Questions related to Electron
The Josephson junction consists of a thin layer of insulating oxide material between two superconducting electrodes and is used mainly in measuring magnetic fields. In 1973, physicist Brian Josephson shared in the Nobel prize for physics “for his theoretical predictions of … those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects”.
("The Nobel Prize in Physics 1973” https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1973/summary/)
“At sufficiently low temperatures, electron-pairs pass through the insulating portion by quantum tunnelling.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘Josephson junction’, p.715)
Josephson, then a 22-year-old research student at Cambridge University, had a debate in 1962 with John Bardeen who had shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics with William Shockley and Walter Brattain for the invention of the transistor. He would share a second Nobel prize in 1972 with Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer for their 1957 solution (the BCS theory) of the long-standing riddle of superconductivity.
(McDonald, Donald G. - “The Nobel Laureate Versus the Graduate Student” - https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/54/7/46/411592/The-Nobel-Laureate-Versus-the-Graduate-StudentJohn)
In an e-mail sent in the year 2000, Josephson offered the admonition: “Beware ye, all those bold of spirit who want to suggest new ideas.” His words apply to his younger self who, in 1962, was “bold of spirit” and “want(ed) to suggest new ideas”. What did he need to beware? Possibly – older scientists with established ways and conservative views … perhaps even his older, settled-into-tradition, self. Throughout history, older scientists have always argued against new ideas – and while many new ideas are indeed wrong, others which may seem to defy the laws of physics always win in the end. A quote attributed to Max Planck, the physicist who was a pioneer of quantum theory, says “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Those words may appear harsh but they remind us that elder scientists, even today and in future years, are – besides being vital teachers with much experience – subject to the conservatism which affects every person.
John Bardeen once commented –
"The idea of paired electrons, though not fully accurate, captures the sense of it."
(J. Bardeen, "Electron-Phonon Interactions and Superconductivity", in Cooperative Phenomena, eds. H. Haken and M. Wagner [Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1973], p. 67).
Since paired electrons is not fully accurate, the BCS theory of superconductivity needs a further consideration. That factor would be to focus on the wave portion of quantum mechanics’ wave-particle duality instead of on particles.
This discussion suggests that both the combination of particles/antiparticles, and the quantum pressure of interacting gravitational and electromagnetic waves, are valid interpretations of a) the Hawking radiation emitted from black holes, and b) superconductivity not using the second half of duality i.e. paired electrons. Instead, the electron waves and wave mechanics of Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) are used – electron waves could maintain the superconducting circuit by travelling through the spaces between the atoms in the oxide material. This agrees with "Measurement of the time spent by a tunnelling atom within the barrier region" (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2490-7) which says quantum tunnelling is not instantaneous - it's a result of particles' wave function.
I am learning how to edit TEM images in Fiji (Image J).
I want to highlight some specific areas of my images using colors.
Can somebody help?
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper  in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 150 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  eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, 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 the most 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
We want to run a large number of Monte Carlo simulations to obtain electron trajectories in a thin film at different incident electron enegies, different target thickness and different incident angles. Is there any Monte Carlo software can perform such simulations in batches?
We are able to perform a Monte Carlo simulation for each condition by using the software Casino. However, we cannot run it in batches.
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?
What is an electric device which converts electric energy into light energy and how do photovoltaic cells convert sunlight directly into a flow of electrons?
In my opinion, the E=mvc formula keeps a secret and this said secret will only be revealed when people have determined the formula and the value of the intrinsic energy of the electron. There had been a marriage between the formula E=mcc and the formula E=hf which has led to the Compton wavelength. But in my opinion it is a bad marriage because it has had a negative impact on the understanding and proper use of the formula E=mvc. I find that it was up to de Broglie to add a link equation which could have allowed him to determine the Compton wavelength equation without going through E=mcc. In my opinion, by determining the maximum speed of the electron, it is possible that this said speed is reached by the electrons in the sun, this speed could be considered as the limiting speed of a particle with mass. It is possible that this said speed serves as a reference as the limiting speed of a particle and it will be taken into account to calculate the maximum energy of each particle with mass to evaluate the mass of a particle at rest. In my opinion if photons have mass then the formula E=mcc is the good one where m is the mass of the photon.
In this pre-print, I present my personal exploration of the definitions of "infinite" and "finite."
Feel free to criticise and write as comment or email mentioned on the paper
To gain a deeper understanding of the context, you can refer to my previous publications: • 1. Shaikh, H. M. I. H. (2023, November 1). "Hypothesis and Experiments: Quantum Roots: 'E' as the Common Origin of All Existence." [DOI Link](https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/976rp), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35936.25607
• 2. "The Essence of 'E': Unveiling the Infinitely Infinite" by Haque Mobassir Imtiyazul Haque Shaikh, published in the International Journal of Frontiers in Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), Volume 5, Issue 5, September-October 2023. [DOI Link](https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/5/7494.pdf)
definition of finite and infinite existence helps my hypothesis that in the formation of universe, finite and infinite both have played the rule.
Kindly let me know your first honest reaction, what that would be?
Stars, atoms and electrons are concepts in the same way a ball is: they represents something in reality in a more human friendly or Abstract way, (=conceptual element) that what they are i.e a star is a collection ofv10^128 particles, some of them under going nuclear fussion, a ball is a generslization of plasticity bearing objects of the size that are used by Humans to play
Is there a more adequate definition of what makes a concept that represents physical entities?
And, are these concepts ultimately scientific and independent of human-centered conceptions about reality?
I think this speed is quantified but is it a constant in all the jumps of the electron?
This year’s NobelPrize laureate in physics Anne L’Huillier discovered that many different overtones of light arose when she transmitted infrared laser light through a noble gas.
Each overtone is a light wave with a given number of cycles for each cycle in the laser light. They are caused by the laser light interacting with atoms in the gas; it gives some electrons extra energy that is then emitted as light. L’Huillier has continued to explore this phenomenon, laying the ground for subsequent breakthroughs.
QM was developped to answer the issue of electrons spiralling out of atoms and being extremely short lived according to Maxwell equations.
Thus, its maunly a theory of compatibility of atom with EM waves, which means that other aspects of the system like gravity, thermal, Lorentzian Mechanics etc were simply rendered peripheral.
This has not however been argued sufficiently. Therefore, QM is mainly a enforcer of an ad hoc chosen aspect of nature and not so spherical in motivation.
There's G-Fourier for Linux and MacOS. I can't make it work for Windows however. Is there some Fourier analysis software that would allow me to make 2D and 3D electron density maps on a Windows machine?
The detection of quarks has always failed so far.
Shouldn't that be sufficient evidence for their non-existence? As we know, quarks were invented to explain the structure of proton, neutron and other particles. Any experimental evidence for particles with a third elementary charge, as quarks are supposed to possess, is still missing.
The structure of all particles and nuclei can be explained by the fact that positrons and electrons are their elementary building blocks, which combine to form particles according to certain rules and laws.
- Many things are enigmatic with the charge, the electron etc. I believe that there is an essential dependence between the charge and the electron, but isn't the electron really made up of a charge?
If we assume, contrary to the traditional belief of physicists, that (1) a neutron is a bound system of proton + electron + anti-neutrino and (2) an atomic nucleus contains anti-neutrons instead of neutrons and (3) nuclear decay is caused by (rare) reactions of the form anti-neutron + neutrino (coming from the sun) --> neutron + anti-neutrino which takes place 'inside' the nucleus, and (4) the nucleus ejects the neutron and the anti-neutrino and thereby deacays, then one comes to the conclusion that the mystery of a huge matter-antimatter asymmetry does not exist at all, BECAUSE in heavy nuclei the number of protons is roughly equal to the number of anti-neutrons, and therefore, in an atom with a heavy nucleus the number of protons is roughly equal to the number of anti-protons and to the number of electrons and to the number of positrons. So the idea of a huge asymmetry between matter and antimatter would not be a real mystery, but a consequence of an inaccurate model of the structure of matter.
If we assume the tunnling effect interlayers graphene. What type of it would be either Direc tunneling or FN tunneling. If it is Direct tunnling Effect, then the electron tunnling between the interlayers can be significantly improved with bias voltage.
Will plasma cleaner or Electron shower in the Ex-situ TEM will help to remove the oxide layers or will help to improve the imaging in HRTEM mode or HAADF STEM mode?
Samples are prepared by Dual Beam FIB (lamella).
PS: ETEM or Cryo are not available in the present facility.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
You asked: Do you think that it is by accident that the integral (12) ∆Wfield just has the same value if you insert -1/(8πG) for alpha?
YES. It is a Fallacy.
The point where you created your fallacy is equation 12. That is when you put together three divergent integrals into a single integral and postulate a single r_0, later to be conflated with the r in the Potential Energy calculation.
Self-Energy of Coulomb or Gravitational forces are infinite (cannot be calculated). The example of a "Gravitational Capacitor" is contrived and can only be calculated in the case of electrostatics, where the field goes to zero on the conducting plates and is considered constant between the plates. The energy in the electrostatic capacitor is not being mapped to the self-energy of the EXTRA electrons in the plate, but they should. What you calculate there is the energy of the setup. That always fails when you consider a Coulomb potential.
Even there, if you allow for the existence of charges, the self-energy would become infinite.
So, by accident and carelessness, the difference in "Gravitational Field Energy" becomes "similar" to Potential Energy.
Of course, in the case of potential energy, the value of r is defined by the distance between the centers of mass of the two bodies.
In your case, r_0 has no meaning since in your case, you are changing the mass of one of the bodies to become M+m. There is no physical process of moving masses or anything defining a geometry.
That is when the Fallacy was born.
From that, you started believing in the existence of a Gravitational Field Energy that is pervasive and not connected to the capacity of producing work (as it is in the definition of Potential Energy).
Since you started believing in your mistake, you conjured up a POSITIVE COSMIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ENERGY...
Since the positive energy nature of our Universe is already an unsurmountable problem in Physics (for the garden-variety scientists), adding more positive energy makes NO SENSE.
I will move this discussion to its own question so we don't have to take space on mine.
The 1926 Schrödinger equation was originally intended to resolve the subatomic quantum particle in an infinite potential field without a word about superposition. Furthermore, E. Schrödinger himself first opposed quantum superposition in his famous paradox "A cat in a box".
However, the giant N. Bohr came with his quantum superposition in 1928 to the Copenhagen conference and announced that he, including himself, who claims to understand it has understood nothing or that he is only a “simple liar”.
We assume that quantum superposition actually solved both atomic chemistry and physics, but this remained a theoretical mystery until the advent of the double-slit interference experiment of a coherent beam of electrons . It has been experimentally proven beyond doubt that quantum superposition exists and works in the same way as described in N. Bohr's interpretation.
The always seductive question arises:
Why is quantum superposition an effective and essential irreducible tool?
Two electrons, A at rest and B moving at high speed. According to the theory of relativity, there is a "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in the space-time of the electron moving at high speed, but not in the electron at rest. Now if electron B is moving with velocity v, towards stationary electron A, at the moment of their collision:
(1) assuming that they are both point particles*, what is the measure of spacetime at the moment of their collision, where exactly is the measure? and is the spacetime of A and B the same spacetime?
(2) Assuming that they are structured particles‡, how is spacetime measured at an interface at the instant before their "collision"?
(3) Is the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect¶ of SR absolute or relative ? Note that no matter how you set up the inertial systems, the spacetime of all inertial systems is a common spacetime that overlaps, and the difference is only in the relative coordinate values.
(4) What causes the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect? Is it the "motion" itself, or is it the increase in "energy-momentum" caused by the motion? If the cause is energy-momentum, then it is consistent with GR?
A realistic example is the "gold-gold (Au + Au) collisions" at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) by the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR ) Collaboration. Two gold (Au) ions move in opposite direction at 99.995% of the speed of light. As the ions pass one another without colliding, two photons (?) from the electromagnetic cloud surrounding the ions can interact with each other to create a matter-antimatter pair: an electron (e-) and positron (e+). When two Au particles pass one another, approaching two times the speed of light, how is space-time measured here? And whose spacetime measure is it? This example gives the answer to the relationship between the speed of light and the platform of the light source, how the speed of light is interfaced with the speed of the Au. Light does not change its speed when Au keeps changing its speed, so what determines the difference in speed in between? It must be their spacetime measure. That is, we always have: Δx/Δt = c, assuming that Δx and Δt express spatial and temporal measures, respectively.
* During Einstein's original proof , objects were considered as point particles, or independent of the structure of the object.
¶ The "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in SR is not shown where exactly it manifests itself.
‡ Regardless of the structure, the electric field of the electron is radially dynamically diffuse and it is part of the electron.
 BROOKHAVEN NTIONAL LABORATORY. (2021). "Scientists Generate Matter Directly From Light – Physics Phenomena Predicted More Than 80 Years Ago." from https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/?expand_article=1.
 Adam, J., L. Adamczyk and etl. (2021). "Measurement of e+ e− momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions." Physical Review Letters 127(5): 052302.
 Einstein, A. (1905). "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der physik 17(10): 891-921.
It's a dumb question maybe, but I'm not sure how to proceed.
Suppose you have two different models which generate molecules (in the form of coordinates of atoms). The molecules generated by models are not the same.
Next, you have a method to evaluate energy of a molecule (given atomic coordinates, it outputs a number). I can also optimize atomic coordinates with this method.
The question is, how to compare these two generative models in terms of energy?
My guess is that I can run minimization for each configuration and can evaluate dE = E_final - E_initial. But how can I compare/aggregate dE between different molecules? My guess is that to have a crude estimate one can divide these quantities by the total charge of the nuclei in the molecule (which equals to the number of electrons for neutral molecules). Is this reasonable or better ways exist?
In plasma physics, thermodynamic property is influenced by isothermally confined electrons and adiabatically expanding electrons. How can isothermally confined electrons and adiabatically expanding electrons be differentiated? What does they exactly mean in a plasma?
Rotational constants (GHZ): 0.1722105 0.0637054 0.0501274 Standard basis: 6-311++G(d,p) (5D, 7F) There are 907 symmetry adapted cartesian basis functions of A symmetry. There are 874 symmetry adapted basis functions of A symmetry. 874 basis functions, 1382 primitive gaussians, 907 cartesian basis functions 121 alpha electrons 120 beta electrons nuclear repulsion energy 3359.0762438298 Hartrees. NAtoms= 53 NActive= 53 NUniq= 53 SFac= 1.00D+00 NAtFMM= 60 NAOKFM=F Big=F Integral buffers will be 262144 words long. Raffenetti 2 integral format. Two-electron integral symmetry is turned on. One-electron integrals computed using PRISM. NBasis= 874 RedAO= T EigKep= 1.51D-06 NBF= 874 NBsUse= 865 1.00D-06 EigRej= 9.94D-07 NBFU= 865 Initial guess from the checkpoint file: "C:\g16w\PE.chk" B after Tr= 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Rot= 0.999890 -0.012343 0.002602 -0.007743 Ang= -1.70 deg. Initial guess <Sx>= 0.0000 <Sy>= 0.0000 <Sz>= 0.5000 <S**2>= 0.7712 S= 0.5105 ExpMin= 3.60D-02 ExpMax= 9.34D+04 ExpMxC= 3.17D+03 IAcc=3 IRadAn= 5 AccDes= 0.00D+00 Harris functional with IExCor= 402 and IRadAn= 5 diagonalized for initial guess. HarFok: IExCor= 402 AccDes= 0.00D+00 IRadAn= 5 IDoV= 1 UseB2=F ITyADJ=14 ICtDFT= 3500011 ScaDFX= 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 FoFCou: FMM=F IPFlag= 0 FMFlag= 100000 FMFlg1= 0 NFxFlg= 0 DoJE=T BraDBF=F KetDBF=T FulRan=T wScrn= 0.000000 ICntrl= 500 IOpCl= 0 I1Cent= 200000004 NGrid= 0 NMat0= 1 NMatS0= 1 NMatT0= 0 NMatD0= 1 NMtDS0= 0 NMtDT0= 0 Petite list used in FoFCou. Requested convergence on RMS density matrix=1.00D-08 within 128 cycles. Requested convergence on MAX density matrix=1.00D-06. Requested convergence on energy=1.00D-06. No special actions if energy rises. Restarting incremental Fock formation.
need help please what is the problem
for CsAuX3 (I3,Cl3 and Br3) like (bandgap (eV),electron affinity (eV),dielectric permittivity (relative),CB effective density of states (1/cm^3),electron thermal velocity (cm/s),electron mobility (cm²/Vs),and shallow uniform donor density ND (1/cm3). I am searching it from literature review from last 3 days for simulation of perovskite solar cell as absorber material but I didn't found any suitable answer except band gap value from material project website. Can Any one provide me reference paper or guide me related to this thanks. I m using SCAPS-1D softwere.
Can DFT codes such as Wien2k or similar codes be employed to calculate Electron Affinity, Vacuum Energy, and Work Function? These values are needed for chalcopyrite compounds in the context of SCAPS 1D simulations.
Can Castep draw a 2D plane of electron localization function (ELF)?
The obtained ELF can be exported as 3D view,
but I want to draw a 2D map, e.g., (100) plane.
I tried to use "Craete slices", but it resulted in the electron density, not electron localization function.
Here the Ni has equilibrium lattice constant of 3.52 and I applied the 20% strain on x y and z axis.
calculation = 'scf'
verbosity = 'high'
tstress = .true.
tprnfor = .true.
prefix = 'myprefix'
pseudo_dir = '/home/ashwani/PP/PBE_ONCV'
ecutwfc = 50
ecutrho = 400
occupations = 'smearing'
degauss = 0.001
smearing = 'mp'
nspin = 1
ntyp = 1
nat = 4
ibrav = 0
electron_maxstep = 200
mixing_mode = 'plain'
mixing_beta = 0.7
diagonalization = 'david'
Ni 58.6934 Ni.UPF
6 6 6 0 0 0
3.72000000000000 0.00000000000000 0.00000000000000
0.00000000000000 3.72000000000000 0.00000000000000
0.00000000000000 0.00000000000000 3.72000000000000
Ni 0.0000000000 0.0000000000 0.0000000000
Ni 0.0000000000 0.4731182796 0.4731182796
Ni 0.4731182796 0.0000000000 0.4731182796
Ni 0.4731182796 0.4731182796 0.0000000000
I am working on heavily doped TCOs for solar cells integration. I am currently trying to draw band diagrams, but I am facing a problem. I am able to characterize the work function (WF) of my samples (using a kelvin probe) as well as the optical bandgap (Eg opt) from Tauc plots (ellipsometry measurements). However, I am facing an issue: How can I place my Fermi level relatively to my conduction band minimum ? I need to measure either the electron affinity (khi) or the true bandgap (Eg true) (cf the enclosed diagram)
I have been trying to look for a characterization method but couldn't find one that suits my requirements...
The valence band is the energy below which there are available states for electrons to occupy. Similarly the conduction band is the energy above which there are available states. But, What exactly does Fermi energy level mean?
Quantum computer uses the principle of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is always mysterious, and it is the study of phenomena on an absolute small scale, such as atoms, molecules, electrons, and elementary charge particles.
Hello, I will analyze my samples in a FE-SEM microscope, I was interesting in analazy the morphology of the carbon quantum dots and also make an EDS analyze and I was wondering how correctly prepare the sample because I understand that the different analisis require different type of electrons because for EDS the electrones come from a more inner place in the sample than the electrons for morphology.
I have my carbon quantum dots in a water media, I don't know what would be the best preparation for the best result. Any recommendation or reference to see it would be grateful.
% Create an empty array to store the electron density data
ne_array = ;
% Loop through the files in the folder
folder_path = 'D:\ionPrf_prov1_2020_002'; % replace with the path to your folder
file_list = dir(fullfile(folder_path, '*.0001_nc')); % replace '.0001_nc' with the file extension of your data files
for i = 1:numel(file_list)
% Read the electron density data from the file
filepath = fullfile(folder_path, file_list(i).name);
fid = fopen(filepath, 'r');
line = fgetl(fid);
if startsWith(line, 'ELEC_dens') % look for the line starting with 'Ne'
ne_data = strsplit(line);
ne_data = str2double(ne_data(2:end)); % extract the Ne data as an array of doubles
ne_array = [ne_array; ne_data]; % add the Ne data to the array
% Save the electron density data to a text file
output_filename = 'ne_data.txt';
dlmwrite(output_filename, ne_array, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', '%.3e');
I am looking for all "equations" in physics where 1/alpha^2 (the inverse square of the fine structure constant) is used. Like in QED and the correlation of the probably of a photon interacting with an electron. Do you know of any places? Thanks in advance! Note: Only interested in the inverse square usage of the fine structure constant.
It might happen that half of their projection on 3d space is what we measure or perceive as our electron and the other half of the projection electron might be the electron which is entangled to the first one. In short, source of electron (i.e. is 6-dimensional Electron) but its projections are two separate entangled electrons on different distances on 3d space (obviously sharing common quantum states). Do you think, it is possible?
In fuel cells hydrogen (H2) is ionized in the anode and is transformed into H+ and e-.
Then H+ moves through the electrolyte membrane towards the cathode, where O2 is flushed. In the meantime, the electrons move from the anode (where they separated from H2) towards the cathode, producing an electron flux, i.e. regenerating an electrical current. In the cathode O2 first captures the electrons and then react with H+ to produce water (and heat).
What I am asking here is: how elemental H2 is forced to separate into two H+ and two e-? I have read that this happens in the anode, but I did not understand how it happens.
I am contacting you today to kindly request your expertise and guidance regarding a specific aspect of my research. I am currently studying the defect properties of semiconductor material, and I am particularly interested in obtaining information on the parameters of particular defects relevant to my study and simulation in SILVACO
1.Energy Band Gap
2.Electron DOS in valance band
3.Electron DOS in conduction band
5.Intrinsic n/p-type doping
12. Mobility of electron
13. Mobility of hole
[Include additional defects or parameters as necessary.]
It is commonly believed that the concept of electron spin was first introduced by A.H. Compton (1920) when he studied magnetism. "May I then conclude that the electron itself, spinning like a tiny gyroscope, is probably the ultimate magnetic particle?"; Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit (1926) thought so too , but did not know it at the time of their first paper (1925) . However, Thomas (1927) considered Abraham (1903) as the first to propose the concept of spinning electron . Compton did not mention Abraham in his paper "The magnetic electron" , probably because Abraham did not talk about the relationship between spin and magnetism . In fact, it is Abraham's spin calculations that Uhlenbeck cites in his paper .
Gerlach, W. and O. Stern (1921-1922) did the famous experiment* on the existence of spin magnetic moments of electrons (even though this was not realized at the time ) and published several articles on it .
Pauli (1925) proposed the existence of a possible " two-valuedness " property of the electron , implying the spin property; Kronig (1925) proposed the concept of the spin of the electron to explain the magnetic moment before Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit, which was strongly rejected by Pauli . Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit (1925) formally proposed the concept of spin, and after the English version was published, Kronig (1926), under the same title and in the same journals, questioned whether the speed of rotation of an electron with internal structure is superluminal**. Later came the Thomas paper giving a beautiful explanation of the factor of 2 for spin-orbit coupling. Since then, physics has considered spin as an intrinsic property that can be used to explain the anomalous Seeman effect.
The current state of physics is in many ways the situation: "When we do something in physics, after a while, there is a tendency to forget the overall meaning of what we are working on. The long range perspective fades into the background, and we may become blind to important a priori questions.". With this in mind, C. N. Yang briefly reviewed how spin became a part of physics. For spin, he summarized several important issues: The concept of spin is both an intriguing and extremely difficult one. Fundamentally it is related to three aspects of physics. The first is the classical concept of rotation; the second is the quantization of angular momentum; the third is special relativity. All of these played essential roles in the early understanding of the concept of spin, but that was not so clearly appreciated at the time .
Speaking about the understanding of spin, Thomas said : "I think we must look towards the general relativity theory for an adequate solution of the problem of the "structure of the electron" ; if indeed this phrase has any meaning at all and if it can be possible to do more than to say how an electron behaves in an external field. Yang said too: "And most important, we do not yet have a general relativistic theory of the spinning electron. I for one suspect that the spin and general relativity are deeply entangled in a subtle way that we do not now understand . I believe that all unified theories must take this into account.
What exactly is spin, F. J. Belinfante argued that it is a circular energy flow  and that spin is related to the structure of the internal wave field of the electron. A comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave . The electron is a photon with toroidal topology . At the earliest, A. Lorentz also used to think so based on experimental analysis. etc.
Our questions are:
1) Is the spin of an electron really spin? If spin has classical meaning, what should be rotating and obeying the Special Relativity?
2) What should be the structure of the electron that can cause spin quantization and can be not proportional to charge and mass?
3) If spin must be associated with General Relativity, must we consider the relationship between the energy flow of the spin and the gravitational field energy?
* It is an unexpectedly interesting story about how their experimental results were found. See the literature .
** Such a situation occurs many times in the history of physics, where the questioned and doubted papers are published in the same journal under the same title. For example, the debate between Einstein and Bohr, the EPR papers  and , the debate between Wilson and Saha on magnetic monopoles  and , etc.
 Abraham, M. (1902). "Principles of the Dynamics of the Electron (Translated by D. H. Delphenich)." Physikalische Zeitschrift 4(1b): 57-62.
 Compton, A. H. and O. Rognley (1920). "Is the Atom the Ultimate Magnetic Particle?" Physical Review 16(5): 464-476.
 Compton, A. H. (1921). "The magnetic electron." Journal of the Franklin Institute 192(2): 145-155.
 Uhlenbeck, G. E., and Samuel Goudsmit. (1925). "Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezüglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons." Die Naturwissenschaften 13.47 (1925): 953-954.
 Uhlenbeck, G. E. and S. Goudsmit (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2938): 264-265.
 Thomas, L. H. (1927). "The kinematics of an electron with an axis." The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 3(13): 1-22.
 Schmidt-Böcking, H., L. Schmidt, H. J. Lüdde, W. Trageser, A. Templeton and T. Sauer (2016). "The Stern-Gerlach experiment revisited." The European Physical Journal H 41(4): 327-364.
 Gerlach, W. and O. Stern. (1922). "Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld. " Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 9: 349-352.
 Pauli, W. (1925). "Über den Einfluß der Geschwindigkeitsabhängigkeit der Elektronenmasse auf den Zeemaneffekt." Zeitschrift für Physik 31(1): 373-385.
 Stöhr, J. and H. C. Siegmann (2006). "Magnetism"(磁学), 高等教育出版社.
 Kronig, R. D. L. (1926). "Spinning Electrons and the Structure of Spectra." Nature 117(2946): 550-550.
 Yang, C. N. (1983). "The spin". AIP Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics.
 Belinfante, F. J. (1940). "On the current and the density of the electric charge, the energy, the linear momentum and the angular momentum of arbitrary fields." Physica 7(5): 449-474.
 Ohanian, H. C. (1986). "What is spin?" American Journal of Physics 54(6): 500-505. 电子的自旋与内部波场结构有关。
 Parson, A. L. (1915). Smithsonian Misc. Collections.
 Pavšič, M., E. Recami, W. A. Rodrigues, G. D. Maccarrone, F. Raciti and G. Salesi (1993). "Spin and electron structure." Physics Letters B 318(3): 481-488.
 Williamson, J. and M. Van der Mark (1997). Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Fondation Louis de Broglie.
 Friedrich, B. and D. Herschbach (2003). "Stern and Gerlach: How a bad cigar helped reorient atomic physics." Physics Today 56(12): 53-59.
 Bohr, N. (1935). "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Physical review 48(8): 696.
 Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935). "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" Physical review 47(10): 777.
 Wilson, H. (1949). "Note on Dirac's theory of magnetic poles." Physical Review 75(2): 309.
 Saha, M. (1949). "Note on Dirac's theory of magnetic poles." Physical Review 75(12): 1968.
Dear community, I am a phd student, and I have recently analyzed dielectric functions of ALD 2D films of YSZ and TiO2 using REELS and ellipsometry. For REELS, I use QUEELS-ε(k,ω)-REELS software, and for ellipsometry, VASE by Wollam.
When analyzing the refractive index and the extinction coefficient in a similar energy range, I found higher values by REELS in both materials.
My questions are: Should I get equal values? In which cases should they be different? I have also found slightly lower band gap values.
I understand that the differences may be noticeable. The excitation phenomena are different, and in REELS, you can excite or increase excitations that affect the dielectric function, the depth of analysis, the different surface properties, measurement conditions, the direction of the excited fields in the materials, and even the oscillators of the models.
Drude-Lindhard model from REELS assumes a free electron gas and describes the collective motion of electrons in the material under an externally applied electric field, accounting for both the plasma frequency and damping constant. On the other hand, The Tauc-Lorentz model used in ellipsometry considers electronic transitions and bandgap excitations in the material.
It is important to mention that the oscillator equations in both models are very similar, only that they are written with other symbols.
I have reviewed different works where the dielectric functions calculated from REELS and ellipsometry measurements are compared. I feel that, in most of them, the authors are more satisfied if they obtain more similar values.
If the results differ, I have also not found a precise statement as to why they are different in terms of the Drude-Lindhard and Tauc-Lorentz models. Is it due to a term in some equation? To a specific fitting parameter that has some physical meaning? Or is it due to the surface properties of materials?
I hope this little discussion is well raised and helps to enrich our knowledge on the topic. I share the results I obtained and appreciate any thoughts.
All the best
I have read two different kinds of definitions for 0, 1, 2, and 3 D nanoparticles. In one type 1 D nanoparticle is defined as the particle which has only one dimension in nanometer scale eg. nanosheets, or thin films. In the other type, 1 D nanoparticle is defined as the particle in which electrons are allowed to move in only one direction and are confined in any two directions (x&y, y&z, x&z) eg. nanowires and nanotubes.
Similarly, for 2D, according to first kind of definition, two dimensions should be in nm scale then the example will be nanofibres or nanotubes. And if we consider other definitions i.e. electrons will be allowed to move in two directions only, then examples will be thin films or nanosheets.
Now, everything boils down to 0 or 3D nanoparticles. Please someone make it clear.
Comment on the video "Electrons do not spin" by Dr. Matt O'Dowd and PBS Spacetime - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y
If the electron – and particles like quarks – have zero size, an explanation is that matter isn’t composed of “little hard balls” but of pure mathematics. This is consistent with something Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote in the 2010 book “The Grand Design”. They said aliens may do the same experiments we do but may not describe the results by using quarks. And Max Tegmark’s 2014 book “Our Mathematical Universe” proposes that the cosmos isn’t merely described by maths but IS maths. Here’s my own suggestion for expressing experiments and the universe in non-material terms –
Let's say electronics' binary digits (BITS) of 1 and 0 - aka base 2 maths - are the ultimate composition of, and are used to "draw", Mobius strips. Then two Mobius strips can unite to form a figure-8 Klein bottle. Trillions of Mobius strips can form a photon, and trillions of more complex figure-8 Klein bottles can form the more complex graviton. (The Klein is immersed, not embedded, in the 3rd dimension.) If the whole universe is projected from 2D (as proposed by the holographic-universe theory), then both gravitational and electromagnetic waves must be projections from 2D, too (according to this posting, from the Mobius strip which is made up of binary digits). Therefore, the range of frequencies (aka bandwidth) called gravitational and electromagnetic waves is composed of BITS. The universe is a mass of this gravitational-electromagnetic unification (and there is nothing except sufficient bandwidth). This also gives plausible answers to a couple of questions Albert Einstein asked – “What is a photon?”, and “How could gravitational-electromagnetic unity be possible?” (the photon and graviton would both form from the topological Mobius and Klein [as well as binary digits], thus producing gravitational-electromagnetic unity).
The physicist and science historian Abraham Pais wrote that “In 1924 the scientist Wolfgang Pauli was the first to propose a doubling of electron states due to a two-valued non-classical "hidden rotation". Extending the ideas of “doubling”, “two-valued” and “hidden rotation” from the quantum spin Pauli had in mind to the Mobius strip being a basic, fundamental unit of reality; it can be seen that Pauli’s proposal has an analogy to this article. The doubled Mobius strips (doubled to form a figure-8 Klein bottle) could be produced by the two-valued binary-digit system used in electronics. The bottles possess a hidden rotation, now identified as adaptive Wick rotation, which gives a fourth dimension to space-time. In a holographic universe where the 3rd dimension results from information in a 2nd dimension, there would only be two space dimensions in reality and time would be the 3rd dimension.
In 1988’s “A Brief History of Time”, Professor Stephen Hawking writes - "What the spin of a particle really tells us is what the particle looks like from different directions." Spin 1 is like an arrow-tip pointing, say, up. A photon has to be turned round a full revolution of 360 degrees to look the same. Spin 2 is like an arrow with 2 tips - 1 pointing up, 1 down. A graviton has to be turned half a revolution (180 degrees) to look the same. Spin 0 is like a ball of arrows having no spaces. A Higgs boson looks like a dot: the same from every direction. Spin ½ is logically like a Mobius strip (your video’s cube with its attached ribbons reminds me of the Mobius), though Hawking doesn’t specifically say so. This is because a particle of matter has to be turned through two complete revolutions to look the same (this reminds me of the spinors associate with rotation), and you must travel around a Mobius strip twice to reach the starting point.
Rest-Mass, Charge of an electron is still an unsolved problem in physics! Why?
Einstein: "A theory setting mass and charge a priori is incomplete!" So Dirac's Electron Theory (restmass and charge are fundamental constants) is incomplete in the sense of Einsteins Opinion. The same to SM & GR up to now?
Can anyone describe when to use kV or keV when discussing electron microscopy? They seem to be used interchangeably, though it seems like it would make more sense to describe the actual energy of the primary electrons (keV) to me. Is the kV applied to the electron gun the same as the keV of the incident electrons?
The limitations of contemporary supercomputers, as well as the ramifications for academics and institutions worldwide, are drawing attention in the scientific community. For example, researchers may use current technology to perform more complicated simulations, such as those that focus on chemistry and the reactive properties of each element. However, when the intricacy of these interactions increases, they become far more challenging for current supercomputers to manage. Due to the limited processing capability of these devices, finishing these sorts of computations is nearly impossible, which is forcing scientists to choose between speed and precision while doing these studies.
To provide some context for the breadth of these experiments, let's start with the example of modeling a hydrogen atom. With just one proton and only one electron in hydrogen, a researcher could easily do the chemistry by hand or depend on a computer to complete the calculations. However, depending on the number of atoms and whether or not the electrons are entangled, this procedure becomes more difficult. To write out every conceivable result for an element such as thulium, which contains a staggering 69 electrons that are all twisted together, would take upwards of 20 trillion years. Obviously, this is an inordinate amount of time, and standard techniques must be abandoned.
Quantum computers, however, open the door to a whole new world of possibilities.
source: Quantum Computing: Current Progress and Future Directions | EDUCAUSE
it ranges from 1000 cm^2/Vs to 4600 cm^2/Vs in literature. Even theoretical and experimental predictions are in reverse order (in most experimental data h mobility > e mobility while in theoretical prediction h mobility < e mobility.). there is no conclusive remarks about why electron behaves so strange in case of diamond as a sensor material.
If someone has semiconducting nanoparticles, then how does he classify them in terms of confinement of electron movement?
I have data from Talos electron microscope and I have been told that I can find the electron current in the .emd file's original metadata using Python, but I get an AssertionError: "dataset location is ambiguous" ( I don't get such error with .tif files though) . Could someone explain to me what am I doing wrong or even better an other way to find the Electron Current from my data?
I've doped a nanomaterial with an electron donor, the X-band ESR spectra does indicate that there is a change in the line widths of both the spectra along with a slight change in the g-factor values. Does this indicate a change in the electronic environment of the nanomaterial? For example can it be conclude that a charge transfer is taking place? The spectra is attached. The dark yellow spectra is only of the nanomaterial. The orange spectra is after the addition of the electron donor
If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.
Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.
Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.
Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?
Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.
In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.
Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.
That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.
This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.
What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.
That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
In the photocatalytic field, the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) test is not only used to analyze the chemical composition and valence states of material, but can also confirm the possible electron flow through the peak shift of respective components, thereby providing a reference for determining the band structure of composite material. The specific principle is that when the peak position takes a positive shift to higher binding energy, it indicates a weakening shielding effect of extranuclear electron clouds with reduced density. Therefore, the electrons will flow from the component with positively shifted peaks to that with negatively shifted peaks. However, more important thing is to determine whether the electron flow direction obtained from the XPS test results is consistent with the direction during photocatalytic process or that during the equilibrium process of Fermi levels between components after their contact. There are contradictory reports from numerous papers for this question. Some literature only attributed the electron flow determined by XPS test to strong interactions between components, without specifically analyzing the specific reasons for this flow. Some papers found that the electron flow direction determined by XPS test was consistent with the direction during photocatalytic process. However, many recent papers hold the view that the electron flow direction determined by XPS test is caused by the difference of Fermi levels between components, and the electrons will flow from the component with higher Fermi level to that one with lower Fermi level after their contact, finally reaching the equilibrium of Fermi level. So which idea is correct?
Hi. I'm trying to perform vc-relax calculation for Nb. The input file is given below. In the output script, I find no term such as " END OF BFGS CALCULATION" and then final atomic coordinates and other important data. But my job shows done -
calculation = 'vc-relax'
forc_conv_thr = 0.001
pseudo_dir = '.'
disk_io = 'none'
degauss = 0.05
ecutrho = 400
ecutwfc = 50
ibrav = 0
nat = 1
ntyp = 1
occupations = "smearing"
smearing = "gaussian"
conv_thr = 1.0e-06
electron_maxstep = 200
mixing_beta = 7.0e-01
startingpot = "atomic"
startingwfc = "atomic+random"
ion_dynamics = "bfgs"
cell_dofree = "all"
cell_dynamics = "bfgs"
press = 0.0
press_conv_thr = 0.5
Ta 180.94788 Ta_pbe_v1.uspp.F.UPF
Ta 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ta 1.6529 1.6529 1.6529
Ta -1.6529 1.6529 1.6529
Ta -1.6529 -1.6529 1.6529
10 10 10 0 0 0