Friday, January 8, 2016

Hydrogen, Proton & Neutron Brainstorms

Perhaps a neutron and a proton are two different modes of one and the same thing, that is atomic hydrogen. Think of them as subcategories of the hydrogen atom. When one compares their calculated mass they are almost identical:

Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Neutron = 1.6749286*10-27 kg
Proton = 1.6726231*10-27 kg
Neutron = 939.56563 MeV
Proton = 938.27231 MeV

We can sit back and be cute about a few decimal points or we can think big.  In the grand scheme of things these are trivial differences and can perhaps be explained by the presence and activity or lack thereof of the supposed electron threads.

A neutron merely has had its electron threads forced down to femtometres long say in the center of a star. In extreme circumstances, some atomic hydrogen is forged into neutrons like where they are being continually repelled from all directions by a mass of other hydrogen atoms at a stellar core. And this perhaps adds length to the EM Ropes that could be utilized by other free neutrons in the Universe, to grow out their electron threads as in a "normal" hydrogen atom.

Once a neutron is forged in a star, it can burrow into H atoms and perhaps help clamp them or envelope them together in a fusion. When burrowed in fusion their electron threads are confined to much shorter lengths for the duration of the nuclear bond due to a critical abundance of threads or some other relation like isospin. When they are emitted in a decay perhaps they can somehow gradually wind out their electron threads, using excess EM Rope supplied by neutrons being forged in stars from other locations of the Universe. The electron threads might just take control of each other and wind themselves out.  A proton has its electron threads emitted out to greater lengths

In other heavier and less stable isotopes, where neutrons are on the periphery of the nucleus, on occasion, the neutron could emit its electron threads to greater lengths perhaps due to less confinement or due to a greater number of extraneous EM Ropes crossing through and cluttering up in superposition. There is an astrophysical factor in radioactive decays, and this is due to the whole number of extraneous EM Ropes intersecting through isotopes at any given location and time especially in relation to stars and perhaps even different alignment of stars (see Schnoll's Papers). "God does not play dice". And so the decaying neutron could possibly repel itself out of the nucleus via its emitting electron threads as it become a 'normal' H atom. It doesn't even have to emit them evenly.  It could emit electron threads to one direction say North, and this is enough to cause a reaction.

It would seem that all protons and neutrons are permanent and fundamental objects of the Universe. Perhaps we categorize them under H atom. Their converging threads never split apart neither will new protons and neutrons (or H atoms) ever form. In other words they seem eternal. I think this is inexplicable in terms of science. H atoms, or protons and neutrons, JUST ARE.  They are surely made to last forever.  

Sunday, November 8, 2015

What is Radiation?

Radiation is a concept usually defined as moving outward in all directions from a source object. In physics, the word is used and defined differently in different contexts. For example a stone of Uranium-238 decays and radiates alpha particles, that is helium nuclei. Helium atoms successively assume two or more locations further and further away from the stone in all directions.

Radiation In context of light think is a little more tricky. Think of radiation as that which an atom does. An atom radiates. How an atom does this is as of now not clearly explained, though it is rigorously described using mathematics, for example the inverse square law of light, and perhaps quantum mechanics.

When we try to explain radiation one obvious question is how or why does a simple atom, say an H atom radiate in all possible directions??? And what is it that mediates this radiation??? The answer seems to be given in an assumption, namely the assumption that all the H atoms of the Universe are interconnected by a fundamental subatomic object that mediates light and gravity, and constitutes them all.  This fundamental object has singular properties, and this assumption helps to answer the question of why an atom radiates in all possible directions in an inverse square regime.  The atom taps into and works these fundamental subatomic objects in the act of radiation.

Ask yourself, where does light begin and where does it end???. . . . The answer is that is always begins and ends at the atom. If say in one direction there was a deprivation of Hydrogen atoms, then an atom wouldn't be able to "radiate". It seems that at least from a point of view in our location all the atoms of the Universe are spread out more or less evenly in all directions in a sort of imaginary sphere. Because of this an atom is able to radiate because it has a fundamental subatomic object connected to all possible atoms of the Universe. But if we travel far out to the last galaxy and last atom in any given direction, perhaps those atoms could not 'radiate' as the atoms at our location do. As Gaede brilliantly speculated in his book, Why God Doesn't Exist, the atoms at the edge of the Universe would be misshapen. And they would only consummate emission events in a one direction, not all directions. And perhaps these atoms emit in exotic atomic electron transitions.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Proton Made From Three Quarks is a White Lie

From Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's
What is a Proton, Anyway?

You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarksand one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.

This is a useful piece of information even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the notion of isolated particle balls whizzing around and colliding with each other which seems to be the only way particle physicists want to present their ideas. Even in this article Strassler literally draws a picture with symbols to represent the proton!!!! And he thinks this helps???

Matt Strassler's illustration of the Proton.  Is he kidding?? 

Even if we take the above quote at face value the questions are

Where do all these zillions of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs come from?
What are their forms and other properties???
What is their relation to all other protons and neutrons of the Universe?
Do they just appear out of thin space???

Maybe they are threads, like life lines ending on all other protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'center point' is so complex. . . The atom is a centralization, a permanent bundle of gazillions of these fundamental objects with unique properties. These fundamental objects are literally fed from every single other atom of the Universe so that there is a perfect continuity and interconnection between all.  Even Pope Francis said in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si:

It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation.

If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would instantaneously influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. And it uses these inherent constituents as axles of atomic motion.  This is to some degree unpredictable. And its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there.  Just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location.  When the threads are all bunched and crunched together, superposing to a critical maximum number we have a degeneracy reaction, a push. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

Modern physicists tend to think too much in an isolated vacuum.  If the atom were isolated from all others perhaps motion would be impossible.  Modern physics is also lost in abstractions.  Look again at the picture above.  We don't need equations of motion, differential geometry, or symbols to understand and appreciate the complexity of the proton and neutron.  As enough data is fed in everyday to last until the Sun explodes, all we need do at this point is stand back and think about it. . .

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Light Emission: Strength by Numbers

In spite of its heuristic value, however, the hypothesis of light quanta, which is quite irreconcilable with so-called interference phenomena, is not able to throw light on the nature of radiation. I need only recall that these interference phenomena constitute our only means of investigating the properties of radiation and therefore of assigning any closer meaning to the frequency which in Einstein’s theory fixes the magnitude of the light-quantum. (Niehls Bohr, 1922 Nobel Speech)

One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string. ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955) 
the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle. ---Paul Dirac, (1930)

The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70 
Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925


I enjoy to think about the atom, how it is constituted and how it works. So I offer a little brainstorm. I've said in the past that light (like gravity) generates strength by numbers and I want to try and divulge what I mean by this. Please note this is a very simple and idealized explanation. Honest to goodness this is just a conceptual baby step. But I think this could be a key concept that could be developed and utilized universally from emission spectra and across the electromagnetic spectrum; radio to gamma.

I invite you to use your imagination when reading this . . .

Star Model

Call the atomic model I will be using Star Model. This model is more physical and less mathematical. It is a modification of Gaede's atomic model. I give a basic introduction to it here:…/what-does-hydrogen-atom-lo…

The root assumption of Star Model is that the hydrogen atom is constituted by a set of fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity between all H atoms (or protons & neutrons). These fundamental objects converge from all other H atoms to the Universe so as to impart form to the H atom. Call these EM Ropes. In Star Model they are unique double threads with 0 wave amplitude (amplitude taken in a classic wave mechanics sense).

Torsion and Revolution

Lets just say that there are 10^100 H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe so there are 10^100 (-1) converging EM Ropes from which the H atom derives it's form. One set of threads straightens and converges at a tiny center point less than a femtometere in height and width to form the proton. Call these proton threads. Projecting out from the proton, orthogonal in a divergence is a set of electron threads. The electron threads are not a single thread but a double thread also set at 0 amplitude. Perhaps they are reverse twisted out from the proton by the converging action of the EM Ropes or by the proton. And we will just say that there are about half the number of electron threads as there are EM Ropes, so 10^50. For a 'normal' H atom the electron threads are picometers in length as opposed to the EM Ropes which tend to be inordinately long, since they interconnect all H atoms of the Universe.

The form and behavior of the electron threads and the EM Ropes is similar. They both torque along, signalling. If we stopped them we could almost think of the section between each signal as a link or link length hence when frequency increases, linklength decreases and vice versa. More importantly they have this majestic quantum quality not found in the macro world, in fact this quality underpins all macro-relations we conceive.  Call this quality superposition (not to be confused with how this word is used in mathematical circles). These EM Ropes and electron threads can superpose (that is occupy the same location) up to a critical abundance or maximum number that could be two times the number of H atoms in the Universe or more. So the converging EM Ropes superpose with the diverging electron threads at the H atom within the atomic radius. However one difference between an EM Rope and an electron thread is that an electron thread not only torques along but can also possibly revolve around the proton like a hand on a clock whereas an EM Rope is rooted at two ends by the proton. So if left alone electron threads of the H atom have two simultaneous motions

1. torsion signalling or torsion wave along (like a twisting rope)
2. revolution around the proton (like a hand on a clock)

Both of these actions could be kept track of using the concept of frequency. A single electron thread could be torquing at X Hz, and revolving the proton (360 degrees) at Y Hz. (Hz is event repeated per second)

Lets focus on motion # 2 for a moment. Since the electron threads ultimately derive their form from the EM Ropes which at least in our location, converge from all directions to an intersection point that is proton, the electron threads could possibly revolve [like a clock-hand ticking] around the proton in every imaginable plane or cross section, to keep them consistent motion with their specific mother EM Rope (from which they protrude in an orthogonally). So its like we take 10^50 hands on a clock revolving in every imaginable direction around the proton, but these double stranded hands are also in a double helical torque mode.

Because of electron degeneracy (only so many electron threads and EM Ropes can interface at a time), this revolving motion could be more complex, perhaps restricted in time lapses with increasing atomic number.  In other words, it may take longer or more work to get the electron threads of a heavy metal revolving, for example in a qualified metal conductor we might need to use a magnet and rotate it next to the lattice the free electron threads (not occupied in bonding) to rotate a little in one direction but perhaps not revolve. But here we are thinking of a simple Hydrogen atom.  So to revolve the electron threads perhaps we would need incident ultraviolet light at 13.7 electron volts.

Strength by Numbers

The main question I wanted to probe here is how can we possibly explain emission. Take red light for example. Red light is 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz. How could the mediators of light possibly torsion wave @ 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz??? I think the basic answer is in strength by numbers, specifically the number of diverging electron threads coming together to interface with a set of converging EM Ropes in a sort of critical anomaly where one can influence the other.

Lets just say that we have a set of EM Ropes converging from all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy to help form an H atom in our solar system. There is an astronomical number of H atoms in Andromeda, maybe 10^70, so there as many EM Ropes converging at a single location to form every single H atom. These EM Ropes probably won't shift a whole lot. And lets just say that we have incident light to move the electron threads and that 4 x 10 ^ 14 electron threads come together from all different planes to align themselves with these same EM Ropes. At this moment, these electron threads are literally pointing rectilinearly at all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy. Each electron thread is torquing at 1 Hz. As they all come into alignment each electron thread torques each of the superposing EM Ropes once. We can think of this dynamic relation where the electron threads act on the EM Ropes as charge, or electron, or wavefunction or quantum state vector or matrix or critical ethereal thread anomaly. It doesn't matter what one calls it, what matters is a basic explanation. Add up the torques consummated by our electron threads on our EM Ropes ending on Andromeda in a second and we have 4 x 10 ^ 14 torque events at a single location. And I think we could easily change the parameters so that we have only half the electron threads aligning and torquing the same number EM Ropes at 2 Hz and get the same results which is interesting.

Now since in a simple H atom left to itself the electron threads will continue to revolve around the proton like clockwork, we see that as the electron threads tick on there is transition. All of a sudden these same EM Ropes could drastically decrease in frequency of torquing. So its like they turn off for a split moment, only to turn on once again as another cascade of electron threads align over them and torque them again in accord with whatever incident light is happening on our atom. Now we can't discern this with our eyes, since these events happen so quickly, but others have discerned this in ideal quantum jump experiments done in the eighties using a microscope.

There are endless possible frequencies and patterns one could conceive. And each atom has its own pattern that matches with their emission spectrum in certain circumstances. Now when atoms come together in nuclear or chemical bonds, react in a bath of high frequency incident light from an external source or relate in electricity, the electron threads could come together to produce all sorts of frequencies on the EM Ropes. One can think that as two H atoms are being crushed together in a fusion all of a sudden there are twice the potential number of electron threads that could be interfacing with each other and the EM Ropes to enact more events per second until the electron threads stably organize themselves into Helium electronic configuration which is more complex.

In conclusion, atomic electron transition is a game of numbers.  

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

What Does a Hydrogen Atom Look Like?

If we could stop a hydrogen atom from moving and see it, I think it would look something like this mineral:
a radiating mass of slender crystals serve as a likeness to my supposed electron threads originating in the proton

From a tiny critically dense & central convergence point called proton countless subatomic objects, call them electron threads in a sort of double helical mode, emanate and diverge.

But this is only half of the picture. In the background and superposed or interfacing this H atom we would have gazillions of subatomic objects converging from all atoms of the Universe to impart form to our Hydrogen atom.  Call these EM Ropes (picture two below). These EM Ropes mediate light and gravity between all atoms.  A set number of these EM Ropes are fundamental to each and every H atom, so that the H atom constantly assumes it's form from them:

For each Hydrogen atom there is a set # of EM Ropes converging to form the proton (the # of H atoms ((or protons and neutrons)) of the Universe minus 1), and set # of electron threads emanating and diverging from the proton. These objects have unique qualities, one of which is that they are able to occupy the same location (called superposition, interfacing, etc.). From here each location surrounding the proton has a whole number of EM Ropes and electron threads superposing at any given time.

In other words we have integers of threads in superposing alignment. Integer multiples are essential to quantum mechanics. Once we set the H atom in motion there are infinite possibilities of how the EM Ropes and electron threads can align to consummate light events, especially if we have atomic collisions. The electron threads have more freedom to move around the proton since they are not connected at two ends. So in addition to turning CW or CCW along their lengths, they can revolve around the proton like hands on a clock. In opposition the EM Ropes are always rooted in at least two protons (or neutrons), so they will shift a little less dramatically as the atom moves. These subatomic objects act like fingers tapping into and torquing one another CW or CCW.

I think the best way to think of electron is not an object, but as dynamic concept of the threads converging to form the proton and the threads diverging from the proton threads . . . influencing one another. Perhaps there is a critical # of EM Ropes and electron threads which must align in order for them to influence one another and so trigger a light events, i.e. two stranded threads in a torsion wave. When the atom gets disturbed by high frequencies or collisions perhaps electron threads may bunch up and outnumber the EM Ropes or vice versa at any given location or quadrant around the proton. Electron happens at any possible locations around the proton. In addition we would have extraneous EM Ropes interconnecting other atoms crossing through our H atom, and even extraneous electron threads from other atoms when they get close to our H atom.

The atom is a double star like pattern or texture of DNA like threads, converging to proton and diverging from proton. And light (or radiation) ultimately generates strength, that is higher and higher frequency, by numbers, numbers of electron threads and EM Ropes aligning around the proton.

How the proton stays held together in a consistent form as it constantly reforms itself by the EM Ropes while it takes on two or more locations is to me inexplicable. How the proton even forms the electron threads is also a bit of a mystery to me. What can I say?

One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [threads] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)

I dont know. But if someone asked me to model and explain the Hydrogen atom, the above is more or less what I would present to them. Call this model Hairy Head, or Star Model.  It is a modification of Bill Gaede's Hydrogen atom which I think is great just don't like the jump roping magnetic threads. This is not perfect and I might have blind spots in my thought but this is at least something.

As we get to fusion the number of these EM Ropes and electron threads increases in whole numbers.  In fusion electron threads bunch together and organize into well defined groups around the nucleus.  Electron threads are also responsible for chemical bonds. They interlace with electron threads of adjacent atoms in a bond. And these electron threads are also in part responsible for electricity.  In a current through a lattice imagine them as acting like in a domino effect or (a cascade), from one atom to the next, shifting and superposing in the direction of the current, so that on one side of each atom in the lattice we have a dominant concentration of electron threads acting to torque the next set of electron threads & EM Ropes in line.  

But to return to my point above, if we are using counting and integer representations in physics we at least consider that we are counting OBJECTS. Right?

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Electron Quotes!!!

Have fun parsing this wild list. . . 

* "The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real." --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70

* "Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits" ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925

* "There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way... — Richard P. Feynman 'Probability abd Uncertainty—the Quantum Mechanical View of Nature', the sixth of his Messenger Lectures (1964), Cornell ------ (I wonder if he intended that pun)

* "… we may think on an electron as always being surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons. If the electron is violently accelerated by some external means, some of this cloud may be shaken loose and given enough energy to become real photons" ---Frank Shu, The Physical Universe, 1982

* "One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string.  ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955)

* "the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle." ---Paul Dirac, (1930)   

* "There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature Of The Physical World (1928), 290

* "For most practical purposes, an electron is a structure-less particle that possesses an intrinsic angular momentum, or spin." ---Frank Wilczek, What is an Electron?

* "Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. Freeman Dyson showed that the imperviousness of solid matter is due to quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion as had been previously assumed." (Wiki Quote, Electron Degeneracy Pressure, citing three of Freeman Dyson's papers)

* "The inner equilibrium of an extended electron becomes . . . an insoluble puzzle from the point of view of electrodynamics.  I hold this puzzle (and the questions related to it) to be a stochastic problem. . . The electrons are not only indivisible physically, but also geometrically.  They have no extension in space at all [so they are a concept???].  Inner forces between the elements of an electron do not exist because such elements are not available.  The electromagnetic interpretation of the mass is thus eliminated."---Yakov Frenkel, 1925

* "As advertising always convinces the sponsor even more than the public, the scientists have become sold, and remain sold, on the idea that they have the key to the Absolute, and that nothing will do for Mr. Average Citizen but to stuff himself full of electrons." — Anthony Standen, In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 26. 

* "Firm support has been found for the assertion that electricity occurs at thousands of points where we at most conjectured that it was present. Innumerable electrical particles oscillate in every flame and light source. We can in fact assume that every heat source is filled with electrons which will continue to oscillate ceaselessly and indefinitely. All these electrons leave their impression on the emitted rays." ---Pieter Zeeman, 'Light Radiation in a Magnetic Field', Nobel Lecture, 2 May 1903.)

* "It is structure that we look for whenever we try to understand anything. All science is built upon this search; we investigate how the cell is built of reticular material, cytoplasm, chromosomes; how crystals aggregate; how atoms are fastened together; how electrons constitute a chemical bond between atoms. We like to understand, and to explain, observed facts in terms of structure. A chemist who understands why a diamond has certain properties, or why nylon or hemoglobin have other properties, because of the different ways their atoms are arranged, may ask questions that a geologist would not think of' formulating, unless he had been similarly trained in this way of thinking about the world." — Linus Pauling
‘The Place of Chemistry In the Integration of the Sciences’, Main Currents in Modern Thought (1950), 7, 110. 

* "Most American homes have alternating current, which means that the electricty goes in one direction for a while, then goes in the other direction. This prevents harmful electron buildup in the wires." — Dave Barry, In The Taming of the Screw: How to Sidestep Several Million Homeowner's Problems (1983), 12

* "The chemist in America has in general been content with what I have called a loafer electron theory. He has imagined the electrons sitting around on dry goods boxes at every corner [viz. the cubic atom], ready to shake hands with, or hold on to similar loafer electrons in other atoms." — Robert Andrews Millikan, 'Atomism in Modern Physics', Journal of the Chemical Society (1924), 1411.

* "The energy of a covalent bond is largely the energy of resonance of two electrons between two atoms. The examination of the form of the resonance integral shows that the resonance energy increases in magnitude with increase in the overlapping of the two atomic orbitals involved in the formation of the bond, the word ‘overlapping” signifying the extent to which regions in space in which the two orbital wave functions have large values coincide... Consequently it is expected that of two orbitals in an atom the one which can overlap more with an orbital of another atom will form the stronger bond with that atom, and, moreover, the bond formed by a given orbital will tend to lie in that direction in which the orbital is concentrated." — Linus Pauling, Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals (1939), 76.

* "There can never be two or more equivalent electrons in an atom, for which in a strong field the values of all the quantum numbers n, k1, k2 and m are the same. If an electron is present, for which these quantum numbers (in an external field) have definite values, then this state is ‘occupied.’ — Wolfgang Pauli

* "[The chemical bond] First, it is related to the disposition of two electrons (remember, no one has ever seen an electron!): next, these electrons have their spins pointing in opposite directions (remember, no one can ever measure the spin of a particular electron!): then, the spatial distribution of these electrons is described analytically with some degree of precision (remember, there is no way of distinguishing experimentally the density distribution of one electron from another!): concepts like hybridization, covalent and ionic structures, resonance, all appear, not one of which corresponds to anything that is directly measurable. These concepts make a chemical bond seem so real, so life-like, that I can almost see it. Then I wake with a shock to the realization that a chemical bond does not exist; it is a figment of the imagination that we have invented, and no more real than the square root of - 1." --- — Charles Alfred Coulson, Quoted in his obituary, Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society 1974, 20, 96

* “Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

* "Electrons are the final realities of matter, electricity then the material of which the atoms of our elements are constructed. . . But what is electricity itself?  Light ether in a certain state . . . the light ether is thus the universal primary matter." ---Richard Ehrenfeld, (German chemist and historian of science), 1906

* "the electron is to simple of a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise." ---Paul Dirac, Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons, 1938 

* Mists
where the electron behaves and misbehaves as it will,
where the forces tie themselves up into knots of atoms
and come untied;

of mistiness complicated into knots and clots that barge about
and bump on one another and explode into more mist, or don't,
mist of energy most scientific -
But give us gods!

Look then
where the father of all things swims in a mist of atoms
electrons and energies, quantums and relativities
mists, wreathing mists,
like a wild swan, or a goose, whose honk goes through my bladder. 
---D.H. Lawrence poem titled Give Us Gods

last but not least:

* "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to
reality." ---Frank Wilczek, From What is an Electron?, 2013

After reading this we might as well make electron synonymous with God.


* "The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. ---(Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926)