1) Warning. [ Return home ]

Instead of for the energy of the electron in motion, a different identical formula either with the electromagnetic calculation or with the hypersonic calculation is obtained:

This experimental discrepancy may have different origins.

The most convincing for me is the fact that we consider here a non-spinning electron. A discussion will be done farther about the spinning energy and this discussion leads to the conclusion that the spinning electron has the energy .

Something also important in this way is the fact that the consideration of a simple longitudinal resonator leads also to a different formula of the one which has been obtained in the study of a simple transversal sound-wave resonator.

I wish that one day, a non-spinning electron will be detected has a temporary instable specie with a different energy expression which in fact may be also the origin of the beta decay problem.

An other origin of the discrepancy, may be the mean energy density used. It is known to be dangerous to perform an integral calculus with an averaged density if the fonction (amplitude) changes too rapidly of value like it is the case here near the center of the electron (close to the nucleus).

But the most important thing for the reader will certainly be the full agreement between the hypersonic and electromagnetic calculations. This is a definite proof that the electron is made of hypersonic waves.

Finally, all that leads to the conclusion that if, the energy density is responsible of the discrepancy, the electromagnetic energy densities are also not correct and thus a critic of the Poynting's theorem is needed.

[ Return home ]