mollwollfumble said:
> you’ve gone and reminded me an electron is most likely a naked singularity
Yes
>a photon becomes an electron while refracting from an atom.
}
No. I’ve already told you this. An electron is matter, a photon is not. You can’t change one into the other.
}
A photon is an evacuation of 2d space. The field it strikes connecting with an atom is greater than 2d space and allows the photon stronger contact with it’s fundamentally entangled anti-particle.>Singularity is required to access 2d space for entanglement maintenance purposes.
Don’t know. That’s a possible extension of ER=EPR}
>which mechanism represents conservation of momentum.
See Emmy Noether’s work. Conservation of momentum is a consequence of the shift invariance of empty space.And as far as photons and this question that is what I am pointing out.
>momentum phasing.
No such thing
}
Every particle transition(instanton)
}
> an electron from the (atom) jumps to the next shell. Unless I am unaware of direct evidence to support this?
There is a huge amount of direct evidence. All spectroscopy directly supports this, and to extremely high accuracy. I could even go on to say that the jumping of an electron from one shell to another is the most accurately known event in the whole of science.
}
Are you saying they can observe the individual electron from the nucleus jump shells?
}
> If the atom has already engaged the photon with it’s fields why does it need to act further and shift an electron? The photon phase-shifting once it’s wavelength is trapped is a response to capture.
Why? It’s called conservation of energy. You may have heard of it.
}
I don’t see how it is as yet. I see it as breaking both laws.
}
> How does an electron from the (atom) jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?
Actually, that’s a fair question. Conservation of energy causes electrons to jump shells. Obviously momentum is conserved because of the law of conservation of momentum. Let’s see what happens when the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are applied simultaneously. Momentum is a vector, so the net momentum in every direction of an electron in an atomic orbital is zero. An incoming photon has nonzero momentum so on being absorbed by an atomic electron the momentum from the photon is transferred to the whole atom, not to the electron. So it’s all consistent.> How does an electron from the nucleus jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?
Stop saying “from the nucleus”, please.
}
Why? That is the part I have an issue with. How should I refewr to it?
}
> If it only takes photons to make shells then an EH simply becomes the atmosphere of the outer shell of ever decaying neutrons doesn’t it?
No. That’s simply wrong.
}
How so? The area between the EH and singularity is pressurised by infalling photons creating a great space for neutron decay cascade.> My guess is DM is the refraction of Hawking radiation.
No!
1. Hawking radiation isn’t matter, so it can’t be dark matter.2. Dark matter makes up 94.5% of the universe’s matter (including stars). Hawking radiation makes up less than 0.0000000001% of the radiation in the universe. The radiation in the universe is 0.0000000000001% as much as the amount of matter in the universe.
So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation to relate in any way to dark matter. The amount of refraction of Hawking radiation is too small to account for DM by a factor of more than 100000000000000000000000000.
So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation, refracted or otherwise, to account for dark matter.
}
}
If everything above X-ray striking a neutrino will create a nucleon without electrons the Hawking radiation is only particularly important for creating a graviton.Personally I feel your answers don’t account for particles as they are described by instanton data, moll.