New understanding of Franck and Hertz experiments
Rudnev A.D.
   

Practice is always a criterion of truth, being able to sort  the hypothesis by conformity with nature. However, the physics of the smallest particles should be more careful in its judgments, because the results of experiments are perceived by us through a stage of "interpretation." Interpretation of the results is carried out by men in terms of accumulated knowledge and may also contain elements of uncertainty. In this case, a false interpretation of the results will give an erroneous conclusion about the theory tested.

   
The experiment of Frank and Hertz [1] showed polymodal dependence of the current in the mercury lamp against voltage (Fig. 1). Interestingly, the current was not just growing, but had a marked growth in periodic contact with the voltage. The maxima of the current values ​​exactly matched the voltage, multiple of ionization potential of mercury. There was no doubt, that there is a meeting with the quantization of energy, known at the time by its radiation. Gradation of this process was the basis of the postulates of Bohr [2] on the emissions of atoms in the "transition of electrons from one orbit to another." -It seems there is no other possibility for the multiple repetition of acts of ionization.


Pic. 1. Characteristic of current changes in the mercury lamp by voltage

    The experiment was persuasive, reliably reproduced, and therefore everything connected with it, was associated with an absolute truth. Some roughness in explaining the failures of the current could not affect the main thing: the atoms are ionized mercury vapor many times, that is, lose every time one electron. That is why, is said, current is growing at an average value, because the number of carriers increases.
    This confidence has played for science unkind service, thanks to erroneous baggage of knowledge used in interpreting experimental results. We have to consider several related physical phenomena to detect errors. For a start, let us recall the logic of the evidence (LE) in science: the truth of the provisions of the confirmed set of positive facts, but to refute, a single negative fact.
    When we consider the principle of the capacitor, we draw the "pluses" and "minuses" close to the capacitor plates. In textbooks on electricity it explained it this way: "The charges of one sign located in an infinitely thin layer near the surface of the electrode of opposite sign." There are so many false evidences that they need to be numbered.

  1. Current
is the directed movement of electrons. Mathematical notation for current does not bear necessity of the motion, and therefore not exact. Movement can’t be not directed, for speed is vector. According to LE, we can say at least, that there is incomplete reliability of the wording.

   Situation isn’t better with the old phrase "current is the amount of electricity that is transferred by electrons through a cross-section per unit of time." It is necessary to mentally make a single electron to move in a long conductor, to detect the absence of the event, called the formation of the current. In any section of the conductor current is zero. Conclusion worries: we missing something, something important isn’t understood by us.

 
 
2. Speaking of the current in metals, we are using the term "electron gas", the presence of free electrons. This is justified by the ionization of atoms, allegedly delegating their electrons into the conduction zone. There is no logic, because for the ionization of atom, there is need of energy that exceeding the capabilities of the current source by thousand times. In addition, in the case of ionization we would see an abrupt grouped increase in the current.
   3. If the current is characterized by both a number of moving electrons, and their speed, how to determine the charge of neutral conductor and what is the velocity of the electrons in it?
   4. As soon as the carrier of electricity are electrons, what we denote by the "plus sign"? -Their absence?

   
But this can only mean one thing: by “neutral body”, we call  the body that already contains a certain concentration of free electrons. Positive or negative local medium volume reflects the change in sign of the relative concentration of the initial value. It is obvious that the charge cannot be negative.
    Studies conducted in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences with the participation of the author [3] had shown that free electrons are found in all environments: in solid, liquid and gas. The volume density of electric charge was very high. It is higher, as larger the volume density of the medium. But the velocity of the electrons was inversely proportional to the density of the conductive medium. In particular, in metals it is a few meters per second.
   
In the example of a capacitor it comes to lowering the density of free electrons near the positive plate and increasing their concentration - near negative. To speak of an infinitely thin layer is unacceptable, because it violates the law of Coulomb. In fact, the force of mutual repulsion is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the electrons and their convergence to the minimum distance requires a virtually infinite power source.

A few words about a "truth" - the ionization of atoms. The ionization of atoms is not possible in the sense in which it is understood today, i.e., in the sense of alienation of the electrons. Even if we assume that this happens, the free electrons surrounding the atom, immediately fill the vacancy. The essence of this phenomenon not in the ionization, but in a quantized change in the energy of the electrons of the atom. The energy expended in such experiments, simply increases the energy of atomic electrons on the value of the allowed increments.
    This is evident in the so-called ionization of the hydrogen atom. The existence of H+ ion (as a bare proton) is in itself unnatural, surrounded by electrons. Solvation of the proton is unthinkable, because losing the geometry of the atom, proton, at best, sharply fall to the sediment. Thus, according to LE, the ionization of atoms exists, but it is not extraction of the electrons from the atom.
    We absolutely trust the empirical Coulomb formula of interaction of electrons

  

( 1)

and forget that this force can be found from the expression for the potential energy of the electron field

( 2)

.    Differentiating this expression, we find the scientific value of the Coulomb force, which implies that

( 3)

.   First of all, the so-called elementary charge, is not an independent parameter, and means to display parameters of the electron, that are invariant to changes in its energy

(4)

.    

Secondly, we see that the charge is always positive. And most importantly, a true constant (3) determines the radius of the electron when its energy changes.
     We return again to a mercury lamp. Putting together the two new facts: ... the action of an external electric field is not ionizes the atom,  it increases its energy, if it is unable to move with acceleration, ... the atomic electron is fixed, increasing the energy of atomic electrons (atomic energy) leads to a decrease in atomic radius . Correlation: The amount of space freed up by reducing the size of an atom, reduces the concentration of free electrons (the effect of "positive" charge).
  

 

What this gives us in a reference to the experiment of Frank and Hertz? We can argue that the periodic increase of the current in this experiment is not associated with the disposal of electrons by atoms of mercury. There are a few evidences for this:
  1. When the amount of tube about 1 liter (as far as one can judge from photographs), the number of mercury atoms is of the order 3E +22. Each ionization would give the amount of electricity 4900 coulomb. At a current of lamp about 3A this process would complete by a surge of current during a time of less than 15 minutes. Experiments were carried out during  long time, and there is no reference to the effect of reducing the current.
  2. According to Bohr's model (in which there can be discharging electrons by atoms) of the outer shell electrons discharge should lead to a reduction in the energy of the subsequent ionization of the atom. In experiments indicated reproduction of constant value of the ionization potential.
  3. In practice, on the contrary, there has been substantial growth [4] of the energy of the second and subsequent ionization. But in any case impossible to receive the same values ​​of ionization energy in the next ionizations.
    Thus, there is no discussion about three reliable facts:
1 ... There is ionization of mercury atoms, which is not accompanied by the release of electrons;
2 ... Secondary ionization does not occur;
3 ... increase in the number of carriers is due to the power supply.
    What is the actual mechanism of changes in current in this experiment? Consider the behavior of free electrons in a mercury lamp. In the absence of voltage on the electrodes, they occupy equidistant position, thanks to the Coulomb repulsive forces. The volumetric charge density in the bulb tube is uniform in size, and can be evaluated for the cubic structure model by the attitude

(5),

where z - side of the cubic cell.
    When voltage is applied to the anode tube, all the electrons receive force action of the field

(6)

electrons accumulated near the anode.

Pic. 2. The energy quantization of electrons along the length of the bulb. 
   

The pressure on the cube cell is proportional to the number of layers of free electrons. Thus every n-th layer of electrons (counting from the cathode) is feeling the effects of all  of the previous n segments, just as the force of gravity on a vertical column of water (Fig. 2).

(7).

  

Accordingly, the energy of the electrons along the length of the bulb is different. So at some discreteness of pressure corresponding to the quantized values ​​of energy, occurs movement of the ionization border from the point X0 to point X1, etc. Every time volume is added to the ionization, and it occurs not as a single event, but with a normal distribution. The total current is determined by these outbursts and overall growth of the electric field in the lamp. A further increase in tension repeats the process on a new level of energy of the electrons and the size of the cells of electronic structure.

Thus, this experience confirms the quantization of charged particles, but not the ionization of atoms. It follows that the conventional view on the process of ionization as the loss of electrons, is wrong. And, of course, there is no quantization of the magnetic moment

Literature
1. Gershenzon E.M., Malov N.N., Mansurov A.N. Optca I atomnaia fizika(Optics and atomic physics).
Ì., ACADEMA, 2000.
2. Bohr N. Die Quantenpostulat und die neuere Entwicklung der Atomistik. Naturwissenschaften, H. 15.1928.
3. Zhivluk U.N., Rudnev A.D., Laptev V.F. Opisanie I rezultati eksperimenta po registracii zariadovoi structuri prostranstva i izmereniu gravitacioonih constant Zemli (Description
and experimental results on the registration of the charge structure of space and measurement of the gravitational constants of Earth). Ì., 2001
4. Ebert G. Kratkii spravochnik po fizike (
Quick Reference Guide to Physics). M.,F-M.,1963.



1 Space vacuum isn’t exception, and it gained finally, a physical entity.



Hosted by uCoz