The substantial electron model is a theoretical model, which is
alternative to the concept of electrons’ origin as a result of the Big bang and to the electron model in quantum mechanics and
the theory of elementary particles. To prove the substantial electron model
such theories are used as the theory of Infinite
Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, the theory of similarity of matter levels, SPФ symmetry, strong gravitation, as well as the concept
of dynamic spin.
It is known that the Big Bang
theory has a number of unsolved problems, [1]
moreover, the phenomena, on which it is based, can be explained by other
reasons. [2] In the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter,
as opposed to atomism, there are no absolutely elementary particles – every
natural object is made up of smaller objects. Therefore, the origin of
electrons and other particles is considered from the standpoint of matter
evolution in space, which occurs by the same laws at different levels of
matter. The basis of this approach is SPФ
symmetry, according to which the laws of motion of matter and fields under
similarity transformations between the matter levels do not change their form
and remain invariant.
The distribution of material objects
in the Universe is described with the help of scale dimension, which
extends over all levels of matter. The basic levels of matter are: the level of
graons – the level of praons – the level of nucleons – the level of stars – the
level of supermetagalaxies. [3] The ordinary
matter, planets and stars consist of atoms or atomic nuclei, that is, of a
mixture of neutrons, protons and electrons, in which the main contribution to
mass is made by nucleons. Similarly, the objects at the level of nucleons,
i.e., nucleons themselves, electrons, and other elementary particles consist
mostly of neutral and positively charged praons and
negatively charged praelectrons. Each basic level of matter consists of the
objects of the underlying basic level of matter. This is the way the principle
of nesting of matter is realized.
The characteristic and
complementary processes in the global evolution of objects in the Universe are:
1) formation of particles and material bodies in the opposite processes of
clustering and fragmentation. 2) formation of static fields, associated with
the matter, and of moving fields in the form of emission from particles and
bodies. It is assumed that much more massive bodies are formed under the action
of graviton fluxes in the framework of the Le Sage's theory of gravitation. At
the same time sufficiently massive objects at different levels of matter, such
as compact stars, are the emitting sources of photons, neutrinos, relativistic
particles, which are the basis of the field and graviton fluxes. Thus, the
matter of the lower levels generates the field quanta, and the field produces
individual bodies from scattered matter at the higher levels of matter. Based
on the described picture, nucleons are similar to neutron stars and electrons
in the atom correspond to the disks, discovered near the X-ray pulsars, which
are the main candidates for magnetars. [4] Formation
of neutron stars is well known from the theory of stellar evolution, which
allows us to understand the origin of nucleons as the analogues of neutron
stars. Nucleons are divided to neutrons and protons, the first can be compared
to ordinary neutron stars and the second can be compared to magnetars with
strong magnetic fields and potentially positive electrical charge.
The matter of disks near
magnetars has the form of broad rings with a characteristic radius close to the
Roche limit, at which disintegration of planets near stars occurs due to the
strong gravitational field. If a massive star had a planetary system, then over
time this star could become a magnetar (after the stage of a neutron star), and
the matter with domination of the heaviest iron-group chemical elements would
remain after planets. The ratio of the Roche radius to the neutron star radius
is equal to the ratio of the Bohr radius to the proton radius, so that the
disks discovered near pulsars can be considered the analogues of an electron
cloud in the hydrogen atom. Calculation shows that the matter of the object,
which is the analogue of the electron around a magnetar, is quantitatively
almost neutral – per each matter unit, containing 1016 nucleons in,
there is only one additional electron. But due to rather large mass of the disk
the total negative charge is great. Hence, by analogy, it follows that the
matter of electrons in atoms is in the form of clouds due to the action of
strong gravitation from the nucleus, and the considerable part of the clouds’
matter is electrically neutral. Besides, the electron’s matter differs from the
nucleon’s matter just as the planetary matter differs from the matter of
neutron stars. Due to the low density of the electron’s matter with respect to
nucleons, the experiments with electron scattering do not reveal the internal
substructure of electrons – it remains beyond the experimental accuracy.
According to the theory of similarity of matter levels, strong gravitation is acting at the scale
level of elementary particles instead of the ordinary gravitation, ensuring the
integrity of particles and their interactions with each other. Assuming that an
electron has a certain radius
, the electron’s
integrity is possible when the attracting gravitational force per any matter
unit with the mass
exceeds the force of electric repulsion of
this unit with the charge
of the total electron charge
:
![]()
where
is the strong
gravitational constant,
is the electron mass,
is the electric constant. Without loss of generality we can assume that following the relation is
satisfied:
![]()
In view of this relation the
electron’s stability condition takes the form:
![]()
However, after substituting all
the quantities this condition is not satisfied, because the electron charge is
so large that the proper gravitational force of the electron matter cannot
counteract its electrical force. This means that an electron is not an
independent particle and does not have a definite radius. Therefore, an
electron in an atom can only be in the form of a rotating electron cloud
similar to a disc, which is held by the gravitational field of the nucleus. The
electron’s equilibrium requires the presence of the gravitational force,
especially in the case of a hydrogen atom, because here the electrical force of
the electron’s attraction to the nucleus is to a great extent compensated by
the electrical force of repulsion of the electron’s charged matter.
In view of the above, the
equality by the absolute value of the charges of proton and electron in the
hydrogen atom is explained by the need to fulfill the condition of general
electroneutrality and by adjustment of the charge (and mass) of the electron cloud
due to the attraction or repulsion of the respective electric charges of the
rarified matter, surrounding the atom. The existence of electrons in atoms in
the entire observed cosmic matter and in the most remote, even unrelated points
is the evidence of uniform and natural evolution of matter in the Universe.
This applies not only to electron, but to all elementary particles, as well as
to other objects, for the integrity of which both gravitational and
electromagnetic forces are required.
Given the lack of independence of
an electron as a particle, it becomes clear why in all reactions an electron
appears only in connection with decay of more massive particles (such as
neutrons and muons) or with obligatory participation of hadrons, just as in
photoproduction of electron-positron pairs.
As an example
we can consider the reaction of neutron beta decay, leading to the production
of electron, proton and antineutrino. There is a neutron model, in which its
interior is positively charged and the shell is negatively charged. This model
has been created in an attempt to explain the experiments on scattering of
electron beams of medium-energy (up to 20 GeV) on the liquid hydrogen and in
deuterium, with calculation of the charge and magnetic form factors of the
neutron. [5] [6] [7] The neutron’s analogue at the stellar level is a
neutron star, in the production process of which we can also assume volumetric
separation of the electric charge. For example, during supernova explosion with
production of a neutron star part of electrons from the center can be displaced
to the shell, giving a negative charge to it. Due to the spherical symmetry,
such separation of charges can be stable enough, since electrons in the shell
are not only attracted to the positively charged nucleus, but also repel each
other. Rotation of a star with a separated volume charge leads to a
characteristic pattern of the magnetic field – inside the field is directed
along the rotation axis, but near the surface it is fully compensated by the
oppositely directed magnetic field of the shell. Therefore, the total magnetic
moment of the star is opposite to its rotation, as is the case with the
neutron. The magnetic field is supported not only by rotation of the charges,
but also by the stellar matter directed in the magnetic field, consisting
mainly of neutrons.
Due to the reactions of weak
interaction, transformations of neutrons into protons and electrons take place
in the matter and the gradual change of the internal magnetic configuration
occurs in the star’s volume (in the decay of each neutron at its constant
rotation a rapid polarity reversal of the magnetic moment’s direction takes
place, since the magnetic moments of a neutron and a proton with the same spin
are opposite). The result of the stellar matter’s transformation is that at
some point the central magnetic field, shielded by the shell’s field, breaks
out near the poles.This leads to a catastrophic restructuring of the
entire magnetic field, releasing enough energy to throw off part of the outer
shell. The star turns into a magnetar, and the ejected matter is negatively
charged and magnetized, as it consists mainly of iron-type elements found on
the surface of the star. The matter ejected from the star corresponds to an
electron in the beta decay of a neutron.
Hence we can make the
following conclusions:
1) The electron’s matter is not
only charged, but also can be magnetized.
2) The reactions of weak
interaction with elementary particles can be explained by transformation of the
matter of these particles in the processes of weak interaction, that take place
at the lower scale level of matter (if we compare the evolution of a neutron
star with the evolution of matter of one neutron, then similarly we should
compare a neutron itself with a praon as a corresponding small particle of a
neutron).
3) The universal
electroneutrality of matter in the Universe is associated with production of
the same number of charged elementary particles (protons and electrons) in
neutrons’ beta decay. In turn, neutrons emerge as a result of natural evolution
of matter, almost like neutron stars.
4) The charge value of a proton
and the equality by the absolute value of the charges of proton and electron
are due to the evolution of neutrons and beta decay processes, repeating in all
free neutrons approximately by the same law. For a neutron to transform into a
proton it is necessary that in the neutron shell due to the weak interaction a
sufficient amount of electric charges were accumulated
and restructuring of the magnetic field took place. This would fix the charge
value that emerges in the proton and electron.
This model of beta decay can be
found in Sergey Fedosin’s works, [8] it is
also described in the substantial neutron
model.
Electron (positron) can also be
found as a result of the decay chain of a charged pion according to the
following scheme:
![]()
![]()
In this case, initially a charged
muon
and a muon antineutrino (neutrino) are
formed, then the muon decays into an electron (positron), an electron
antineutrino (neutrino) and a muon neutrino (antineutrino)
. In view of the
theory of similarity of matter levels,
a pion by its mass corresponds to a neutron star of the order of 0.2 Solar
masses. Neutron stars of such small masses are unstable, because the force of
gravitational contraction becomes insufficient to maintain the state of matter
in the form of neutron liquid. [9] After the matter
transformation as a result of the reactions of weak interaction during the time
period of the order of 105 years, a charged and magnetized neutron
star, which is the analogue of a pion, explosively transforms into a stellar
object, the analogue of a muon. The emerging neutrino and antineutrino emission
is equivalent to the emission of a muon neutrino in the reaction of pion decay.
A muon corresponds to a stellar object with a mass of the order of 0.16 Solar
masses. It turns out that such a mass exactly coincides with the Chandrasekhar
mass for a white dwarf with the chemical composition made of the lightest
chemical elements – from hydrogen nuclei to helium nuclei. [10]
The evolution of the charged stellar object, the analogue of muon, lasts for up
to 107 years. During this time, thermonuclear fusion reactions begin in it, as in a
normal star, eventually leading to the ejection of the charged shell. This
process is equivalent to the appearance of an electron (positron), registered
during the decay of a muon.
Another example is reaction of an electron
antineutrino’s interaction with a proton, resulting in the formation of a neutron and a
positron. In contrast to an electron, the positron matter has a positive charge.
This reaction, according to the substantial
proton model, can be conveniently analyzed using the stellar models,
assuming that stellar electron antineutrinos, consisting of the fluxes of
electron neutrinos and antineutrinos of the corresponding helicity, fall on the
magnetar, the proton’s analogue. A magnetar consists of nucleons, directed by
the magnetic field. To transform a magnetar into a neutron star, the analogue
of a neutron, it is necessary to transform the protons of the magnetar matter
into positrons and neutrons with the help of electron antineutrinos. This is
possible in case of the appropriate distribution of antineutrinos with respect
to the directed magnetar matter. At the same time, the electron neutrino
transforms the neutrons of the magnetar matter into protons and electrons. Part
of the emerging electrons and positrons annihilate, releasing energy and
heating the magnetar matter. After accumulating enough positrons in the shell,
due to their repulsion from the central part of the magnetar, which is
positively charged, the heated matter is discharged and a stellar object
similar to positron is produced. The magnetar itself becomes a neutron star,
the neutron’s analogue, because the nucleons in the magnetar’s shell reverse
the direction of their magnetic moment under the action of the fluxes of neutrinos
and antineutrinos, and the charge gradient appears in the matter due to the
produced electrons. This leads to compensation of part of the magnetic field of the magnetar
core by the magnetic field of the shell, to a change in the configuration of
the magnetic field and the sign of the magnetic moment of the star, and to the
release of significant energy that facilitates the ejection of matter. The
ejection of positively charged matter from the shell of the magnetar means the
loss of charge by the magnetar and its transformation into a neutral neutron
star.
The given typical examples show
how electrons and positrons are formed in the substantial model. If they are
produced in reactions with other particles, then first we need to consider the
respective matter transformations of these particles.
As it is known, electron and
positron can annihilate with emission of two photons (from the parapositronium state, the spins of particles are
antiparallel) and with emission of three photons for orthopositronium.
In the latter case, the spins of electron and positron are parallel, during the
rotation of particles in a flat orbit there is additional magnetic repulsion,
and the bound state of leptons exists longer – up to 1.4•10–7 sec.
For parapositronium each emitted photon has an energy
close to the rest energy of electron. This allows us to speak about the
“conversion of mass into energy”, destruction of matter and complete conversion
of its energy into the field energy, etc.
The pattern of electron-positron
annihilation at the stellar level can be represented as follows. [8] Let the role of an electron be played by a
negatively charged cloud of matter with the mass M
= 1.5∙1027 kg (0.78 Jupiter masses) and the charge Q = 5.5∙1018 C, surrounding
the magnetar. The mass and charge of the cloud are obtained from the mass and
charge of the electron by multiplying by the respective similarity coefficients
(see the similarity of matter levels).
The role of a positron at the stellar level is played by a corresponding
positively charged cloud. In a collision of these clouds recombination of their
electric charges must take place, and the clouds’ matter becomes neutral. Under
the action of the gravitational field
strength and gravitational torsion field
the neutral matter could fall onto the star. The clouds’ masses are large
enough and the fallen matter could heat up enormously while reaching the
surface. The high temperature of matter leads to a peculiar thermonuclear
explosion on the star surface. Part of the energy released during the fall is
converted into the emission of X-ray and gamma quanta, as well in the form of
two jets that are typical of neutron stars. The main part of this energy comes
from the gravitational energy of matter in the star’s strong field. For the two
clouds the absolute value of the energy will be:
J,
where for the mass and radius of
the neutron star the values are used: Ms = 2.7•1030 kg and Rs = 12 km, respectively;
is the gravitational
constant.
Dividing this energy by the
coefficient of similarity in energy
, we can find the
corresponding energy at the level of elementary particles: 3.3 MeV. At the same
time, in the annihilation of electron and positron two gamma quanta are usually
recorded with energies of about 0.511 MeV each. Thus, release of the gravitational
energy due to the nucleon’s strong gravitation of 3.3 MeV is enough to form two
gamma quanta, corresponding to electron and positron annihilation. In this
case, we do not observe full conversion of the mass-energy of lepton and
antilepton matter into electromagnetic emission, but conversion of their
gravitational energy near the nucleon into the electromagnetic form of energy.
An electron cloud, that lost its
orbital angular momentum for some reason, can fall on the nucleus and be
combined with one of the nucleus’ protons in the following reaction:
![]()
forming a neutron and a neutrino.
In electron capture, in addition
to the gravitational energy, electrical energy is released in the recombination
of the negative charges in the electron cloud matter and the positive charges
in the proton matter. In the process of recombination, the negative charges
penetrate into the proton shell, significantly changing its state. During the
proton rotation the shell acquires the negative charge from the fallen
electron, the configuration of the proton’s magnetic field is replaced by the
configuration of the neutron’s magnetic field. Becoming a neutron, the proton
effectively loses its charge (compensation of part of the charge takes place,
the proton center is positively charged, and the shell becomes negatively
charged), its total magnetic moment is reversed and an electron neutrino is
emitted. A similar event in a stellar model looks as follows: stellar electron
cloud falls on the magnetar, the excess electrons of the clouds’ matter combine
with the protons in the magnetar’s shell with production of neutrons and
emission of fluxes of neutrinos, which are generally regarded as stellar
neutrinos. It follows that electron neutrinos in the electron capture represent
directed fluxes of very small particles which are similar to neutrinos by their
properties and are emitted by the matter in the proton shell. [8]
Based on similarity with the
proton, it is assumed that the magnetar has a positive charge Q = 5.5∙1018
C. Calculation of the electrostatic energy per one electron or proton of the
disk near the magnetar gives 6.7∙1019 eV at the stellar Bohr radius
(with the Roche limit), and 4.1∙1024 eV on the magnetar surface. If
we divide the charge Q by the volume of the disk near the
magnetar, we can estimate the electron concentration in the disk as 108
m–3. [8] This is proved by
measuring the electron concentration in the magnetosphere of the magnetar. [11] Due to interactions of the charged particles the
positively charged protons and nuclei can accelerate away from the star at
great energies up to 6.7∙1019 eV or more. The maximum energy of
cosmic rays just fall within this range. [12] A small share of electrons in cosmic rays, up to
1%, can be explained by instability of an electron as a particle, and a large
share of the nuclei of iron series can be explained by their significant
presence in magnetar disks and on the surface of these stars.
By analogy with the discovered
disks in the form of rings around the neutron stars, electron clouds in the
atom are considered as disks. Due to their negative charge, separate electron
disks repel each other, and rotation of the charged matter in the disks creates
a magnetic field penetrating the entire atom. The Pauli exclusion principle is
explained as a consequence of electromagnetic induction in adjacent electron
clouds – while two electron disks approach each other their matter starts
rotating in the opposite direction to satisfy the Lenz's law. Two paired
electron clouds will have the total angular momentum and spin equal to zero,
this also applies to the filled atom shells, in which the number of electrons
is even.
According to the first postulate
of the original version of quantum mechanics, the theory of the Bohr atom,
there are stationary states of atom, in which electron travels along a
stationary orbit and does not emit energy. Discreteness of such states implies
that the angular momentum and energy of the electron are quantized in them.
Estimation of the minimal
dimensions of the electron cloud in the form of a flat disk for the hydrogen
atom gives the value of the inner disk’s edge about
, the value of the
outer disk’s edge about
, and the disk’s
height less than
, where
is the Bohr radius. The analysis of the
forces acting in the electron matter in its steady rotation around the nucleus
leads to the law of conservation of energy and momentum of the matter,
electromagnetic field and strong gravitational field. [13]
As it is proved in the book, [8] the stationary states of the atom are
characterized by the fact that in these states the kinetic energy flux of the
electron cloud matter is equal to the total energy flux of the strong gravitation field and the
electromagnetic field that passes through the matter, due to the redistribution
of energy fluxes of general field
components. In this case, the field energy flux does not exert pressure on the
matter, the rotation is relatively steady, and due to the axial symmetry of the
electron cloud the emission from the atom tends to zero. In multielectron atoms
such principles are added as the minimum energy principle, the Pauli principle,
as well as the principle of stability of some spatial electron configurations
in the atom due to the compensation of the emergent electromagnetic emission
from different parts of the cloud and reduction of the total emission to zero
because of the geometry of the cloud. All this is the reason for quantization
of the energy levels as well as of the angular momentum of the electrons in the
atom.
Most of the phenomena associated
with the electron spin in the atom occur at the moment of the electron’s
transition from one energy state to another, when absorption or emission of the
light quantum takes place. All these phenomena are studied by measuring the
electron spectra. This refers to the emission spectra of chemical elements
(atoms and ions), the fine structure and atomic spectra multiplicity, the
Zeeman effect, etc. In the concept of the dynamic spin
it is assumed that the spin as part of the electron’s angular momentum emerges
when the electron cloud center is shifted relative to the atomic nucleus and
revolves around it. This is possible if the electron cloud underwent
interaction, for example with a photon or another electron. In the general case,
the electron cloud matter rotates around its center and rotates around the
nucleus together with the cloud. The difference of gyromagnetic ratios in the
formulas, connecting the spin and orbital angular momenta and the corresponding
magnetic moments, results from the difference of rotational motion of the
matter, which is responsible for the dynamic spin and orbital rotation.
To explain the Stern–Gerlach
experiment, in which atoms in the ground state are deflected by the magnetic
field, the magnetic field is calculated, which is created by the orbital
rotation of a single electron disk’s matter around the nucleus. We assume the
same distribution of the disk’s matter as it follows from quantum-mechanical
calculation of the probability of the electron’s presence in the atom in
solution of the Schrödinger equation. For the ground state we obtain the value
of the disk’s magnetic moment equal to the Bohr magneton. This means that in
the atom’s ground state, as well as in the s-states, the magnetic moment of the
electron in the atom is not connected with the spin (in these states the
dynamic spin is zero, the electron cloud’s center does not rotate relative to
the nucleus) but with the orbital rotation of the electron cloud’s matter. In
this case, the calculation using the model of a charged disk-the electron’s
analogue near the magnetar shows that the intrinsic magnetic moment of the disk
due to its magnetization is small and can be neglected in comparison with the
magnetic moment due to the orbital rotation. The described pattern of the
dynamic spin differs fundamentally from the postulates of quantum mechanics,
according to which in the ground state of the electron in the atom there is no
orbital angular momentum (here the problem of quantum mechanics arises: what
keeps the electron near the nucleus in the presence of a constant force of
attraction to the nucleus?), there is only spin, besides the spin and spin
magnetic moment as the electron’s internal characteristics never disappear. In
the substantial model, the electron is not an independent particle with the
spin and spin magnetic moment, they emerge only after interaction of the bound
electron in the atom with other particles. The electron matter can also be
rotated by the external electromagnetic field from the incident photon or due
to the electromagnetic induction effect.
The shift of the center of mass
of the electron cloud relative to the nucleus and its rotation in the excited
atom lead to the electromagnetic emission from the
atom, which is observed in the form of electromagnetic quantum. The energy of
the emitted or absorbed quantum is equal to the difference in the energy of
stationary levels, between which the electron transition takes place (the
second postulate of the Bohr theory of atom). Meanwhile, the frequency of the
quantum is very close, but not exactly equal to the frequency
of the electron cloud rotation at the
energy level, where the electron moves to after emission. This is explained as
follows. If we take a hydrogen atom, the electron in it can make about 107
revolutions around the nucleus, before it moves from the excited state to the
ground state with the emission of a quantum. The analysis of the course of
emission shows that the highest energy emission rate is achieved at the
increased frequency of rotation of the electron’s center of mass relative to
the nucleus, which occurs near the lowest energy level. Therefore, the main
quantum energy is emitted at a rate almost equal to the frequency of rotation
of the electron cloud at the lowest energy level. During the transition between
the levels the electron loses the angular momentum equal to the Dirac constant
, and the emitted
quantum acquires this momentum. The formula for the quantum energy during
emission from the atom has the form:
![]()
where
is the angular frequency of the quantum
wave, measured by spectral instruments. The meaning of this formula is that the
quantum energy is proportional to the rate of change of the angular momentum,
which depends on the angular frequency
of rotation of the electron cloud in the atom.
Along with the electromagnetic emission, the gravitational emission of the
electron takes place in the atom with the quanta’s energy [8]
![]()
where
is the ratio of the electron mass to the proton
mass. Since after the change of the electron’s angular momentum the atomic
nucleus and the electron rotate around the common center of mass in opposite
directions, the gravitational emission of the nucleus compensates the
gravitational emission of the electron. Consequently, the dipole gravitational
emission of the atom in general is close to zero and the quadrupole emission
component becomes the main component.
The substantial model
of an electron in the form of a disk rotating around the atomic nucleus allows
us to describe the process of a photon’s formation during transition of an
electron to the lower energy levels. A rotating electron creates at the disk’s
axis an alternating electromagnetic field acting on the praons – relativistic particles of a dynamic vacuum field as
the contents of electrogravitational vacuum. Under the action of the field the praons form spirals and
get connected with each other by means of strong gravitation forming a
photon. The model allows us to calculate for praons the charge-to-mass ratio
and other parameters. [14] With this in mind, the
substantial model of a photon is constructed, its internal structure is found,
the internal electromagnetic fields are determined, as well as the total rest
mass of all the photon’s particles and the magnetic moment of the photon,
depending on the charge of the nucleus of the hydrogen-like atom and the energy
level of the emitting electron. [15] It is shown
that the angular frequency
in the formula for the photon energy is the
angular frequency
of the electron cloud’s rotation in the atom
averaged over the time of photon emission.
To explain the multiplicity of atomic
spectra it should be noted that the center of each electron cloud can rotate
around the nucleus in two opposite directions, giving two different projections
of the spin and the spin magnetic moment on the preferred direction. For a
single electron the multiplicity is 2 and the spectrum of a hydrogen-like atom
consists of doublets – each main energy level, except the energy levels in
s-states, is split due to the additional low magnetic energies from the
interaction of the magnetic moment of the electron cloud with the magnetic
moment of the positively charged nucleus, moving in one or another direction
around the cloud’s center of mass. If there are two electrons, there are six
possible combinations between the directions of the matter rotation in electron
disks and the directions of rotation of the disks’ centers of mass relative to
the nucleus, which defines the maximum possible multiplicity of the spectra in
this case. In the approximation of the spin-orbit coupling of two electrons the
multiplicity calculated by the standard formula is found to be 1 and 3, that
is, in the spectrum of an atom with two electrons we can expect up to 4 close
lines. The same is obtained from six possible combinations described above, if
we neglect in them the magnetic interaction of the electrons with each other.
With the help of similar combinations we consider the
multiplicity and the fine splitting of the spectra for the cases of three or
more electrons.
In the Zeeman effect doublet
splitting of the spectra in the case of s-states is observed. The standard
explanation for this is the interaction of the spin magnetic moment of the
electron with the external magnetic field. However, in the concept of dynamic
spin there is no spin in the s-states and the magnetic moment of the order of
Bohr magneton arises due to the orbital rotation of the matter in the electron
cloud. Then in order to explain this effect the electron spin is not required.
If the approximation of the spin-orbit coupling holds for the atom, then it
also holds in the weak external magnetic field. Since all electrons in the atom
interact with each other, then for each combination of magnetic states of
electrons there is its own total angular momentum of the atom with the quantum
number
and the corresponding magnetic moment. The
number of orientations of this magnetic moment in the magnetic field is
that specifies the number of sub-levels to
which this atom’s energy level is split in the Zeeman effect.
In 1947, the experiment carried out
by Willis Eugene Lamb and Robert Retherford discovered the so-called Lamb shift
of energies in three close states of the electron in the hydrogen atom, which
is located on the second energy level. This shift is usually explained by
relativistic corrections, as well as with the help of the hypothesis of
quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuations in the form of radiation effects of
emission and absorption of virtual photons and creation and annihilation of
virtual electron-positron pairs. Using the idea of the dynamic spin the result
of the experiment can be seen from a different perspective. On the second
energy level in the hydrogen atom the electron can be in s-state (singlet
state) with the orbital rotation, as well as in two p-states, in which the
electron has both the orbital angular momentum and the spin with the
corresponding sign with respect to the orbital angular momentum. The dynamic
spin causes the magnetic energy of interaction of the electron’s magnetic
moment and the magnetic moment of motion of the nuclear charge. As a result,
the difference in the three electron states arises from both the relativistic
corrections, that depend on the spin direction and the shape of electron
clouds, and from the corresponding magnetic corrections to the level’s energy. [8] The use of the dynamic spin of the electron,
considered as a cloud and not as a point particle, allows us to eliminate the
hypothesis of virtual particles and vacuum corrections, which are required in
the quantum mechanics.
It is believed that one of the
proofs of the presence of the electron’s spin in the s-states of atoms are the
results of experiments carried out by Barnett and Einstein–de Haas with
ferromagnetic samples. In Barnett's experiment on rotating the sample he
observed magnetization and the magnetic field, and in Einstein–de Haas’
experiment the sample, when placed in the magnetic field, starts to rotate.
When analyzing the Barnett effect two moments of force are equated, one of
which is associated with rotation of the electron’s angular momentum around the
sample’s rotation axis at a certain angular velocity, and the other is
associated with the influence of the magnetic field on the electron’s magnetic
moment. As a result the g-factor of the electron in
the atom is equal to 2, as is the case for the spin. On the other hand, it
would be more correct not to compare the moments of force but to use the law of
conservation of energy. The latter leads to the fact that the work of the
moment of force, when the sample is rotated, is expended not only to rotate the
electrons’ angular momenta towards the rotation axis, but also on the work of
the emerging magnetic field on rotation of the electrons’ magnetic moments in
this field. This leads to the fact that for the g-value we obtain the value
equal to 1. [8] Consequently, in the atom’s
ground state the magnetic moment appears not due to the electron spin (the
dynamic spin is zero in the stationary states), but due to the orbital rotation
of the electron clouds’ matter.
In the atom’s ground state the electrons’ dynamic spin is zero, but the
distribution of electrons by shells is subject to the Pauli principle (due to
the electric and magnetic interactions of the adjacent electron disks) and to
the principle of minimum energy in the system. There are also geometric
limitations – on each shell at a certain distance from the nucleus the possible
number of electrons in the form of disks must be even and at a certain amount
of matter for each electron this number is limited by the shell’s area. The
total number of electrons on the shell with the quantum number n is 2 n2,
where due to the Pauli principle electrons are
combined into closely-connected pairs, and the quadratic dependence on the
number of the shell is associated with the squared distance to the shell, which
is proportional to the shell area. Emerging of a new electron in the atom is
due to the necessity for the electroneutrality of the atom as a whole. The
described conditions for the presence of electrons in the atom lead to the
changes in the chemical properties of atoms (they are determined by the outer
shell electrons) in the periodic table of chemical elements. This approach does
not need to involve the dynamic spin to explain the atom’s structure and the
chemical laws.
In comparison with a free
electron with indefinite radius, the electron in the atom is influenced by
additional gravitational and electric forces from the nucleus, so that the
electron has the ability to be held by these forces, staying in the form of a cloud
around the nucleus. In the hydrogen-like atom, the electron’s radius, velocity
and orbital angular momentum on the energy level with the principal quantum
number
and at the
circular orbits in the s-states equal:
![]()
![]()
![]()
where
and
are the mass number and charge of the
nucleus,
is the coefficient that shows the
repulsion of the charge elements in the electron’s matter from each other (
for one electron).
In contrast to the standard
expressions, the electron’s radius and angular momentum depend not only on the
nuclear charge
of the atom, but also on its mass number
(as a result of taking into account the strong gravitation). In the presence of
the dynamic spin as the motion of the electron cloud’s center of mass relative
to the nucleus and in the general case, containing elliptical orbits, the
formulas for the electron’s energy, angular momentum and magnetic moment are
much more complicated and contain elliptic integrals. Into the magnetic moment
contribution is made by the proper motion of the matter in the electron cloud (the
orbital component), as well as by the spin component. For each electron state,
described by a set of quantum numbers, we can calculate the parameters of the
corresponding elliptic orbit, the shift of the electron’s center of mass
relative to the nucleus, the velocity of matter and other quantities. [8]
The spatial quantization occurs
as quantization of the projections of the magnetic moment and the total
mechanical moment of the electron on an arbitrary axis, specified by the
magnetic field. The number of possible projections is determined by the number
of values of the quantum numbers μj = –j,
–j+1,…j–1, j , where j is the
quantum number of the electron’s total angular momentum, which is determined
using the quantum numbers of the orbital and spin angular momentum, so that j
can be half-integer. The physical reason for the quantization of projections of
the electron cloud’s total angular momentum on the preferred axis is the need
to change the angular momentum by a multiple of
in the processes of excitation or emission
of an electromagnetic quantum. In this case the main contribution into emission
is made by the longitudinal component of the magnetic moment. This is why in
the mechanical moment quantization the major role is played by its projection
on the axis, specified by the magnetic field.
The calculation of the ground
state of the helium atom is performed on the assumption that the nucleus is
located between two parallel electron disks in the form of rings, the matter of
which rotates in opposite directions. The stability of the electrons’ matter is
determined by the electrical forces between the nucleus and the rings, while
the force of action of one charged ring on the other is determined by the
elliptic integral, depending on the radius and width of the rings and the
distances between them. In addition, we should take into account the strong
gravitation from the nucleus and the centrifugal forces of the matter’s
rotation in the disks. By solving the equations for the forces and the binding
energy of the electrons we can find the main parameters of the helium atom,
including the sizes of the disks and the speed of the matter’s rotation in them
and the distance between the disks. [8]
In the well-known experiment with
diffraction of light at two close slits on the screen, we can see interference pattern
appear on the observation plane of the screen. The similar pattern is observed
for electrons. Thus, experiments were conducted to prove the existence of
diffraction of electrons flying almost one by one. [16]
If an electron is regarded as a point object, it is very difficult to
understand its diffraction, because the theoretical analysis of the diffraction
experiment predicts simultaneous passage of the electron through both slits. [17]
From the point of view of the
substantial model, electrons in atoms represent the objects similar to charged
clouds. At the level of stars, the similar clouds consist of the matter, which
contains negative charges − electrons. The external electromagnetic field
interacts with these charges, creating electrical currents as well as
charge-density fluctuations in the clouds’ matter. Therefore, a moving cloud in
an excited state is accompanied by its intrinsic electromagnetic oscillations,
which are converted for an external observer to the corresponding de Broglie wavelength. When the cloud is
detached from star attracting it (as in case of electron’s detachment from an
atom or a piece of matter), the cloud may break into pieces, which then will
move in different directions. This is due to the fact that the gravitational forces
of the cloud are unable to keep its matter from the electrical forces of
repulsion. Therefore, it can be expected that some electrons during the
diffraction experiment will fall into pieces, which in this case can be
coherent with respect to de Broglie waves. If such pieces of electrons fall
into different slits of the screen, then after diffraction, at an appropriate
path difference, there should be places on the observation plane, where these
pieces come to either in phase or in antiphase of oscillations. This leads to
either addition of oscillation energies or to their subtraction. As a result,
on the observation plane we periodically see the recurrent places, where the
incident electrons are strongly excited and have increased energy, and the places,
where the electrons have almost no excitation energy. This gives the
possibility of emergence of the interference pattern.