Bohm, D. (1959). Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory. Physical Review, 115(3), 485.

[11] Wu, A., & Yang, C. N. (2006). Evolution of the concept of the vector potential in the description of fundamental interactions. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 21(16), 3235-3277.

[12] Yukawa, H. (1935). On the interaction of elementary particles. I. Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series, 17, 48-57.

[13] Agrawal, P., Saha, D., Xu, L.-X., Yu, J.-H., & Yuan, C.-P. (2020). Determining the shape of the Higgs potential at future colliders. Physical Review D, 101(7), 075023.

In the Standard Model, if we ignore the unverifiable property of colour charge and consider neutrinos as ‘dark matter particles’ for the time being [1], then we can consider fermions to have the signature properties of electric charge, spin magnetic moment and mass. We consider the electron as a representative, which differs from other fermions only by its mass size, stability, and position in the composite particle.

‘Charge’ was one of the first properties of particles to be discovered, and it appears to correspond to “mass-charge”, which has a similar behaviour [Weyl][Heaverside]. While we have paid a great deal of attention to the existence of an origin of mass [2] and introduced the Higgs mechanism [9], no one seems to have paid much attention to the existence of an origin of electric charge since the beginning of the last century. In order to establish an electromagnetic worldview [3], physicists at that time worked on determining the electron model [4][5][6] : is it rigid? What is its radius? A most crucial question is how should the charge in it be distributed? To this day, physics still does not know the structure of the electron, and what the charge is, except that there exists e+e- ↔ γ γ . Then，

1) Does electric charge have an origin? The fact that it is capable of annihilation and creation, there must be a process of generation. What determines this process? Doesn't a process need to be described, even if it is vacuum-excited generation?

2) Is electric charge an independent entity? We have never seen a ‘charge’, only electrons.

3) A charge cannot be a ‘point’, how does it manage not to repel itself? Poincaré once postulated the existence of a non-electromagnetic reaction force that balances the repulsion between distributed charges to keep them from splitting [7].

4) Does the electric field of a charge act on itself? Why do we see this as a problem? [10]

5) Why is the charge a discrete (quantised) value?1 or 1/3

^{‡}. Is the discrete nature of energy related to the discrete nature of charge? Or furthermore, do all discretisations originate from the discrete nature of energy? 〠 6) How can charges be positive and negative and perfectly equal? What is the physical pathway by which charge is created? How can different positive and negative charges be created at the same time in the same physical picture? And positive and negative charges can cause annihilation of positive and negative electrons, not just positive and negative charges.

7) Is there a relationship between electric and magnetic charge? According to Dirac [8], the electric charge e and the magnetic charge g must co-exist, hc/eg=2

^{ *}. Why can the spin-magnetic moment (the inner discreative magnetic moment of the electron) [11] not be considered as a result of ‘magnetic charge’? The magnetic charge must be a magnetic monopole [12], can't it be a magnetic dipole^{ **}? We are looking for magnetic monopoles, why not electric charges? [13] 8) Charge appears to be independent of mass. How can particles with different masses (e, μ, τ; u, c, t; d, s, b) have the same charge? But when e+e- → γ γ occurs, the charge disappears and so does the mass.

9) How can electric charge share a particle with magnetic charge and mass? † Wouldn't this be a good answer if they were all the result of spin [14]?

10) U(1) symmetry produces conserved charge [15]; charge is conserved when interacting. Is conservation of charge independent of conservation of energy? What will it mean if they are not conserved? 〠

11) What should the charge of a black hole be if it is one of its characteristics? Will the charge of the ultimate black hole eventually be the same as that of an electron?

12) The more important question is this: all of these questions, mentioned above, must be answered at the same time for the problem to be truly solved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**Supplement**(2024.8.28)

【NO.46】Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate Tsung-Dao (T.D.) Lee;

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**Notes**

* Note in particular that the relationship between electric and magnetic charge is related solely to Planck's constant h and the speed of light c. This implies that their roots are the same.

** “If Magnetic Monopoles Would Annihilate Like Positive and Negative Electrons, Would Magnetism Still Exist?”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO23If_Magnetic_Monopoles_Would_Annihilate_Like_Positive_and_Negative_Electrons_Would_Magnetism_Still_Exist

† The central question of interest here is why should fermions have multiple properties and only these properties? Where do these properties come from? What must be the relationship between these properties? How do they fit together?

‡ Dirac asked, "the reason for the existence of a smallest electric charge."

-----------------------------

**Refererncs**

[1] Adhikari, R., Agostini, M., Ky, N. A., Araki, T., Archidiacono, M., Bahr, M., Baur, J., Behrens, J., Bezrukov, F., & Dev, P. B. (2017). A white paper on keV sterile neutrino dark matter. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(01), 025.

[2] Wilczek, F. (2006). The origin of mass. Modern Physics Letters A, 21(9), 701-712.

[3] Battimelli, G. (2005). Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 26(6), S111.

[4] Waite, T., Barut, A. O., & Zeni, J. R. (1997). The Purely Electromagnetic Electron Re-visited. In J. P. Dowling (Ed.), Electron Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics: 100 Years Later (pp. 223-239). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0081-4_18

[5] Williamson, J., & Van der Mark, M. (1997). Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie,

[6] Damour, T. (2017). Poincaré, the dynamics of the electron, and relativity. Comptes Rendus Physique, 18(9), 551-562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.10.006

[7] Poincaré, H. (1905). Sur les Invariants Arithmétiques (On the dynamics of the electron). http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/fonds-et-archives； http://www.academie-sciences.fr/fr/Colloques-conferences-et-debats/henri-poincare.html；

[8] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 133(821), 60-72. Dirac, P. A. M. (1948). The theory of magnetic poles. Physical Review, 74(7), 817.

[9] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.

[10] Wheeler, J. A., & Feynman, R. P. (1949). Classical electrodynamics in terms of direct interparticle action. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3), 425.

[11] Ohanian, H. C. (1986). What is spin? American Journal of Physics, 54(6), 500-505.

Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,

Sasabe, S., & Tsuchiya, K.-i. (2008). What is spin-magnetic moment of electron? Physics Letters A, 372(4), 381-386.

[12] Rajantie, A. (2012). Introduction to magnetic monopoles. Contemporary Physics, 53(3), 195-211.

Rajantie, A. (2016). The search for magnetic monopoles. Physics Today, 69(10), 40-46.

[13] Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abbott, D. C., Abud, A. A., Abeling, K., Abhayasinghe, D., Abidi, S., AbouZeid, O., Abraham, N., & Abramowicz, H. (2020). Search for magnetic monopoles and stable high-electric-charge objects in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector. Physical Review Letters, 124(3), 031802.

[14] Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,

[15] Lancaster, T., & Blundell, S. J. (2014). Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. OUP Oxford.

Why Mg centre is bent in some photos and linear in anothers?

"in CH3CH2MgBr"

Which of these items acceptable ? Why?

Mg has just 2 electrons in valance shell, why this centre can be bent?

le slit experiment for photons, it is classical to obtain fringes after a double slit opening, but it was notices that even if single photons are used which must pass through one slit at a time, we In the double still get the interference. A similar thing happens if electrons are usede in the experiment. Interference is observed as if the electron is a wave.

Is there a classical explanation to the interference pattern for the case of a single photon and that for electrons.

I'm performing multiscale calculations with mechanical embedding in ORCA and I have a question about how atomic charges are handled during geometry optimization and reaction coordinate scans. Are the electron density and resulting atomic charges recalculated and updated throughout each iteration of the optimization/scan process?

What happens inside the atom?!

i am working on undoped solar cells .I need the MoOx and LiF material parameters so that i can make these materials in sentaurus tcad.i need banggap,affinity,epsilon,electron and hole mobility etc.

Mostly, Ru(III) and V(IV) systems, which are paramagnetic species, generally not exhibit luminescent behavior. How do the electronic transitions and the presence of unpaired electrons in Ru(III) and V(IV) systems affect their excited states and, consequently, their luminescent properties?

The

**radial distribution function**, when plotted as a graph, never touches the**x**axis, only**tends to 0**as it moves away from the nucleus. Does that mean there is a slight possibility that the**electron of the nucleus right here**can be at the**edge of the universe**?In general, the characteristic of electric current as a function of voltage in argon plasma jet using dielectric barrier discharge in atmospheric pressure, jet length will increase by the increase of voltage. It occurs due to the role of electrons in plasma jet generation, when the voltage increases, the electric field will increase and more electrons strike the argon gas atoms. So the plasma jet will become longer due to the encouragement of plasma species of argon gas coming out of the capillary column.

My screen printed electrode CV is given here. For Nerstean one electron reaction the delta E value should be close to 57 mV and ration of Ic/Ia should be close to 1. I did CV of my screen printed electrode using 3 mM ferricyanide ferrocyanidehe solution in PBS pH 7.4, the delta E value is 400 mV which is greater than 57 mV and Ic/Ia =0.95 which is close to one. Now how to interpret that the reaction is reversible, quasireversible or irreversible? How to know number of electron transfer?. I used Zensor screen printed electrode and scan rate of 100 mV/s.

Scientifically, which terms are most useful in studying: the Bohr radius of the exciton, the Bohr radius of the electron, or the Bohr radius of the hole, and why?

I am trying to calculate the recombination coefficients from the light-intensity-dependent Voc measurement. When I fitted the measured results following the equation

*V*= (2_{oc}*k**_{B}*T*/*q*)*ln[k_{1}*(1+k_{2}**G*)^{0.5}-1], the fitting result is good.*k*,_{B}*T*,*q*, and*G*are the Boltzmann constant, temperature, electron charge, and average generation rate. k_{1}and k_{2}are the fitting parameters.However, there is still a question of how to calculate the average generation rate from the illumination intensity. Because the illumination unit is ‘sun’ or ‘power’, but the unit of the average generation rate is cm

^{-2}s^{-1}.In the research paper, k

_{2}= 45 sun^{-1}, and then it directly presents the result that k_{2}= 6.4 * 10^{-21}.The energy operator ih∂/∂t and the momentum operator ihΔ or ih∂/∂x play a crucial role in the derivation of the Schrödinger equation, the Klein-Gordon equation, the Dirac equation, and other physics arguments.

The energy and momentum operators are not differential operators in the general sense; they do play a role in the derivation of the equations for the definition of energy and momentum.

However, we do not find any reasonable arguments or justifications for the use of such operators, and even their meaning can only be speculated from their names. It is used without explanation in textbooks.

The clues we found are:

1) In the literature [ Brown, L. M., A. Pais and B. Poppard (1995). Twentieth Centure Physics (I), Science Press.], "In March 1926, Schrödinger noticed that replacing the classical Hamiltonian function with a quantum mechanical operator, i.e., replacing the momentum p by a partial differentiation of h/2πi with position coordinates q and acting on the wave function, one also obtains the wave equation."

2) Gordon considered that the energy and momentum operators are the same in relativity and in non-relativism and therefore used in his relativistic wave equation (Gordon 1926).

(3) Dirac also used the energy and momentum operators in the relativistic equations with electron spins (Dirac 1928). Dirac called it the "Schrödinger representation", a self-adjoint differential operator or Hermitian operator (Dick 2012). (D).

Our questions are:

Why can this be used? Why is it possible to represent energy by time differential for wave functions and momentum by spatial differential for wave functions? Has this been historically argued or not?

Keywords: quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum mechanical operators, energy operators, momentum operators, Schrödinger equation, Dirac equation.

when it comes to OLED, ITO is frequently used as anode. what is needed for adquete anode is ability to hole transport. However, ITO is a degenerate n-type semiconductor material. Freely movable holes exist in the valence band, but papers that use ITO as an anode only consider the position of the Fermi level. Do the electrons that move from the LUMO to the HOMO of the emissive layer go to the valence band or the conduction band of the ITO? Additionally, if the Fermi level is above the conduction band, there are no available states in the valence band for electrons to occupy, making it impossible for electrons to move from the HOMO of the emissive layer to the valence band of the ITO?

If we map as a continuous motion an ionising electron (beginning its journey at n=1) in an H atom, a hyperbolic spiral emerges (see animation). When we solve this spiral formula, we find that at regular intervals the spiral angles will cancel to give integer radius values (360°=4r, 360+120°=9r, 360+180°=16r, 360+216°=25r ... 720°=∞ ... formulas below).

As the orbital levels corresponding to the principal quantum number n^2 (4, 9, 16, 25 ...) naturally occur via this spiral geometry, then at those points where the angles cancel to give integer radii (360°, 360+120°, 360+180°, 360+216° ...) we can use the spiral perimeter (r = Bohr radius) to derive the transition frequency for that integer (n^2) level ......, thus equating these energy levels directly to pi, the question then becomes, could quantization in the atom have geometrical origins?

In the animation the radius is mapped (during ionization), as the electron reaches each integer level, it completes 1 orbit (for illustration) then continues outward (actual velocity will become slower as radius increases).

I'm guessing it's because the ligand experiences too much electron repulsion or proton repulsion from the chromium to insert them close to the 3d-orbitals which are close to the metal nucleus. Is that correct?

If from a geometric perspective the non-halogens, non-noble gases have more empty spots in their valence shell, and the filling/exiting of any of the empty spots in the shell constitutes a chemical rxn, shouldn't non-halogens and non-noble-gases be more reactive? (AFAIK) Just from a probability perspective, the probability of hitting the empty spot in the electron shell which is crowded by 7 electrons already is just less likely when you can hit any of the >1 empty places in the shell of the electron accepting atom. I'm aware electrons are non-stagnant.

If you think of electrons with spin as bar magnets, you know bar magnets of opposite polarity as long as they're not occupying the same spatial location don't cancel out each other's magnetic field.

So what's a more apt analogy/or math reason, or explanation for all electron paired atoms have no magnetic field?

Why is the molecule's orientation with an electric field affect polarizability?
Electrons are diffuse enough to be independent with respect to orientation and effect of electric field on polarizability?
Why is icosahedral independent of how it faces with the electric field in respect to polarizability?

How to explain
"Molecular orientation with respect to an electric field can affect polarizibility (labeled
Orientation-dependent), except for molecules that are: tetrahedral, octahedral or icosahedral
(labeled Orientation-independent). This factor is more important for unsaturated molecules that
contain areas of electron-dense regions, such as 2,4-hexadiene. Greatest polarizability in these
molecules is achieved when the electric field is applied parallel to the molecule rather than
perpendicular to the molecule."

Why BaO (s) + H2O(l) ---> Ba 2+(aq) + 2 OH - (aq) if Oxygen loves owning all the electrons, why would it bind to hydrogen which competes with Oxygen for electron ownership more so than Barium?
Does the reaction happen because water disassociates into a proton and hydroxide and the proton can do cleaving of the barium oxide bond because a proton is even more electronegative than an oxygen or anything neutral?

what is the vdw_corr and cell_dofree for a curved(bended) nanosheet?????

&system

ibrav = 0,

nat = 40

ntyp = 2,

ecutwfc = 50,

ecutrho = 400,

vdw_corr = 'grimme-d2'

input_DFT = 'PBE'

occupations = 'smearing',

smearing = 'gaussian',

degauss = 0.001,

/

&electrons

conv_thr = 1.0e-5

mixing_beta = 0.5,

mixing_mode = 'local-TF'

/

&cell

cell_dofree = 'z'

/

Photo-electric effect

A light

**particle**moving towards a surface cannot (by collision) force an electron particle to move away from that surface.A light

**wave**can instead make interference with a bound electron and thereby force the electron to*escape*, and this process is reversible, so electrons cam also be*captured*by atoms and generate**waves**. Capturing electrons can generate X-rays.Compton effect

This effect can be explained by light

**waves**absorbed in an electron*escape*and later emitted in an electron*capturing*. Two processes with secondary emission of longer wavelength. Longer wave length means: not a scattering process.Waves can explain everything and particles for light are not needed.

Einstein did not understand the photo-electric effect.

John-Erik

There is a Hydrogen Atom, one electron circling one proton. When proper events will occur the electron can tunnel and achieve a higher or lower energetic state.

The human mind in higher mathematics is such an exotic atomic particle. It can too change its energetic state if proper conditions are present. The human mind can "tunnel" between different states.

What do you think about such a hypothesis?

Please prove me right or wrong.

I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.

The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m

^{3}s^{-2}]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×10^{21,}that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.

I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.

The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper

====================================================

As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.

I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.

Assumptions:

- Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
- Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
- The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]

By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value.

**Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.**In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.

Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.

When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.

The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.

The video "The Biggest Question Physicists Aren't Asking" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVyl8pGd44I) says the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 didn't disprove the existence of the aether. It reminds us that Hendrik Lorentz explained the experiment's negative results with his Lorentz ether theory (LET), which he initially developed in 1892 and 1895. The theory was improved in 1905 and 1906 by Henri Poincaré - and it was based on the aether theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel, Maxwell's equations, and the electron theory of Rudolf Clausius. The video says Albert Einstein's alternative to the aether in Special Relativity is preferred by physicists because it makes fewer assumptions. Interestingly, Einstein wondered in later years about the possibility of the aether actually existing.

Just as the building blocks in chemistry are atoms and molecules, the building blocks physics could use to determine what the aether is might be binary digits and topology. There are two clues to this conclusion. First - in his book "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking states that quantum spin tells us what particles actually look like. A particle of matter has spin 1/2 and must be completely rotated twice (720 degrees) to look the same. Added to this is - a Mobius strip must be travelled around twice in order to reach the starting point. The second clue was supplied by a paper Einstein published in 1919. That paper asks if gravitation and electromagnetism play a role in forming elementary particles.

The clues can produce the following hypothesis. The BITS or binary digits of one and zero code for a Mobius strip (similar to the way that topological figure can be viewed on the Internet). Then two Mobius figures are joined to create a Klein bottle

**:**possibly, the doughnut-shaped figure-8 version of the Klein. The Klein bottle is immersed in the 3rd dimension, with binary digits filling in any holes or gaps to produce a technically flat and simply-connected result. This procedure is similar to computer art's Sky Replacement, where the 1s and 0s can make a smooth blue sky stretching from horizon to horizon. The 1s and 0s naturally exist on quantum scales, and imaginary numbers are essential in quantum mechanics. So the complex (real+imaginary) numbers of Wick rotation could be given a practical use by being a subroutine of the Mobius strips and becoming the 4th dimension of time which can't be separated from the dimensions of space. Trillions of Mobius strips could form a photon while trillions of more complicated figure-8 Klein bottles might form the more complicated graviton. Interaction of photons and gravitons (in a process called Vector-Tensor-Scalar [VTS] Geometry) creates the Mobius-based matter particles. In this scenario, the aether - the medium waves travel through - wouldn't be an abstract thing called space filled with alleged Virtual Particles which can't be detected and may not even exist. The medium would be a sea filled with photons and gravitons.Another possibility is that there is no medium for the gravitational and electromagnetic waves, and that there truly is no aether. In that case, waves would not merely be described by mathematics but would literally be the result of maths. A 3D (three dimensional) cube can be regarded as a reality coded on a 2D surface - in other words, the cube is a projection from a square. The 2D square would be a nonlinear (angular) math object resulting from adding four lines, each one being separated from those adjoining it by 90 degrees. The cubic shape would result from adding, in one direction, multiple layers of the information in the square. Instead of programming a set of points to follow a straight line, they can be represented curvilinearly as a waveform and described by Fourier analysis, v=f(lambda), etc. Interacting particles can produce waves just as masses can curve spacetime to produce gravity and gravitational waves. VTS Geometry plausibly explains the inverse - it doesn't solely regard mass as the producer of gravity but also regards gravity, partnering with electromagnetism, as producer of mass. Inverting quantum mechanics, gravitational and electromagnetic waves create particles with mass (protons, neutrons, quarks, electrons, etc - even the Higgs boson). As Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow point out in their book "The Grand Design", ultimate reality does not have to be described with quarks though it certainly can be. In this paragraph, the idea of curved space is replaced by gravitational and electromagnetic waveforms travelling on curved trajectories.

Correcting cellular growth errors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382049802_Correcting_Cell_Errors

The severe problem is that an absolute negative energy density of gravitational fields is not possible, because then a field source could not adapt its field via aperiodic radiation to a modified velocity.

Therefor we need a cosmic dark energy field with an extremely high energy density, sufficient to compensate for the negative energy density of gravitational fields around neutron stars.

If we consider that the gravitational field strength around neutron stars is about a factor 2.0E+11 stronger as the earth field, the omnipresent dark energy field must have a giant energy density.

The presence of such a strong field turns cosmology inside out. It even adds a new player to the theory of elementary particles. Such a strong field of gravitational nature could stabilize quarks and electrons.

The discussion should be about the pros and cons of the existence of such an omnipresent dark energy field and about the consequences, if such a field exists.

In standard physics and standard cosmology such a field is not considered.

Knowing that some researches say that manipulating matter is, to a significant degree, all about controlling electrons.

The photo-electric effect does not support quanta in light, since a light

**particle**moving towards a surface cannot cause an electron to move away from the same surface at a right angle. Instead, a light**wave**can, by an interference effect, cause an electron to escape. This process is reverse in relation to a known process where the absorption of an electron**particle**causes a radiation of X-rays. Therefore, the photo-electric effect supports the wave model for light. So, Einstein made an important mistake by introducing quantisation based on the photo-electric effect. Einstein got the Prize for the equation only - not for evidence to quantisation - as often is stated. So, quantum physics started with an important mistake.We can see that there is no dualism in light, and waves are all we need in our description of light. The wave-particle confusion started with a mistake regarding the photo-electric effect. See attachment regarding the wave-particle confusion.

John-Erik

I am trying to define a new material in silvaco by specifying the NiO parameters.

The example for Ga2O3 was as follows

material material=Ga2O3 user.default=GaN user.group=semiconductor \

affinity=4.0 eg300=4.8 nc300=3.72e18 nv300=3.72e18 permittivity=10.0 \

mun=118 mup=50 tcon.const tc.const=0.13

1. what values should be in the case of NiO?

2. nc300, nv300 means effective density of states?

3. mun, mup means electron and hole mobility?

4. tcon.const tc.const means dielectric constant?

5. user.default=GaN user.group=semiconductor \ I want to know the meaning of this part. In the case of NiO, what material should be written in user.default?

Will this affect properties such as band and DOS? If yes, then how can I fix this? This calculation has been done in WIEN2K.

Could anyone suggest me what is effect of electron donating and withdrawing group on fluorecence emission or intersystem crosssing.

Thank you

Figure 1 is my plot, the background will be colored when the quantity is set to electron concentration. While Figure 2 is the figure i want. How to set the background to white color when the electron concentration is selected?

I am learning quantum espresso but faced the issue while doing calculations for spin orbit coupling case. I tried changing degauss, mixing beta, ecutwfc but nothing worked for me.

error is ,

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Error in routine atomic_wfc (1):

internal error: some wfcs were lost

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Input file for scf calculation is,

&CONTROL

calculation = 'scf'

etot_conv_thr = 3.0000000000d-05

forc_conv_thr = 1.0000000000d-04

outdir = './tmp/'

prefix = 'hsl'

pseudo_dir = './pseudo/'

tprnfor = .true.

tstress = .true.

verbosity = 'high'

/

&SYSTEM

degauss = 1.4699723600d-02

ecutrho = 4.0000000000d+02

ecutwfc = 5.0000000000d+01

ibrav = 0

nat = 3

nosym = .false.

nspin = 2

ntyp = 3

occupations = 'smearing'

smearing = 'gaussian'

starting_magnetization(1) = 1.0000000000d-01

starting_magnetization(2) = 1.0000000000d-01

starting_magnetization(3) = 4.5454545455d-01

noncolin = .true. ,

angle1(1) = 90.0,

angle2(1) = 0.0,

angle3(1) = 0.0,

lspinorb = .true. ,

/

&ELECTRONS

conv_thr = 6.0000000000d-10

electron_maxstep = 80

mixing_beta = 4.0000000000d-02

/

ATOMIC_SPECIES

Br 79.904 Br.rel-pbe-n-kjpaw_psl.1.0.0.UPF

I 126.90447 I.rel-pbe-n-kjpaw_psl.1.0.0.UPF

La 138.90547 La.rel-pbe-spfn-kjpaw_psl.1.0.0.UPF

ATOMIC_POSITIONS crystal

La 0.0000000000 0.0000000000 0.0006162566

Br 0.6666666700 0.3333332999 0.1111362558

I 0.6666666700 0.3333332999 0.8719820000

K_POINTS automatic

12 12 2 0 0 0

CELL_PARAMETERS angstrom

4.4924083940 0.0000000000 0.0000000000

-2.2462041970 3.8905397940 0.0000000000

0.0000000000 0.0000000000 15.9605549200

Kindly help me fix this issue.

Hi everyone

I am trying to detect ion products during ionisation by the electric field in geant4 .

i have implemented electric field inside the box which have been fiiled by some materials that is being exposed by electrons with energy equal to the ionisation energy (incident electrons energy range 5 ev - 30 ev ) of inside material.

i want to detect ion after ionisation,but electrons are being produced and there are no ions.

I have used G4VModularPhysicsList class and have used G4EmStandardPhysics , G4DecayPhysics and G4RadioactiveDecayPhysics at construct method of physicslist class.

Why i can not detect ions? Are there any Physicslists to produce ion products during ionisation in geant4?

Regards,

Tabaei

In dielectric, how do we know whether conduction wrt applied frequency takes place due to electron or due to a polaron. In Jonscher power law, can we distinguish whether the conduction is due to electron or due to a polaron, if we do not have temperature dependence data and just room dependence? Somewhere I read (and told by my professor in one of the Jonscher paper, which I was unable to find) that there is a specific range of the value of "n"(for polaron), which shows ac conductivity, for a polaron (it is 0.5<n<0.8) and electron (no idea) in the universal power law, but I am not sure whether it is true or not. Also I read there are large and small polaron, so from the "n" value can we further differentiate s.t which particular polar is participating or not?

Hello friends,

i am performing bader charge analysis for methylcyclo hexane (MCH)/ceria system using quantum espresso. while performing analysis, the number of electrons generated in ACF.dat is not equal to ZVAL for MCH/ceria system. the number of electrons is halved the value of ZVAL for MCH. Could you please give suggestions to perform bader charge analysis correctly.?

In quantum espresso 7.2, I am trying to do Spin orbit coupling(SOC).

I have tried many things changing mixing mode from plain to local-TF, changing mixing beta, changing electron convergence threshold, and pseudopotential file. But it is not converging.

Can anyone suggest me something!

I am research scholar in Banaras Hindu University. please suggest me the experimental setup for energy distribution of backscattering of electron by electron impact.

Is there significant difference between these other element present which highlighted as black? This is from Scanning Electron Microscope-EDS