On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote:
Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a > field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the > electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has > debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct > and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. > I don't think the present understanding of a probabilistic location for the electron requires that it be understood as a ball orbiting the nucleus. But as I think further about Mills's orbitsphere, I have started to wonder how it deals with these questions: - If a bound electron takes the form of a thin shell of charge at a certain distance from the center of charge (or mass) of the nucleus, how is it possible to think of the electron either as a wave or a particle? What is it that is oscillating? Is the wavefunction to be a trivial, constant one? - If we get rid of wavefunctions and particles when thinking about bound electrons, do we also throw away the uncertainty principle? Here we start to get into the woods with Mills's theory. I suspect that to fully embrace it is not unlike joining a Christian group that insists that you cut all past ties to your family and friends. In this case, you must replace each equation from humanity's collective study of physics that causes trouble with some alternate explanation that goes back to Mills. It is like pulling a thread on a sweater that keeps unraveling. Eric
