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.
|
