# Electron: 1 – Questions that need answers

Electrons and Cathode Rays – things rarely pondered

“No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions”. Charles Proteus Steinmetz – See Electron ‘particles’ 2

Louis Essen cautions; “The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory”

Physics: Electricity is a Taboo Subject:
Albert Einstein said: “I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged, though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed.” Albert Einstein explaining why physicists don’t like electricity.

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)
The original cathode ray tube (right) of Michael Faraday  and others  was a tube with a cathode at one end and an anode at the other, following faithfully the basic ideas of electronics giving a simple circuit of minus to plus. The electrons (we are told) enter the tube through the cathode and proceed to the anode and then back to the electrical source … Ta Dah we have an electrical circuit. But it doesn’t always work that way…

CRT Anode Strangeness
As people like William Crookes and J.J. Thomson experimented with cathode rays they moved the anode to various places within the tube, unlike the straightforward Faraday tube above. If we Google some graphics we find that in some the anode is to the side in its own extended tube (see below). Any flow of particles/rays/electrons would need to bend into it to form a circuit. Remember, we are speaking of cathode rays that we are told move in a straight line. In others the anode is close to the cathode with a hole in it’s centre to allow the cathode rays to pass through it. (There is no discussion about all of this that I’ve been able to find)  The main feature in Thomson’s experiments was the deflection of the cathode rays, but it is never mentioned that the strongest attraction (If we are dealing with electrons) should rightly come from the anode. Looking at the experiments there seems to be little or no attraction of the negative cathode rays toward the positive anode. This is what intrigues me.

We are told that cathode rays move in a straight line. So what is it that is curving into the anode tube? It should be the electrons but if cathode rays truly are electrons they are not supposed to go around corners?

It is quite obvious that the electric current that moves from the transformer to the cathode, then through the cathode ray tube to the anode and back to the transformer cannot be a cathode ray.

Cathode Ray Deflection
Thomson (and several others in a true history) had to insert two plates within the tube, with a positive and negative charge, in order to deflect the cathode rays. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_School_Chemistry/Further_Understanding_of_the_Atom
I would love to hear a plausible explanation as to why this setup so easily deflects cathode rays with a lower voltage whilst the high voltage anode, marked with a plus to the left does not do so? It’s as if Thomson realised the problem highlighted and made the tube below to prove his point.

J.J. Thomson was unsure as to what the cathode rays were and assumed that they were as a result of the tenuous gas left in the tube after evacuation. But later when vacuum tube diodes and triodes began to be manufactured it was found that they were more efficient with a hard vacuum (very little gas) and so it was not Thomson’s gas. The only logical answer to the questions posed above is that there are two different types of electricity flowing in a cathode ray tube and that electrons as we know them do not exist.

Electrons?
Another question is where do the electrons come from? We are told by Wiki that electrons move very slowly, if at all:
“Free electrons in a conductor follow a random path. Without the presence of an electric field the electrons have no net velocity. When a DC voltage is applied, the electron drift velocity will increase in speed proportionally to the strength of the electric field. The drift velocity is on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field over a distance of a few micrometers…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity#Electric_drift

So why does the cathode not become depleted of electrons?  Where does the stream of electrons come from if they are hardly moving? Is the electric field just knocking chunks from the cathode material as suggested by some early researchers?

The theory of ‘push electrons’ (below) becomes untenable when we consider that a current can flow in both directions at the same time in the same conductor.

The rationalisation of the impossible!
allaboutcircuits.com says:  “A noteworthy observation may be made here. As each electron moves uniformly through a conductor, it pushes on the one ahead of it, such that all the electrons move together as a group. The starting and stopping of electron flow through the length of a conductive path is virtually instantaneous from one end of a conductor to the other, even though the motion of each electron may be very slow. An approximate analogy is that of a tube filled end-to-end with marbles:

allaboutcircuits.com: “The tube is full of marbles, just as a conductor is full of free electrons ready to be moved by an outside influence. If a single marble is suddenly inserted into this full tube on the left-hand side, another marble will immediately try to exit the tube on the right. Even though each marble only travelled a short distance, the transfer of motion through the tube is virtually instantaneous from the left end to the right end, no matter how long the tube is. With electricity, the overall effect from one end of a conductor to the other happens at the speed of light: a swift 186,000 miles per second!!! Each individual electron, though, travels through the conductor at a much slower pace.”

There is absolutely no evidence that electrons are close enough to behave in this way let alone in a straight line pushing each other. Electrons are said to have a negative charge that should cause them to repel each other left right up down and every which-way.

Best Answer Yahoo Answers: “So, finally, for your question. Electron-electron repulsion occurs between any two electrons in the atom. The amount of repulsion depends on the distances between them. “

And so we must assume that touching electrons have maximum repulsion.

The next diagram says something completely different: The centre vertical conductor in this circuit cannot be a tube of marbles as the marbles would be moving in opposite directions at the same time whilst also repelling each other. I suggest the sceptic gets him/herself the cheap and simple components below and personally carries-out the experiment. This is quite important as it will blow the physicists out of the water and bring about a more balanced, less religious-rote approach to physics.

The idea that a current can flow in multiple directions has been known about for a very long time. The chassis (the metal box that the components sit on) as used in old radios and TV’s had currents AC and DC flowing in all directions at the same time, contrary to the expectations of the push-marble theory. The push-marble theory would have been laughed to scorn 40 years ago because everyone could observe the error in radios and TV’s that were in every home.

It ain’t what you don’t know that counts.
It’s what you know that ain’t so.
– Will Rogers

The idea that electrons are marbles in a tube derives from scientific atomism that has roots in ancient Greece. Science has to idealise everything as being particles to support its materialistic philosophy. Nikola Tesla shorted out his power supply (below) and still managed to have a *something* flowing into his coils as shown at “output” below.
Electricity is energy…  a moving field of energy.

It’s important to note that he used a pulsed DC input. The red line shows his deliberate short circuit. The output is the *something else* like electricity but not electricity, streamers and rays felt on his skin from the the secondary coil. Several experimenters of Tesla’s day and some more recent researchers have discovered this and they call it “cold electricity” as opposed to “hot electricity.
See Eugene Mallove below
See more @: The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity by Peter A. Lindemann, D.Sc.

All of this is of course completely ignored by mainstream science and true to form it chose the particle physics route. Science likes particles and the electron became the first of many, giving birth to the science of particle physics. The electron in all probably does not exist, but particle accelerators continue to find ever smaller enigmatic particle results that will contribute nothing to the sum of useful or usable knowledge. There will never be, and there never has been, any usable or generally useful technology arising from particle physics. I challenge the reader to find one – on sale – in the shops! Find one and make me look foolish… ‘But of course there has to be technology arising from modern physics… so why bother to look for it’!

Historical Electronics
It must also be noted at this point that basic versions of all of today’s electronics were available at the time the electron discovery took place. Had this not been the case J. J.  Thomson could not have carried-out his experiments. All of the circuitry and the electronic components we have today were present in a basic form. Even the transistor was documented before 1910. The original circuits worked perfectly well with transistors as they did with the original components. Today we have a transistorised, miniaturised version of the old technology. This is the paradox: The golden age of electronic discovery ended with the introduction of the electron.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1906 was awarded to J.J. Thomson
Not for the discovery of the electron but for: “the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases” https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1906/

“To the electron — may it never be of any use to anybody.” — J. J. Thomson’s favorite toast

It may come as a surprise to some but Thomson was well aware of all of the above, hence the quote. He was a firm supporter of the aether theory and his research was along the same lines as Nikola Tesla and Charles Steinmetz. Steinmetz is documented as saying that ‘the electron is a childish idea’ and Tesla said it did not exist. Both men were at the very pinnacle of electronic research and development in their day and academic scientists were eager to attend their lectures. Unlike today.

From the late Eugene Mallove:
In an elaborate series of experiments with Tesla coils, employing a host of different thermal and electric sensing apparatus (mercury thermometers, electroscopes, GM counters, oscilloscopes, neon bulb indicators within circuitry, Faraday cages, and plate antennas) at different ranges from the coil tips, and using comparison energy sources (various ion generators and radioactive sources), the Correas were able to rule out what Tesla coil radiation is not, and to synthesize what it may well be. They conclude that Tesla coils emit a special form of mass-free radiation that is not electromagnetic in character and not sourced in ionic emissions. They observed that these “Tesla waves alone were capable of triggering the ratemeter via the plate antenna even at substantial distances.” They suggest that the pulsed input to the primary of the Tesla coil “induces in the space of the closely coupled secondary a conversion of the local aether energy to electric form.”

They write, “All happens as if these coils synthesized two different kinds of electric fields, one proximal [near the coil] and mass_bound, and the other mass-free and responsible for all distal [distant from the coil] effects.”

At root, these experiments touch on the deep issue of the aether and its relation to what are evidently two basic forms of electricity, the accepted form (massbound, the flow of electrons), and other not accepted at all by conventional science, mass free—capable of flowing in and around wires, as well as being transmitted as Tesla waves through gas media and vacuum.
The mass-free form of electricity might be called “cold electricity.” This hearkens back to another fundamental issue, the very nature of some non-standard biological energies, which are also presumed not to exist and the subject of much mockery these days.
Page on aetherometry

So deep-rooted in our consciousness is the idea of the electron that it becomes all but impossible to imagine a world without it. We know it did not come from Thomson; from whence did it come?

And Dr. Jobard
In 1856 Dr. Jobard of Paris declared to a startled press: “I hold a discovery which frightens me. There are two kinds of electricity; one, brute and blind is produced by the contact of metals and acids; the other is intelligent and clairvoyant. The brute (one) …has followed Jacobii, Bonelli, and Moncal, while the intellectual one was following Bois-Robert, Thilorier, and Chevalier Duplanty. The electrical ball or globular electricity (ball lightning?) contains a thought which disobeys Newton (gravity?) and Mariotte (?) to follow its own freaks…. we have in the annals of the academy thousands of proofs of the intelligence of the electric bolt…but I remark that I am permitting myself to become indiscreet. A little more and I would have disclosed to you the key which is about to discover to us the universal spirit.” http://www.anomalist.com/features/forgotten.html

For a typical example of just how unnecessarily complex electronics theory has become as a result of the introduction of the electron see the page:
Conventional Versus Electron Flow
The “Conventional” is how the flow of electricity was visualised before the electron and “Electron Flow” is how it was visualised after the electron was conceived. Both are still in use thanks to particle physics.
Electricity in all it’s manifestations is a field, massless

part 1 the atomistic fallacy and psychosis of the so called electron particle

Go to Electron 2

## 21 thoughts on “Electron: 1 – Questions that need answers”

1. Thanks for these very interesting article!
We are regressing day by day with regard to real technological advancement and this is disguised by all crap gadgets that they push to us.

Liked by 1 person

2. johnm33 says:

Scary to think of delusion on this scale, I’ve become deeply sceptical about everything I chose[past tense] to believe. I’m sure that if i was deeply invested in the mainstream view this would be a hard pill to swallow. What we need are storytellers to embed this science in the minds of the young as an antidote to their ‘education’.

Like

3. Hi johnm33 and thanks for the interest
Did you know that home educated kids do much better than those who go to school? This applies to kids with low income parents with no teaching experience.

Like

4. Pingback: Electron | nextexx
5. Gösta says:

Ref. CRT Anode Strangeness.

I think I can provide some additional information that you may have overlooked.

The illustrations and text that you have found by googling is “low resolution” only used in primary schools so that even the slowest kids have a chance of understanding something be it right or wrong.

A CRT those that project images and such on a screen, works by applying an electric field between cathode to anode. Those electrons that are emitted by the cathode by thermionic emission are accelerated towards the anode. Since not all electrons have the same starting point, not all electrons will have the same kinetic energy, a minority say 1% of the electron will have enough energy to simply overshoot the anode and continue in a straight line and impact with the flourecent screen.

The reminder 99% of the electrons will be absorbed by the anode and return to the power source. This makes the CRT a very energy inefficient device. These 99% of waste electrons do not necessarily follow a straight line.

Like

6. Gösta says:

Ref. The rationalisation of the impossible!

Again, the illustrations and text that you have found on allaboutcircuits.com are “low resolution” and serve as information for the general public.

And as you have so correctly concluded, electrons are not marbles in a tube and they don’t behave like that in a conductor. In elementary college text books, you will find that in a conductor the electrons move at the speed of light and are bouncing “randomly” back and forth within the physical boundaries of the conductor. but their net movement aka “drift velocity” is zero. But that is only until an electric field is applied to the conductor, when it is applied the electrons drift velocity is a few centimeters per second, so electrons enter the conductor in one end, and out the other, but not exactly like marbles.

Therefore in a general educational situation with a room full of uninterested pupils, it is reasonable to make the analogy with marbles in a tube. It’s really a minority that cares about electrons and their movement, so the marble information is for them. And those who care, it is upon them to further educate themselves.

Like

1. You say:”Again, the illustrations and text that you have found on allaboutcircuits.com are “low resolution” and serve as information for the general public.”
This is the usual attempt at belittlement that is par for the course but unworthy of an answer.

Wiki: “When a high voltage is applied between the electrodes, cathode rays (electrons) are projected in straight lines from the cathode…

[You see they are supposed to travel in straight lines. The Crookes tube refereed to on the page does not use thermionic emission and electrons are emitted from a flat plate.]

Wiki:..The high voltage accelerates these low-mass particles to a high velocity (about 37,000 miles per second, or 59,000 km/s, about 20 percent of the speed of light, for a typical tube voltage of 10 kV[6]). When they get to the anode end of the tube, they have so much momentum that, although they are attracted to the anode, many fly past it and strike the end wall of the tube.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube

If you look at the more modern CRT,(that does use thermionic emission) you will see that the anode is out of sight of the electron gun and therefore receives no straight line electrons, contrary to Wiki above. I worked for a TV service department many years ago and the anode cap was always highly charged suggesting it was looking for negative charge – as experienced by anyone who touched it – leading to the conclusion that it was not absorbing 99% of the electrons.

The central idea behind this page is that electrons do not exist, as claimed by J.J. Thomson until he was bribed with a Nobel prize. This was also the claim of most of the pioneers of electronics. It is also a fact that Thomson could not have discovered the electron without most of today’s electronics being already in place. The very idea that electrons are the bedrock of electronics is a lie.

The electron was the first atomic particle and led to particle physics and it is for this reason that science gave it priority. A new branch of science not a technology.

Like

7. Gösta says:

“The central idea behind this page is that electrons do not exist”

I know, and personally I don’t know if the electron exists, or if it is a particle or a wave or whatever, neither do I care as I’m not a fundamentalistic militant. I adopt whatever belief-system that is most suitable for solving the problem I have at hand. I choose the right tool for the job.

“This is the usual attempt at belittlement that is par for the course but unworthy of an answer.”

Where do you see belittlement? I’m stating a fact.

In my opinion Wiki is controlled by untrustworthy morons e.g. take the W. Beaty story you wrote where you seem to agree with me on my Wiki stance. And BTW I have the utmost respect for W. Beaty.

And when you argue with me it seem that you consider Wiki as the authoritative truth, so make up your mind. Therefore I cannot comment on your Wiki quotes other than reiterating it’s “low resolution”.

What do you mean by “the anode cap was always highly charged”? What do you mean by “charge” and how did you measure it?

Like

8. Partha Sarathi Mishra says:

.
People believe one day we could able to reach the magnification level to see electrons:
https://www.quora.com/Do-electrons-really-exist
.
What else prove is need to show that all they do is seeking unicorn.
.
First they “devise” (aka discover) a virtual entity. Then they do experiment to find it’s existence. If the result comes negative, then manipulate the data, as others cannot verify their experiment as they don;t share any detailed design of their so-called experiments with live streaming. Then they create an environment of “hope”, that sometimes in future it will be, and we are scientists so we should seek for what we don’t know blah blah blah….etc.
.
But they never replace the hypothesis of electron with aether tubes. Because particles are axioms for science. Drop the particles, the entire quantum physics collapse like a pack of cards.
.
Did you see the religiousness of these people? This is how modern science works.

Like

1. Yes, it’s a disgrace and this kind of dumbing-down has been going on since the industrial revolution. We are factory fodder with no need to know. The no need to know includes science education. They don’t know anything else.

Like

9. Partha Sarathi Mishra says:

.

Sombody asked how scientists discovered light has no mass. The answer of Vikror blew my mind:
.
According to him it was not known during Maxwell’s time that electricty is massless. It’s advancement of quantum theory that explains massless photos.
.
Well is he illiterate that Maxwell theory was based on aether, not some fictitious particles? Electricity is always a mass free phenomenon.

Why these idiots think as if modern physics only invented electricity? This guy needs tight slap. He is delusion.

Like

1. The electron could not have been “discovered” without an in-depth knowledge of electronics. I’ve no idea how the physicists get their heads around that one. There was an article in Nature about the amount of money made thanks to the electron. My brother was an electrical engineer and I asked him if he had ever done anything directly involved with the electron. After thinking about it for some time he had to admit he had never measured an electron.
It’s a kind of hypnosis where everyone thinks that something is real when it’s not.

Like

1. Partha Sarathi Mishra says:

Yes. true.

Did you read the answer of Viktor? Complete insult to the masters of electricity.

Like

2. Quote:”When Maxwell’s equations were developed, I don’t think anyone thought of the electromagnetic field as a massless field.”
They still can’t define a field. There’s a video of Feyneman being asked that question and not being able to answer.

Like

1. Partha Sarathi Mishra says:

.
Maxwell never claimed electricity consists of elementary particles. I am sure Viktor never read Maxwell’s treatise. Even Eric Dollard says electricity is a mass free phenomena. QUantum fools have only confused electrical science and nothing else.

Like

2. That’s what it’s all about – confusion. The confused teaching the confused to be confused like themselves. Maxwell’s original work is not used. Stick with Dollard and you will not go far wrong.

Like

10. Sonali says:

AFAIK, Quantum mechanics is different from particle physics. Quantum mechanics doesn’t deals with indivisible particles, rather it treats reality as wave functions. The concept of particles does not occur in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The equations are only for the wave functions.

Like

1. Educate me on this subject: what is the position of QM when it comes to duality, is it a wave or a particle?
What is the QM definition of a wave?
What is a field according to QM?

If you look at this page on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function you will see that the waves are a function of particle motions and not what I would consider to be waves.
Quantum physics have pulled the same stunt as they did at the time of Einstein. At that time they answered the complaint that no one understood it by saying it was counter intuitive. This is no different Richard Feynman said no one understands quantum physics.
This is the complete opposite to Occam’s razor “the simplest solution is most likely the right one”. This is a rule I try to follow.

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.