Deducing and Calculating spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar
ThomasL283
Spin angular momentum of the sub atomic particles.
The spin angular momentum of subatomic particles of (1/2 h
bar) has the dimensions of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 (m^2.kg.s^-1) (AKA
Joule seconds) and it has that constant value regardless of the
mass because of the particle geometry.
For example the electrons spin angular momentum (as taken
from the VPP electron model) is equal to the radius of (1/2
lambda bar) = 1.930796615 x 10^-13 m times the mass (energy)
9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg sitting at that radius times the velocity of
gyration of 2.99792458 x 10^8 (m. s^-1) This gives the 1/2 h
bar value, ( 5.2728633 x 10^-35 m^2. kg. s^-1) if you carry out
the multiplication, as was expected.
How is it that all other spin 1/2 particles have the same
value of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 Joule seconds? It's the geometry of
their structures. You get the same value for ( mass x radius x
velocity) because if the mass is increased, the mass radius of
gyration is reduced, making mass x radius a constant, and of
course velocity remains a constant (c) .
If you say, but you had to insert the electron's mass. Note
mass is retrievable by the fact that e- e+ can only form when
the near field magnetic and electric forces are equal and changing
at the same rate.
All fundamental physical constants are related by an
underlying geometry. so h (Planck's constant) is related to a mass (kg)
times a radius (m) times a velocity of gryration (m.s^-1) (AKA
as shown above as (m^2.kg.s^-1). To get (h) we can simply
multiply the calculated spin times 4 pi .
The point is that no fundamental constant exists on it's own,
they are all related, and the VPP electron has the correct
geometry to relate them in their proper ratios.
What else can we expect a model to do?
Regards: Tom. http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Todd K. Pedlar
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> Spin angular momentum of the sub atomic particles.
>
> The spin angular momentum of subatomic particles of (1/2 h
> bar) has the dimensions of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 (m^2.kg.s^-1) (AKA
> Joule seconds) and it has that constant value regardless of the
> mass because of the particle geometry.
>
> For example the electrons spin angular momentum (as taken
> from the VPP electron model) is equal to the radius of (1/2
> lambda bar) = 1.930796615 x 10^-13 m times the mass (energy)
> 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg sitting at that radius times the velocity of
> gyration of 2.99792458 x 10^8 (m. s^-1) This gives the 1/2 h
> bar value, ( 5.2728633 x 10^-35 m^2. kg. s^-1) if you carry out
> the multiplication, as was expected.
So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
central axis is c?
>
> How is it that all other spin 1/2 particles have the same
> value of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 Joule seconds? It's the geometry of
> their structures. You get the same value for ( mass x radius x
> velocity) because if the mass is increased, the mass radius of
> gyration is reduced, making mass x radius a constant, and of
> course velocity remains a constant (c) .
And, you're implying that they are also all ring-shaped structures.
Why doesn't this hold up in experiment?
>
> If you say, but you had to insert the electron's mass. Note
> mass is retrievable by the fact that e- e+ can only form when
> the near field magnetic and electric forces are equal and changing
> at the same rate.
>
> All fundamental physical constants are related by an
> underlying geometry. so h (Planck's constant) is related to a mass (kg)
>
> times a radius (m) times a velocity of gryration (m.s^-1) (AKA
> as shown above as (m^2.kg.s^-1). To get (h) we can simply
> multiply the calculated spin times 4 pi .
>
> The point is that no fundamental constant exists on it's own,
> they are all related, and the VPP electron has the correct
> geometry to relate them in their proper ratios.
>
> What else can we expect a model to do?
>
We can expect a model which purports to calculate structures of
particles to do exactly that. I don't see how yours can reproduce
the observed scattering spectra from nucleons when you require them
to be shaped like an annulus and not roughly spherical.
Regards,
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University
Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
ThomasL283
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
>>ThomasL283 wrote:
>
>> Spin angular momentum of the sub atomic particles.
>
>> The spin angular momentum of subatomic particles of ( h
>> bar) has the dimensions of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 (m^2.kg.s^-1) (AKA
>> Joule seconds) and it has that constant value regardless of the
> >mass because of the particle geometry.
>
>> For example the electrons spin angular momentum (as taken
>> from the VPP electron model) is equal to the radius of (
>> lambda bar) = 1.930796615 x 10^-13 m times the mass (energy)
>> 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg sitting at that radius times the velocity of
> >gyration of 2.99792458 x 10^8 (m. s^-1) This gives the h
>> bar value, ( 5.2728633 x 10^-35 m^2. kg. s^-1) if you carry out
> >the multiplication, as was expected.
>So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
>but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
>central axis is c?
Todd, the model is a cube formed by connecting the Poynting vector to
itself. See http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm. I know we all grew
up thinking the particles should be little spinning spheres, but nature is
under no obligation to agree with our preconceived notions. If you see
the web page, you will note that the cube model geometry supports all of
the electron's numbers. Try that with a pointlike or spherical doodad,
points and spheres don't work as models. Worse than that, such childish
point like or spherical doodads can't trace their genealogy to any model
for energy, Poynting or otherwise. The rotational velocity at c is viewed
as the trapped photon chasing it's tail, so that relativity is not a
problem with the model
>
>> How is it that all other spin particles have the same
>> value of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 Joule seconds? It's the geometry of
>> their structures. You get the same value for ( mass x radius x
>> velocity) because if the mass is increased, the mass radius of
>> gyration is reduced, making mass x radius a constant, and of
> >course velocity remains a constant .
>And, you're implying that they are also all ring-shaped structures.
>Why doesn't this hold up in experiment?
No the model is not ring shaped, as noted above and on the web page
schematic. The model agrees with experiments performed *on the bench*,
for measuring the published fundamental physical constants of the
electron (without having to readjust the model's geometry). Todd, if the
model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there are secondary
effects not corrected in the HEP analysis. The question, it seems to me,
is having a model that supports the fundamental physical constants,
barring that, we cannot be sure of our theories.
>> All fundamental physical constants are related by an
>> underlying geometry. so h (Planck's constant) is related to a mass
(kg)
>>
>> times a radius (m) times a velocity of gryration (m.s^-1) (AKA
>> as shown above as (m^2.kg.s^-1). To get (h) we can simply
>> multiply the calculated spin times 4 pi .
>>
>> The point is that no fundamental constant exists on it's own,
>> they are all related, and the VPP electron has the correct
>> geometry to relate them in their proper ratios.
>
>> What else can we expect a model to do?
>
>We can expect a model which purports to calculate structures of
>particles to do exactly that. I don't see how yours can reproduce
>the observed scattering spectra from nucleons when you require them
>to be shaped like an annulus and not roughly spherical.
That is not the form they take. The models are cube frameworks on account
of their orthogonal Poynting vector makeup. Are the particles *really*
these cubes? All I can claim is that the geometry came about coherently
and seems to do a good job of relating the fundamental physical constants.
Somehow the models are paralleling nature, and they are simple.
>Regards,
>Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University
>Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
>WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom.
James H. Panetta
>ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com>
>> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
>>>ThomasL283 wrote:
>>> How is it that all other spin particles have the same
>>> value of 5.2728633 x 10^-35 Joule seconds? It's the geometry of
>>> their structures. You get the same value for ( mass x radius x
>>> velocity) because if the mass is increased, the mass radius of
>>> gyration is reduced, making mass x radius a constant, and of
>> >course velocity remains a constant .
>
>>And, you're implying that they are also all ring-shaped structures.
>>Why doesn't this hold up in experiment?
>
>No the model is not ring shaped, as noted above and on the web page
>schematic. The model agrees with experiments performed *on the bench*,
>for measuring the published fundamental physical constants of the
>electron (without having to readjust the model's geometry). Todd, if the
>model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there are secondary
>effects not corrected in the HEP analysis. The question, it seems to me,
>is having a model that supports the fundamental physical constants,
>barring that, we cannot be sure of our theories.
Tom, I'll say this slowly and carefully so you understand:
A n y m o d e l w h i c h d o e s n ' t a g r e e w i t h
e x p e r i m e n t i s W R O N G . T h e c u r r e n t
m o d e l s a g r e e w i t h e x p e r i m e n t .
Y O U R S D O E S N O T .
Quantum Electrodynamics agrees with experiment. It agrees so well,
that it has more significant figures in the predictions than we can
measure at this time. Look up the history of the Lamb shift
measurement. Your model doesn't agree with experiments performed "on
the bench". It does not agree with spin scattering experiments that I
performed as a senior level undergraduate. These were benchtop type
experiments. Not difficult to do.
>>> All fundamental physical constants are related by an
>>> underlying geometry. so h (Planck's constant) is related to a mass (kg)
>>> times a radius (m) times a velocity of gryration (m.s^-1) (AKA
>>> as shown above as (m^2.kg.s^-1). To get (h) we can simply
>>> multiply the calculated spin times 4 pi .
>>>
>>> The point is that no fundamental constant exists on it's own,
>>> they are all related, and the VPP electron has the correct
>>> geometry to relate them in their proper ratios.
>>> What else can we expect a model to do?
>>
>>We can expect a model which purports to calculate structures of
>>particles to do exactly that. I don't see how yours can reproduce
>>the observed scattering spectra from nucleons when you require them
>>to be shaped like an annulus and not roughly spherical.
>
>That is not the form they take. The models are cube frameworks on account
>of their orthogonal Poynting vector makeup. Are the particles *really*
>these cubes? All I can claim is that the geometry came about coherently
>and seems to do a good job of relating the fundamental physical constants.
>Somehow the models are paralleling nature, and they are simple.
It doesn't seem that your geometry comes out coherently. On your "home3"
page, the graphic "spin.gif" has a circular definition in it. You start
with defining your spin as \hbar/2=m_e*c*R_m, giving R_m in terms of
fundamental constants. Then you "check" that R_m is \lambda_e/2. This
is not a check, this is an affirmation of faith.
Also, where do you get the adjustment of \Sum (a/\pi)^(i)*(-1)^(i+1)/(i+1)
to the magnetic moment? Exactly how does this come about? I want the
exact mathematical/physical argument, not something like:
"This anomalous factor is added geometrically to the electron model
as a small elbow at the cube corners, increasing the loop areas
slightly. The protrusion acts from a centroid and is used later for
the precision scaling in the composite proton and neutron
structures."
Exactness is what we need, not handwaving. The current models have the
virtue of exactness of explanation. Y o u r s d o e s n o t .
--Jim
--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu
Thorsten Ohl
>>>>> "ThomasL283" == ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> writes:
ThomasL283> Todd, if the
ThomasL283> model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there
ThomasL283> are secondary effects not corrected in the HEP analysis.
You don't get it, don't you?
If your model contradicts experiment, then _you_ have fix _your_ model
instead of whining about reality not following your orders!
Of course, there's no measurement without systematical and statistical
errors, but we're talking SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE here! Mr. Lockyer's
model gives the electron a size of it's compton wavelength, while past
and present experiments don't see _any_ substructure 1.000.000 times
(!) smaller. You do _not_ need big machines to falsify VPP.
A lot of measurements of Bhabha scattering are pusblished and all
MR. Lockyer has to do is to calculate the differential cross section
of scattering two of his cubes and to compare this with the data. Any
third year student is able to predict that Mr. Lockyer will find that
his cubes have contributions from partial waves which are absent in
the data.
I know that it's futile, but I want to communicate that physics is
_not_ done in an ivory tower, decoupled from reality. On the
contrary, _our_ theories can be challenged, unlike Mr. Lockyer's, who
says ``please don't give me more tests''.
Cheers,
-Thorsten Ohl
PS: The subject line is a reference to Feynman's ``Surely you're
joking ...''. The corresponding chapter is a good description
of Mr. Lockyer's approch to physics ...
--
Thorsten Ohl, Physics Department, TH Darmstadt --- PGP: AF 38 FF CE 03 8A 2E A7
http://crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de/~ohl/ -------- 8F 2A C1 86 8C 06 32 6B
gold...@wisenet.net
> o...@crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de (Thorsten Ohl) writes:
> >>>>> "ThomasL283" == ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> writes:
>
> ThomasL283> Todd, if the
> ThomasL283> model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there
> ThomasL283> are secondary effects not corrected in the HEP analysis.
>
> You don't get it, don't you?
>
> If your model contradicts experiment, then _you_ have fix _your_ model
> instead of whining about reality not following your orders!
>
> Of course, there's no measurement without systematical and statistical
> errors, but we're talking SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE here! Mr. Lockyer's
> model gives the electron a size of it's compton wavelength, while past
> and present experiments don't see _any_ substructure 1.000.000 times
> (!) smaller. You do _not_ need big machines to falsify VPP.
>
> A lot of measurements of Bhabha scattering are pusblished and all
> MR. Lockyer has to do is to calculate the differential cross section
> of scattering two of his cubes and to compare this with the data. Any
> third year student is able to predict that Mr. Lockyer will find that
> his cubes have contributions from partial waves which are absent in
> the data.
Perhaps it is time for you to give those calculations so that we can
all see what you have in mind. That would give Tom something
to work with in his reply.
Larry
gold...@wisenet.net
Give the calculations and data that support your claim so that the
none experts know what you are alluding to.
Thanks
Larry
Matteo Cacciari
gold...@wisenet.net wrote:
>> o...@crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de (Thorsten Ohl) writes:
>> >>>>> "ThomasL283" == ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> ThomasL283> Todd, if the
>> ThomasL283> model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there
>> ThomasL283> are secondary effects not corrected in the HEP analysis.
>>
>> You don't get it, don't you?
>>
>> If your model contradicts experiment, then _you_ have fix _your_ model
>> instead of whining about reality not following your orders!
>>
>> Of course, there's no measurement without systematical and statistical
>> errors, but we're talking SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE here! Mr. Lockyer's
>> model gives the electron a size of it's compton wavelength, while past
>> and present experiments don't see _any_ substructure 1.000.000 times
>> (!) smaller. You do _not_ need big machines to falsify VPP.
>>
>> A lot of measurements of Bhabha scattering are pusblished and all
>> MR. Lockyer has to do is to calculate the differential cross section
>> of scattering two of his cubes and to compare this with the data. Any
>> third year student is able to predict that Mr. Lockyer will find that
>> his cubes have contributions from partial waves which are absent in
>> the data.
>
>Perhaps it is time for you to give those calculations so that we can
>all see what you have in mind. That would give Tom something
>to work with in his reply.
>Larry
I'm afraid you don't really understand the correct way new theories develop:
it is the proponent's responsibility to show that:
1) his new theory is needed because the old one does not agree with some
kind of experiment (to say that experiments are wrong or that nature does
not behave the way he likes does not mean to have done so....)
2) to calculate within his own theory prediction for both old and new
experiments.
There is not a single good reason in the universe why someone else should waste
his own time (and taxpayer money) in doing this for him. Until the
aforementioned two steps are fulfilled , the "new" theory _does_not_exists_
from the scientific point of view.
Matteo
ThomasL283
> pan...@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) wrote:
>ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com>
>
>>>ThomasL283 wrote:
>
>>No the model is not ring shaped, as noted above and on the web page
>>schematic. The model agrees with experiments performed *on the bench*,
>>for measuring the published fundamental physical constants of the
>>electron (without having to readjust the model's geometry). Todd, if
the
>>model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there are secondary
>>effects not corrected in the HEP analysis. The question, it seems to
me,
>>is having a model that supports the fundamental physical constants,
>>barring that, we cannot be sure of our theories.
>Tom, I'll say this slowly and carefully so you understand:
>A n y m o d e l w h I c h d o e s n ' t a g r e e w I t h
>e x p e r I m e n t I s W R O N G . T h e c u r r e n t
>m o d e l s a g r e e w I t h e x p e r I m e n t .
>Y O U R S D O E S N O T .
>Quantum Electrodynamics agrees with experiment. It agrees so well,
>that it has more significant figures in the predictions than we can
>measure at this time.
James, your arguments are typically what is said to try and minimize the
model's undisputable results. The fact is that the VPP models give all
the correct answers. . How can one argue with success? The current
quark models simply do not work, how can they agree with experiments, as
you claim? The quark models do not support the known values for the
fundamental physical constants. QED does not give structures to the
electron, positron, electron type neutrino or muon type neutrino pair, so
why bring it up. One can get the electron's anomalous magnetic monet to
within 42 ppb ( as well as can be measured) without the QED theory.
>Your model doesn't agree with experiments performed "on
>the bench". It does not agree with spin scattering experiments that I
>performed as a senior level undergraduate. These were benchtop type
>experiments. Not difficult to do.
You are not being definitive in your arguments. The model gives all of
the electrons fundamental physical constants, exactly as they are
measured. What does *scattering* have to do with this?
>> All fundamental physical constants are related by an
>> underlying geometry. so h (Planck's constant) is related to a mass
(kg)
>> times a radius (m) times a velocity of gryration (m.s^-1) (AKA
>> as shown above as (m^2.kg.s^-1). To get (h) we can simply
>> multiply the calculated spin times 4 pi .
>>
>> The point is that no fundamental constant exists on it's own,
>> they are all related, and the VPP electron has the correct
>> geometry to relate them in their proper ratios.
>>. The models are cube frameworks on account
>>of their orthogonal Poynting vector makeup. Are the particles *really*
>>these cubes? All I can claim is that the geometry came about coherently
>>and seems to do a good job of relating the fundamental physical
constants.
>>Somehow the models are paralleling nature, and they are simple.
>It doesn't seem that your geometry comes out coherently. On your "home3"
>page, the graphic "spin.gif" has a circular definition in it. You start
>with defining your spin as \hbar/2=m_e*c*R_m, giving R_m in terms of
>fundamental constants. Then you "check" that R_m is \lambda_e/2. This
>is not a check, this is an affirmation of faith.
Gee, I got the lambda bar /2 from the geometry of the spinning cube which
has an edge length of lambda bar. Yes, when I did the original
calculation it affirmed my faith in the geometry.
>Also, where do you get the adjustment of \Sum
(a/\pi)^(I)*(-1)^(I+1)/(I+1)
>to the magnetic moment? Exactly how does this come about? I want the
>exact mathematical/physical argument, not something like:
> "This anomalous factor is added geometrically to the electron model
> as a small elbow at the cube corners, increasing the loop areas
> slightly. The protrusion acts from a centroid and is used later for
> the precision scaling in the composite proton and neutron
> structures."
>Exactness is what we need, not handwaving. The current models have the
>virtue of exactness of explanation. Y o u r s d o e s n o t .
I borrowed that from QED, but rather than sum over Feynman diagrams to get
the alternating power series coefficients, I simply use the coefficients
that one would normally use ( , -1/3, +1/4, -1/5) not the crazy QED values
you are so proud of ( , -0.328478444, +1.1763, _0.8).
What exactness of explanation do you claim for the *current* models?
As for a more complete VPP model explanation, you could go to the
Stanford Campus Bookstore and buy a copy of the book, ask for ISBN
0-9631546-1-3.
>--Jim
--
>My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
>(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
>pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Jonathan Butterworth
On 13 Aug 1996, ThomasL283 wrote:
> I borrowed that from QED, but rather than sum over Feynman diagrams to get
> the alternating power series coefficients, I simply use the coefficients
> that one would normally use ( , -1/3, +1/4, -1/5) not the crazy QED values
> you are so proud of ( , -0.328478444, +1.1763, _0.8).
>
Thomas, this translates roughly as "I nicked an equation from the theory I
am claiming to discredit, because I liked the look of this equation. Then
made up some coefficients because I liked the look of them better than the
old ones."
Is that what you really meant to say?
> What exactness of explanation do you claim for the *current* models?
>
erm... you mean QED? A sum over Feynman diagrams. Known vertex and
propagator coefficients. Pretty exact.
Todd K. Pedlar
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> > "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
>
> >>ThomasL283 wrote:
> >
> >> Spin angular momentum of the sub atomic particles.
> >> For example the electrons spin angular momentum (as taken
> >> from the VPP electron model) is equal to the radius of (
> >> lambda bar) = 1.930796615 x 10^-13 m times the mass (energy)
> >> 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg sitting at that radius times the velocity of
> > >gyration of 2.99792458 x 10^8 (m. s^-1) This gives the h
> >> bar value, ( 5.2728633 x 10^-35 m^2. kg. s^-1) if you carry out
> > >the multiplication, as was expected.
>
> >So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
> >but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
> >central axis is c?
>
> Todd, the model is a cube formed by connecting the Poynting vector to
> itself. See http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm. I know we all grew
Then the formula you're using for angular momentum is incorrect. If you
assert that the electron is a cube, then you cannot use the formula
L = m_electron*radius*some velocity of gyration
You should check into some classical physics textbooks to learn about
moments of inertia.
> up thinking the particles should be little spinning spheres, but nature is
> under no obligation to agree with our preconceived notions. If you see
> the web page, you will note that the cube model geometry supports all of
> the electron's numbers. Try that with a pointlike or spherical doodad,
> points and spheres don't work as models. Worse than that, such childish
> point like or spherical doodads can't trace their genealogy to any model
> for energy, Poynting or otherwise. The rotational velocity at c is viewed
> as the trapped photon chasing it's tail, so that relativity is not a
> problem with the model
> >
>
> >And, you're implying that they are also all ring-shaped structures.
> >Why doesn't this hold up in experiment?
>
> No the model is not ring shaped, as noted above and on the web page
> schematic. The model agrees with experiments performed *on the bench*,
> for measuring the published fundamental physical constants of the
> electron (without having to readjust the model's geometry). Todd, if the
> model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there are secondary
> effects not corrected in the HEP analysis.
This does nothing to convince me that your model is right. Suppose I
have a theory about the sun. I say that the sun orbits the earth. All
my
observations confirm this theory. However, NASA says the earth orbits
the sun. I then must conclude that there is something *wrong* with
NASA's analysis, no matter how sophisticated their methods. This would
be pretty presumptious of me, wouldnt it?
> The question, it seems to me,
> is having a model that supports the fundamental physical constants,
> barring that, we cannot be sure of our theories.
>
<cut>
>
> >We can expect a model which purports to calculate structures of
> >particles to do exactly that. I don't see how yours can reproduce
> >the observed scattering spectra from nucleons when you require them
> >to be shaped like an annulus and not roughly spherical.
>
> That is not the form they take. The models are cube frameworks on account
> of their orthogonal Poynting vector makeup. Are the particles *really*
If this is your proposed geometry, then your proposal is incorrect. For
a cube, L is not equal to m_cube * radius (half side length?) * velocity
of
rotation. The mathematics simply does NOT work.
> these cubes? All I can claim is that the geometry came about coherently
> and seems to do a good job of relating the fundamental physical constants.
> Somehow the models are paralleling nature, and they are simple.
>
Todd
--
James H. Panetta
In article <4uou6b$d...@news.inc.net>, <gold...@wisenet.net> wrote:
>> pan...@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (James H. Panetta) writes:
>> Quantum Electrodynamics agrees with experiment. It agrees so well,
>> that it has more significant figures in the predictions than we can
>> measure at this time. Look up the history of the Lamb shift
>> measurement. Your model doesn't agree with experiments performed "on
>> the bench". It does not agree with spin scattering experiments that I
>> performed as a senior level undergraduate. These were benchtop type
>> experiments. Not difficult to do.
>
>Give the calculations and data that support your claim so that the
>none experts know what you are alluding to.
>Thanks
>Larry
Examples: Bhabha scattering, angular effects in
Radiative Bhabha scattering, photon energy spectrum of
Bethe-Bloch energy loss
Reference:
"Review of Particle Properties", Phys. Rev. D54 pp.1-720, 1996
Griffiths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles"
Bjorken and Drell, "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics"
Simulation codes:
LEPTO, Monte Carlo for Deep Inelastic Lepton-Nucleon Scattering
JETSET/PYTHIA, Quark-Quark scattering
and lots of others.
--Jim Panetta
gold...@wisenet.net
demonstrate that Lockyer's model gives the wrong results. Several have
stated the it doesn't give the right results but no details as how his model
differs from other models. It is not the responsibility for Lockyer to reply to
insinuations with no details. I don't think that those who say he is wrong
can show that his model predicts the wrong scattering data. Saying it
does doesn't demonstate that. So let's have the demostration.
Larry
gold...@wisenet.net
> >Give the calculations and data that support your claim so that the
> >none experts know what you are alluding to.
> >Thanks
> >Larry
>
> Examples: Bhabha scattering, angular effects in
> Radiative Bhabha scattering, photon energy spectrum of
> Bethe-Bloch energy loss
> Reference:
> "Review of Particle Properties", Phys. Rev. D54 pp.1-720, 1996
> Griffiths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles"
> Bjorken and Drell, "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics"
> Simulation codes:
> LEPTO, Monte Carlo for Deep Inelastic Lepton-Nucleon Scattering
> JETSET/PYTHIA, Quark-Quark scattering
> and lots of others.
>
> --Jim Panetta
>
> --
> My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
> (except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
> pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu
>
>>>>
Bhabha scattering. Are you saying that your reference gives
calculations on those diagrams which shows that Lockyer's
cube model for the electron and positron will result in a different
elastic scattering?
Larry
ThomasL283
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>writes:
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> > "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
>
> >>ThomasL283 wrote:
> >
> >> Spin angular momentum of the sub atomic particles.
<cut>
> >>> For example the electrons spin angular momentum (as taken
> >>> from the VPP electron model) is equal to the radius of (
> >>> lambda bar) = 1.930796615 x 10^-13 m times the mass (energy)
> >>> 9.1093897 x 10^-31 kg sitting at that radius times the velocity
of
> > >>gyration of 2.99792458 x 10^8 (m. s^-1) This gives the h
> >>> bar value, ( 5.2728633 x 10^-35 m^2. kg. s^-1) if you carry out
> > >>the multiplication, as was expected.
>
>> >So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
> >>but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
> >>central axis is c?
>
>> Todd, the model is a cube formed by connecting the Poynting vector to
>> itself. See http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm.
>Then the formula you're using for angular momentum is incorrect. If you
>assert that the electron is a cube, then you cannot use the formula
>L = m_electron*radius*some velocity of gyration
>You should check into some classical physics textbooks to learn about
>moments of inertia.
Todd, you are confusing the moments for a *solid* cube. The VPP cubes are
frameworks with the mass (energy) on the edges of lambda bar, and will
have the gyration radius of lambda bar/2, as used to get the spin angular
momentum. Note also that the charge radius for the two current loops is
exactly the square root of 2 times lambda bar/2 so the cube gives the
electron's Bohr magneton. See again the web page /home3.htm
> >up thinking the particles should be little spinning spheres, but nature
is
> >under no obligation to agree with our preconceived notions. If you
see
> >the web page, you will note that the cube model geometry supports all
of
>> the electron's numbers. Try that with a pointlike or spherical
doodad,
>> points and spheres don't work as models. Worse than that, such
childish
>> point like or spherical doodads can't trace their genealogy to any
model
>> for energy, Poynting or otherwise. The rotational velocity at c is
viewed
>> as the trapped photon chasing it's tail, so that relativity is not a
>> problem with the model
> >
>This does nothing to convince me that your model is right.
> (snip)
>If this is your proposed geometry, then your proposal is incorrect. For
>a cube, L is not equal to m_cube * radius (half side length?) * velocity
>of
>rotation. The mathematics simply does NOT work.
No, let me repeat, these are NOT solid cube models, but are cube
frameworks, so the math is for the spin angular momentum is correct.
>> All I can claim is that the geometry came about coherently
>> and seems to do a good job of relating the fundamental physical
constants.
>> Somehow the models are paralleling nature, and they are simple.
>
>Todd
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University
>Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
>WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
ThomasL283
>: o...@crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de (Thorsten Ohl) writes:
>>>>> "ThomasL283" == ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> writes:
ThomasL283> Todd, if the
ThomasL283> model disagrees with HEP, this suggests to me that there
ThomasL283> are secondary effects not corrected in the HEP analysis.
>If your model contradicts experiment, then _you_ have fix _your_ model
>instead of whining about reality not following your orders!
Why would one want to *fix* a model that predicts all the fundamental
physical constants? How could that be improved upon?
>Of course, there's no measurement without systematical and statistical
>errors, but we're talking SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE here! Mr. Lockyer's
>model gives the electron a size of it's compton wavelength, while past
>and present experiments don't see _any_ substructure 1.000.000 times
>(!) smaller. You do _not_ need big machines to falsify VPP.
Now the truth is given on what the HEP basis is for saying the electron is
a point particle. The twisted logic used is that: The electron does not
break up at high energies, therefore the electron has no structure, and is
a point particle. This conclusion ignores, of course, that the electron
must differ from the positron, in structure. VPP clearly shows that the
electron and positron have a conjugate structure.
>A lot of measurements of Bhabha scattering are pusblished and all
>MR. Lockyer has to do is to calculate the differential cross section
>of scattering two of his cubes and to compare this with the data. Any
>third year student is able to predict that Mr. Lockyer will find that
>his cubes have contributions from partial waves which are absent in
>the data.
Thorsten, Bhabha scattering is e-e+ and is Coulombic in nature. A much
more apt scattering test of cross section would be Compton scattering.
>(snip)
>Cheers,
>-Thorsten Ohl
>PS: The subject line is a reference to Feynman's ``Surely you're
> joking ...''. The corresponding chapter is a good description
> of Mr. Lockyer's approch to physics ...
Wait a minute, VPP takes ordinary electrons, neutrinos and using good
physics, predicts proton and neutron mass .
OTOH, QCD uses quarks, gluons, color, and at last count 21 empirically
derived parameters, and still cannot predict proton and neutron mass, and
this after 30+ years of work by the faithful.
( those who have my book, see page 3 for the 21 derived parameters used to
fake out QCD's results)
The current model agrees with experiment? No, the derived parameters
cooked the data to make it appear as such.
Which theory is cargo cult science a more apt description?
>Thorsten Ohl, Physics Department, TH Darmstadt --- PGP: AF 38 FF CE 03 8A
2E A7
>http://crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de/~ohl/ -------- 8F 2A C1 86 8C 06
32 6B
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Jonathan Butterworth
On 13 Aug 1996 gold...@wisenet.net wrote:
> I have yet to see where anyone has given any data or calculations which
> demonstrate that Lockyer's model gives the wrong results. Several have
> stated the it doesn't give the right results but no details as how his model
> differs from other models. It is not the responsibility for Lockyer to reply to
> insinuations with no details. I don't think that those who say he is wrong
> can show that his model predicts the wrong scattering data. Saying it
> does doesn't demonstate that. So let's have the demostration.
> Larry
>
If someone has a new theory of, for instance, electron structure, it is
*exactly*, *definitely* and *precisely* his/her responsibility to:
i) Review the literature, see what the current data on electron structure
are and how current theories compare with them. (This of course includes
scattering data!)
ii)Make the calculations of these processes from within their new theory
and compare them with the data.
iii)Look for extra things their new theory predicts which differ from the
predictions of the current theory.
Once the theory is shown to be at least consistent with all available data
at stage (ii), others in the scientific community may start taking it
seriously and spending time on it themselves. If (ii) and (iii) are both
done, things get really interesting :)
Sadly, Tom does not seem to have got as far as (i) yet, and clearly from
your statement, neither have you.
Cheers,
Jon
Patrick van Esch
gold...@wisenet.net wrote:
: I have yet to see where anyone has given any data or calculations which
: demonstrate that Lockyer's model gives the wrong results. Several have
: stated the it doesn't give the right results but no details as how his model
: differs from other models. It is not the responsibility for Lockyer to reply to
: insinuations with no details. I don't think that those who say he is wrong
: can show that his model predicts the wrong scattering data. Saying it
: does doesn't demonstate that. So let's have the demostration.
How much do you pay ?
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail: van...@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger van...@dice2.desy.de
Jim Panetta
In article <4ur4s5$s...@news.inc.net>, <gold...@wisenet.net> wrote:
>My only references available only show Feynman diagrams for
>Bhabha scattering. Are you saying that your reference gives
>calculations on those diagrams which shows that Lockyer's
>cube model for the electron and positron will result in a different
>elastic scattering?
>Larry
1) VPP insists on a *cubic* framework for the electron.
2) Bhabha scattering measurements, up to 140 GeV in the center
of mass do not show any evidence for a *cubic* framework.
3) VPP insists that the edge size of the electron is on order
\lambdabar_e, or about 4 x 10^-13 m
4) 140 GeV corresponds to about 1 x 10^-18 m.
5) VPP has no predictions of what goes on at 91 GeV, the Z pole.
The Z mass is *very* well measured. The line shape is also
*very* well measured.
6) Finally, it is not the community's responsibility to determine
the veracity of a theory. It is the responsibility of the author
to show that the theory *successfully* predicts *ALL* measurements
which are understood in the current theory. If the new theory
does this, then the community may be interested. Tom sweeps
scattering measurements under the rug by saying "But that has
nothing to do with it!" It does.
--Jim
ThomasL283
> Jonathan Butterworth <butt...@zow.desy.de>
On 13 Aug 1996 gold...@wisenet.net wrote:
>> I have yet to see where anyone has given any data or calculations which
>> demonstrate that Lockyer's model gives the wrong results. Several have
>> stated the it doesn't give the right results but no details as how his
model
>> differs from other models. It is not the responsibility for Lockyer to
reply to
>> insinuations with no details. I don't think that those who say he is
wrong
>> can show that his model predicts the wrong scattering data. Saying it
>> does doesn't demonstrate that. So let's have the demonstration.
>> Larry
>
>If someone has a new theory of, for instance, electron structure, it is
>*exactly*, *definitely* and *precisely* his/her responsibility to:
>I) Review the literature, see what the current data on electron structure
>are and how current theories compare with them. (This of course includes
>scattering data!)
>ii)Make the calculations of these processes from within their new theory
>and compare them with the data.
>iii)Look for extra things their new theory predicts which differ from the
>predictions of the current theory.
>Once the theory is shown to be at least consistent with all available
data
>at stage (ii), others in the scientific community may start taking it
>seriously and spending time on it themselves. If (ii) and (iii) are both
>done, things get really interesting :)
Jon, Of course, you give good advice. In the normal course of events one
would expect the sequence you give would be ideal.
I have been trying to impress on you fellows that the electron and
positron models were given by simply connecting the Poynting vector to
itself in all possible ways. Only later did I discover that these
structures acted like the electron and positron. Then, I looked at the
literature to try and find any experimental evidence for the *form* of
the electron. Well, you know what I got, QED and HEP say that the
electron is a point particle. ( I rejected that as BS) But, then I found
some effort had been made to model the electron's *classical radius*
postulating the electron as a charged sphere. That model was childish
and ad hoc. So, you see, the literature was no help.
The undisputable VPP electron model success seems be have been met
unjustified critics. As far as I can see from the literature, this is the
only physical model for the electron that one can hang *all* of the
electron's numbers on. To me this is the first test a model should pass.
VPP does, and no other proposed model can!
>Sadly, Tom does not seem to have got as far as (I) yet, and clearly from
>your statement, neither have you.
See above, I found that the literature is of no help, and has all the
failed and misleading speculations of the past. If the literature was
helpful, others would have made models for the electron. VPP is the only
model to ever give *both* the electron and positron a structure.
More than that, the VPP electron and neutrino models combine coherently
to model the worlds first and only successful models for the proton and
neutron.
There is enough detail and math on the web pages to show that the VPP
models get the fundamental physical constants correctly. The fundamental
physical constant agreements prove that the VPP electron, proton and
neutron models work as they should.
It seems particle physics wants to ignore the fundamental physical
constants, because lack of predicting the constants clearly shows that
the SM quark models don't agree with experiment.
>Cheers,
>Jon
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
ThomasL283
> pan...@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jim Panetta) wrote:
Subject: Re: Deducing and Calculating spin angular momentum of h bar
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:56:50 GMT
In article <4ur4s5$s...@news.inc.net>, <gold...@wisenet.net> wrote:
>>My only references available only show Feynman diagrams for
>>Bhabha scattering. Are you saying that your reference gives
>>calculations on those diagrams which shows that Lockyer's
>>cube model for the electron and positron will result in a different
>>elastic scattering?
>>Larry
>1) VPP insists on a *cubic* framework for the electron.
>2) Bhabha scattering measurements, up to 140 GeV in the center
> of mass do not show any evidence for a *cubic* framework.
>3) VPP insists that the edge size of the electron is on order
> \lambdabar_e, or about 4 x 10^-13 m
>4) 140 GeV corresponds to about 1 x 10^-18 m.
Jim, you cannot infer the *size* of the electron from Bhabha scattering
experiments.
There are at least five different scattering involving the electron:
1) Thompson scattering (Xray to the atomic electron)
2) Compton scattering (X-ray to free electron)
3) Rutherford scattering (electron to atoms)
4) Moller scattering (electron to electron)
5) Bhabha scattering (electron to positron)
Of these, only the Compton scattering gives the same Compton wavelength
over a wide energy range, and can be used to *infer* a size for the
electron.
> (snip)
> Finally, it is not the community's responsibility to determine
> the veracity of a theory. It is the responsibility of the author
> to show that the theory *successfully* predicts *ALL* measurements
> which are understood in the current theory. If the new theory
> does this, then the community may be interested. Tom sweeps
> scattering measurements under the rug by saying "But that has
> nothing to do with it!" It does.
My god, will you fellows stop circling the wagons. Look, there has never
been a model that so perfectly matches *all* of the electron's numbers.
The VPP model geometry of the spinning cube works beautifully. The VPP
model explains the relationships between electron mass, charge, spin
angular momentum and magnetic moment, using the geometry of the spinning
cube framework. More than that, the model also shows *why* the electron
and positron are spinning. How many models have you seen do that?
> --Jim
--
>My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
>(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
>pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Todd K. Pedlar
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> > pan...@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jim Panetta) wrote:
>
> >1) VPP insists on a *cubic* framework for the electron.
> >2) Bhabha scattering measurements, up to 140 GeV in the center
> > of mass do not show any evidence for a *cubic* framework.
> >3) VPP insists that the edge size of the electron is on order
> > \lambdabar_e, or about 4 x 10^-13 m
> >4) 140 GeV corresponds to about 1 x 10^-18 m.
>
> Jim, you cannot infer the *size* of the electron from Bhabha scattering
> experiments.
Why? Do you understand the calculation of the Bhabha scattering cross
section? The existence of a finite charge distribution for the electron
is quite easy to distinguish - the cross sections look quite different
for a finite charged body than for one whose spatial extent is below
the spatial resolution of the experiment.
>
> There are at least five different scattering involving the electron:
>
> 1) Thompson scattering (Xray to the atomic electron)
> 2) Compton scattering (X-ray to free electron)
> 3) Rutherford scattering (electron to atoms)
> 4) Moller scattering (electron to electron)
> 5) Bhabha scattering (electron to positron)
>
> Of these, only the Compton scattering gives the same Compton wavelength
> over a wide energy range, and can be used to *infer* a size for the
> electron.
You're correct that only Compton scattering gives the Compton
wavelength.
However, you're quite incorrect to claim that the Compton wavelength is
the only relevant length scale for the size of the electron.
Both Moller and Bhabha scattering can be used to infer a size for the
extent of the charge distribution of the electron. It's a simple
calculation,
and the data does indeed show the charge extent of the electron to be
much smaller than the Compton wavelength (by several orders of
magnitude).
>
> > (snip)
> > Finally, it is not the community's responsibility to determine
> > the veracity of a theory. It is the responsibility of the author
> > to show that the theory *successfully* predicts *ALL* measurements
> > which are understood in the current theory. If the new theory
> > does this, then the community may be interested. Tom sweeps
> > scattering measurements under the rug by saying "But that has
> > nothing to do with it!" It does.
>
> My god, will you fellows stop circling the wagons. Look, there has never
> been a model that so perfectly matches *all* of the electron's numbers.
> The VPP model geometry of the spinning cube works beautifully. The VPP
> model explains the relationships between electron mass, charge, spin
> angular momentum and magnetic moment, using the geometry of the spinning
> cube framework. More than that, the model also shows *why* the electron
> and positron are spinning. How many models have you seen do that?
How does it show WHY the electron is spinning?
Regards,
Todd
Dan Evens
ThomasL283 wrote:
> There is enough detail and math on the web pages to show that the VPP
> models get the fundamental physical constants correctly. The fundamental
> physical constant agreements prove that the VPP electron, proton and
> neutron models work as they should.
There is not. You keep saying this, but it is false.
You do not have an INTERACTION on your web page. How do you know what
you have constructed (in a totally ad hoc fashion) has any connection
with reality (let alone the electron) if you can't say how it interacts.
The mass of the electron is NOT a primary. Nor is its magnetic moment.
What is a primary is FINDING the silly thing. And this requires you know
its interaction.
You don't have one. You don't have an electron.
--
The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
whatever to do with my employer. I don't even know what my
employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
Dan Evens
Thorsten Ohl
>>>>> "Larry" == <gold...@wisenet.net> writes:
Larry> I have yet to see where anyone has given any data or
Larry> calculations which demonstrate that Lockyer's model gives
Larry> the wrong results. Several have stated the it doesn't give
Larry> the right results but no details as how his model differs
Larry> from other models.
No need for this as Lockyer does it himself. He claims that
point-like particles are ``BS'' (his scientific terminology) and
postulates his cubes. We're just pointing out that no trace of these
cube has been found so far.
Larry> It is not the responsibility for Lockyer to reply to
Larry> insinuations with no details. I don't think that those who say
Larry> he is wrong can show that his model predicts the wrong
Larry> scattering data.
That's _basic_ quantum mechanics. If you scatter _extended_ objects
(Lockyer's cubes are _huge_), then you will see a deviation from the
scattering of point-like particles. This deviation is usually called
a ``form factor'' and depends on the size of the object. Gazillions
of experiments have looked for a non-vanishing form-factor of
electrons and have found _nothing_. The most sensitive experiments
have looked at distance scales that are five orders of magnitude
smaller than Lockyer's cubes. They didn't find anything either.
This is how Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus: he didn't see a
form factor when he scattered alpha particles from gold atoms. From
this he deduced that there must me (almost) point-like objects
scattering the particles.
On the other hand, Hoffstaedter (the father) could show that the
proton is not point-like at higher energies by measuring its form
factor.
And if we do inelastic lepton-proton scattering at even higher
energies, we seen that the proton itself is composed of point-like
particles. We call them quarks and gluons.
Larry> Saying it does doesn't demonstate
Larry> that. So let's have the demostration.
How much more detail do you want? To a trained physicist the
form-factor argument is as obvious as the fact that you can't drive a
truck through a key hole. You don't have to give the model of the
truck or the lock to demonstrate this.
--
Johan Wevers
ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> wrote:
>There are at least five different scattering involving the electron:
>
>1) Thompson scattering (Xray to the atomic electron)
>2) Compton scattering (X-ray to free electron)
[...]
As far as I knowm Compton scattering is the relativistic limit of Thomson
scattering. Both are scattering at free electrons, but at low energies
atomic electrons appear as free in the scatter process.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers (*) For Physics and science fiction information:
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl (*) http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger joh...@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
Patrick van Esch
Thorsten Ohl (o...@crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de) wrote:
: form-factor argument is as obvious as the fact that you can't drive a
: truck through a key hole. You don't have to give the model of the
: truck or the lock to demonstrate this.
The interesting thing to notice, here, is that if you take the keyhole
to be 1 cm, and the truck 10 m, this is "only" 3 orders of magnitude
wrong, so it is a 100 to a 1000 times easier to drive the truck
through the keyhole than to accomodate for these cubes :-)
ThomasL283
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>writes:
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> > pan...@finch.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jim Panetta) wrote:
>
>> >1) VPP insists on a *cubic* framework for the electron.
> >>2) Bhabha scattering measurements, up to 140 GeV in the center
> > > of mass do not show any evidence for a *cubic* framework.
>> >3) VPP insists that the edge size of the electron is on order
>> > \lambdabar_e, or about 4 x 10^-13 m
>> >4) 140 GeV corresponds to about 1 x 10^-18 m.
>
>> Jim, you cannot infer the *size* of the electron from Bhabha
scattering
>> experiments.
>Why? Do you understand the calculation of the Bhabha scattering cross
>section? The existence of a finite charge distribution for the electron
>is quite easy to distinguish - the cross sections look quite different
>for a finite charged body than for one whose spatial extent is below
>the spatial resolution of the experiment.
Todd, no, I am not an expert in these matters. But, it seems to me that
charged particles scattering from charged particles, at high energies,
would result in all sorts of complications. If the cross section runs
with energy, then the calculations are not really definitive. Many such
scattering processes depend on the DeBroglie wavelength, so the cross
section runs with velocity (energy).
OTOH, the Compton scattering is more intimate, since the photon has to
enter the electron and impart some of its energy. The beauty is that
Compton scattering gives the *same* Compton wavelength over a wide energy
range. Compton scattering is a definitive process.
>
> >There are at least five different scattering involving the electron:
>
>> 1) Thompson scattering (X-ray to the atomic electron)
>> 2) Compton scattering (X-ray to free electron)
>> 3) Rutherford scattering (electron to atoms)
>> 4) Moller scattering (electron to electron)
>> 5) Bhabha scattering (electron to positron)
>
>> Of these, only the Compton scattering gives the same Compton wavelength
>> over a wide energy range, and can be used to *infer* a size for the
>> electron.
>You're correct that only Compton scattering gives the Compton
>wavelength.
>However, you're quite incorrect to claim that the Compton wavelength is
>the only relevant length scale for the size of the electron.
>Both Moller and Bhabha scattering can be used to infer a size for the
>extent of the charge distribution of the electron. It's a simple
>calculation,
>and the data does indeed show the charge extent of the electron to be
>much smaller than the Compton wavelength (by several orders of
>magnitude).
Again I would ask if the scattering runs with energy? If it does not,
then one could argue that the charge extent is much smaller than the
electron. The charge must represent the charge current in the electron's
two current loop areas. In the VPP model these are the famous *elbows*
used to explain *geometrically* the anomalous magnetic moment of the
electron (sans QED)
>
> > (snip)
>> The VPP model geometry of the spinning cube works beautifully. The
VPP
>> model explains the relationships between electron mass, charge, spin
>> angular momentum and magnetic moment, using the geometry of the
spinning
>> cube framework. More than that, the model also shows *why* the electron
>> and positron are spinning. How many models have you seen do that?
>How does it show WHY the electron is spinning?
Todd, if you can look at the web page
(htttp://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm) model of the electron, notice
the trapped photon's momentum, in the front and back cube faces, are
going in the same direction. This chance arrangement in the shared
phasors of the Poynting vectors, produces the electron model's spin
angular momentum of one half h bar.
>Regards,
>Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University
>Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
>WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
ThomasL283
Hope this does not appear twice, I posted this last nite and could not
find it this morning. :-(
Jim Carr
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>
> .... But, it seems to me that charged particles
>scattering from charged particles, at high energies, would result in all
>sorts of complications.
You can stick to elastic scattering if you wish.
>If the cross section runs with energy, then the calculations are not really
>definitive.
You have a model that incorporates electrodynamics to get magnetic
moments and the like. Certainly your model gives a result for the
electromagnetic interaction between electrons, or you would not be
comparing it to QED. You use this interaction to calculate the
cross section. No speculation is necessary. Just apply your model.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.
Jim Carr
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>
> ... The fact is that the VPP models give all the correct answers.
VPP is constructed so it gives the correct answer to *some* questions.
It gives extremely wrong answers to others.
> ... QED does not give structures to the
>electron, positron, electron type neutrino or muon type neutrino pair, so
>why bring it up.
It breaks my heart to tell you this, but it was probably brought
up because experiment agrees with the predictions of QED and its
pointlike electron. Not just the anomalous moment (which is
derived, not constructed) but scattering data as well.
Jim Carr
"Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
}
} So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
} but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
} central axis is c?
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>
>Todd, the model is a cube formed by connecting the Poynting vector to
>itself.
Which means that a polarized electron looks like some rings of charge.
> I know we all grew
>up thinking the particles should be little spinning spheres, but nature is
>under no obligation to agree with our preconceived notions.
Including yours.
And the experimental data on electron scattering disagree with your
notions. This was pointed out to you a long time (years) ago and there
is still no indication that you have bothered to work out electron-proton
scattering and electron-electron scattering in your model and compare
it to the experimental data in the literature.
ThomasL283
> Dan Evens <dan....@hydro.on.ca>
ThomasL283 wrote:
> >There is enough detail and math on the web pages to show that the VPP
> >models get the fundamental physical constants correctly. The
fundamental
> >physical constant agreements prove that the VPP electron, proton and
> >neutron models work as they should.
>There is not. You keep saying this, but it is false.
It is not false, Dan. At least one fellow followed the calculations and
said the model worked as advertized. He posted that on this forum, where
were you?
>You do not have an INTERACTION on your web page. How do you know what
>you have constructed (in a totally ad hoc fashion) has any connection
>with reality (let alone the electron) if you can't say how it interacts.
The model is not constructed for the purpose of *making* an electron and
positron. You must realize that the model *gives* them their structures
naturally by combining the energy model in *all* possible ways. The
energy model also gives structures for the electron and muon type
neutrino pair. Why do you persist in belittling the only model that has
ever been able to do that?
You don't understand how the model INTERACTS by the simple act of adding
the vectors of the electron and neutrino. VPP is the only successful
model for the proton and neutron, as a result.
>The mass of the electron is NOT a primary. Nor is its magnetic moment.
>What is a primary is FINDING the silly thing. And this requires you know
>its interaction.
>You don't have one. You don't have an electron.
Dan, the energy model's combinations gives me a structure that one can
hang *all* of the electron's numbers on. Do you know of any other model
that can do that, for both the electron and positron? It surely is an
electron model in every sense of the word.
See again: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm for the electron's
model.
--
>The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
>whatever to do with my employer. I don't even know what my
>employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
>Dan Evens
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Thomas N. Lockyer
In article <4vdr2k$1...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>From: j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
>Subject: Re: Deducing and Calculating spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar
>Date: 20 Aug 1996 22:08:20 -0400
>"Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
>}
>} So you're saying that the electron is not spherical, not pointlike,
>} but it is a ring of radius 193 fm whose rotational velocity about its
>} central axis is c?
>thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>>
>>Todd, the model is a cube formed by connecting the Poynting vector to
>>itself.
>Which means that a polarized electron looks like some rings of charge.
THe model has current loop areas that turned out to exactly match the Bohr
magneton. I did not devise the electron model, it fell out of simply
connecting the Poynting vector to itself. In this respect the VPP model is a
self assembling model, not an ad hoc model like the SM.
>> I know we all grew
>>up thinking the particles should be little spinning spheres, but nature is
>>under no obligation to agree with our preconceived notions.
>Including yours.
Yes, but one can hang *all* of the electron's numbers on the VPP electron.
>And the experimental data on electron scattering disagree with your
>notions. This was pointed out to you a long time (years) ago and there
>is still no indication that you have bothered to work out electron-proton
>scattering and electron-electron scattering in your model and compare
>it to the experimental data in the literature.
Again this is shadows on the wall, or extrapolations from very large
machines. Where does the scattering data lead us? I trust the
fundamental physical constants, rather than inferences upon inferences.
Note the VPP models lead to the only successful models for both the proton and
neutron. No other model can make that claim, so SM models are wost probably
false.
>--
> James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.
Regards; Tom, http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Thomas N. Lockyer
In article <4vdrrn$1...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>From: j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
>Subject: Re: Deducing and Calculating spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar
>thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>>
>> .... But, it seems to me that charged particles
>>scattering from charged particles, at high energies, would result in all
>>sorts of complications.
>You can stick to elastic scattering if you wish.
>>If the cross section runs with energy, then the calculations are not really
>>definitive.
>You have a model that incorporates electrodynamics to get magnetic
>moments and the like. Certainly your model gives a result for the
>electromagnetic interaction between electrons, or you would not be
>comparing it to QED. You use this interaction to calculate the
>cross section. No speculation is necessary. Just apply your model.
Yes, I do have some calculations of the interaction between the positron and
electron that uses the near field magnetic moments to show that this mechanism
is the most important because it permits the e-e+ pair to separate at their
photoproduction. Were it not so, VPP indicates the universe, as we know it ,
could not exist, because matter could not form. see /home2a.htm
>--
> James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.
Regards: Tom. http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Dan Evens
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> Jim, you cannot justify the point particle from physics. It is impossible to
> have a point positron, and a point electron, and at the same time two
> different particles. It's crazy, and it leads nowhwere.
You don't get to impose your fantasies on reality. Reality is what it is,
not what you want it to be.
To claim that point particles are impossible is not rational considering
the fact that a variety of succesful theories have used them to calculate
the results of experiments.
Thomas N. Lockyer
In article <4vdrga$1...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>From: j...@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
>Subject: Re: Deducing and Calculating spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar
>thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>>
>> ... The fact is that the VPP models give all the correct answers.
>VPP is constructed so it gives the correct answer to *some* questions.
Please, I did not construct the model's stuctures, but discovered how they
combined and fit together. There is a big difference, this model is in
control. You are used to seeing the theorist postulate every basis for his
theory. This VPP model *gives* the structrures. That is why VPP succeeds and
the QCD models fail. QCD is forced to work, VPP is not.
>It gives extremely wrong answers to others.
Such as?
>> ... QED does not give structures to the
>>electron, positron, electron type neutrino or muon type neutrino pair, so
>>why bring it up.
>It breaks my heart to tell you this, but it was probably brought
>up because experiment agrees with the predictions of QED and its
>pointlike electron. Not just the anomalous moment (which is
>derived, not constructed) but scattering data as well.
Jim, you cannot justify the point particle from physics. It is impossible to
have a point positron, and a point electron, and at the same time two
different particles. It's crazy, and it leads nowhwere.
Dan Evens
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> Again this is shadows on the wall, or extrapolations from very large
> machines. Where does the scattering data lead us? I trust the
> fundamental physical constants, rather than inferences upon inferences.
Your behaviour is really quite offensive. You just shrug off requests
for explanations of how your notions fit in with experimental data.
Reproduce for me the calculation of Compton scattering in your model.
Reproduce the calculation of the hydrogen atom energy levels.
Reproduce the Lamb shift.
Energy levels in atoms, for example, are a primary observation. These
were observed long before the charge and mass of the electron were.
You CAN'T do any of these because you don't have an interaction. You
don't have a microscopic explanation of the behaviour of electrons.
So you have no way to connect your lump to any data. So you shrug it off.
> Note the VPP models lead to the only successful models for both the proton and
> neutron. No other model can make that claim, so SM models are wost probably
> false.
Again and again you make this claim. VPP does not even have a way of
identifying the electron as the object in your notions. An electron is
not just a thing with a particular charge and a particular mass. You can
recognize it by these things in experiments, but you can NOT recognize it
by these things in theories. This is because, as has been pointed out
repeatedly, these are NOT the only characteristics that an electron has.
An entire bundle of characteristics that it has is how it behaves when you
bang it off other electrons, how it behaves when you hit it with light,
how it behaves in an atom when you put it in an electric field or a
magnetic field. In other words, its interaction.
You don't have an interaction (except for the one you cheat and put in
to fake an electromagnetic contribution) and so you can not identify
this lump in your theory as an electron.
ThomasL283
> Dan Evens <dan....@hydro.on.ca> writes:
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
>> Again this is shadows on the wall, or extrapolations from very large
>> machines. Where does the scattering data lead us? I trust the
>> fundamental physical constants, rather than inferences upon inferences.
>Your behaviour is really quite offensive. You just shrug off requests
>for explanations of how your notions fit in with experimental data.
>Reproduce for me the calculation of Compton scattering in your model.
>Reproduce the calculation of the hydrogen atom energy levels.
>Reproduce the Lamb shift.
>Energy levels in atoms, for example, are a primary observation. These
>were observed long before the charge and mass of the electron were.
>You CAN'T do any of these because you don't have an interaction. You
>don't have a microscopic explanation of the behaviour of electrons.
>So you have no way to connect your lump to any data. So you shrug it off.
Dan, forgive me, but I fail to see how that should be argued. As I
mentioned to Todd, all the particles have to bring to the reaction are
their mass, spin, charge and magnetic moment. Now, if one has a model
that gives these to the same precision they are known experimentally, then
you tell me why you think they fail?
>> Note the VPP models lead to the only successful models for both the
proton and
>> neutron. No other model can make that claim, so SM models are most
probably
>> false.
>Again and again you make this claim. VPP does not even have a way of
>identifying the electron as the object in your notions. An electron is
>not just a thing with a particular charge and a particular mass. You can
>recognize it by these things in experiments, but you can NOT recognize it
>by these things in theories.
What? Surely you are not serious.
>This is because, as has been pointed out
>repeatedly, these are NOT the only characteristics that an electron has.
>An entire bundle of characteristics that it has is how it behaves when
you
>bang it off other electrons, how it behaves when you hit it with light,
>how it behaves in an atom when you put it in an electric field or a
>magnetic field. In other words, its interaction.
No, I believe that first we should get the electron's intrinsic structure
and only then we may develop a theory as to why the particle reacts like
we observe, experimentally. I leave that to others.
>You don't have an interaction (except for the one you cheat and put in
>to fake an electromagnetic contribution) and so you can not identify
>this lump in your theory as an electron.
If you mean the enlargement of the current loops, you must realize that
the electron model is geometric, and that geometry adjustment can be
obtained from a normal power series of the fine structure constant divided
by 2pi. Now QED also needs a good value for the fine structure constant,
so QED *cheats* as much.. In fact, using that normal power series, the
model can calculate the positron and give the mass ratios for *both* the
proton and neutron. Take some time and print out the web pages and
follow the math. I know it is painful, and I don't blame you for being
outraged, but there it is.
--
>The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
>whatever to do with my employer. I don't even know what my
>employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
>Dan Evens
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Wolfram Schroers
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> Note the VPP models lead to the only successful models for both the proton and
> false.
Then I have to tell you some very depressing news: The SM models (Minimal Standard
Model, Next-to-minimal-SM Model, supersymmetric extensions of these) are all
definitely "wrong" in the sense that they are not a theory for everything. They
are just effective theories valid in the energy range we have access to. Beyond
this range we can just make some good guesses but nothing more. All we want to
achieve is modelling the effects we encounter and build a theory that predicts
as many effects as possible with as few input as possible.
Even if you don't like it: our QFT-type theories are all successful and (even
if you don't like their concepts) they do their job and describe the
phenomenons we encounter quite well.
If you propose a theory that makes all these predictions with less input then
you have done a good job indeed. But unless you show that you can reproduce
all experiments, your theory will be considered to be useless. Just show how
you reproduce the cross sections from the scattering experiments and people
may start to take your thoughts serious.
Many people have pointed out that your theory is not able to do this. So either
you live with this and start to do something different with your time or you
should help us and point out why thousands of particle physicists can't share
your enlightment.
As long as you didn't do this the SM-type models will still be wrong but more
correct than your model.
So long,
Wolfram 8-)
--
_____________________________________________________________________
| \ /\ / olfram Schroers
| \/ \/ Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
| Institut fuer Theoretische Physik II
| email: Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
| WWW: http://www.tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~wolframs/wolframs.html
Johan Wevers
Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@best.com> wrote:
>Jim, you cannot justify the point particle from physics.
Why not? BTW, modern physics claims only that the particles apear to be
point-like on scales larger than the Planck length. Below that, particles
could very well have an internal structure, like the one used in string
theory. But your model claims them to have a much larger structure, which
is ruled out experimentally. And physics is a science where experiments
are still decisive.
ThomasL283
> Dan Evens <dan....@hydro.on.ca> writes:
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
>> Jim, you cannot justify the point particle from physics. It is
impossible to
>> have a point positron, and a point electron, and at the same time two
>> different particles. It's crazy, and it leads nowhere.
>You don't get to impose your fantasies on reality. Reality is what it is,
>not what you want it to be.
Dan, it is not a fantasy if one uses models for the known electrons and
neutrinos, and makes perfectly good proton and neutron models.
OTOH, if one uses quarks, gluons and color forces and cannot make good
models for the proton and neutron, that's imposing their fantasies on
reality, trying to make it (to no avail) what they want it to be.
>To claim that point particles are impossible is not rational considering
>the fact that a variety of successful theories have used them to
calculate
>the results of experiments.
Sure, QED can always subtract out the resulting infinities with math that
( to quote Feynman) is a shell game.
Dan Evens
ThomasL283 wrote:
> Dan, forgive me, but I fail to see how that should be argued. As I
> mentioned to Todd, all the particles have to bring to the reaction are
> their mass, spin, charge and magnetic moment. Now, if one has a model
> that gives these to the same precision they are known experimentally, then
> you tell me why you think they fail?
If I brought you a model that gave those things, but had an electron the
size of a bowling ball, would you still think it was correct? I HAVE such
a theory, by the way. It is trivial to construct.
If indeed these are all that a particle brings to a reaction, then you
will have no trouble doing the calculations I suggested. I repeat them.
Compton scattering
energy levels in an atom
Lamb shift
If you were to try your model with, for example, hydrogen atom energy
levels, you will get them wrong. The lump you have labeled an electron
is nearly as large as the entire hydrogen atom. This means there will
be a significant correction for the overlap of the electron and the
proton in the hydrogen atom. This correction is absent from the atomic
spectra of hydrogen. Your theory is massively incorrect.
ThomasL283
>Dan Evens <dan....@hydro.on.ca> writes:
ThomasL283 wrote:
>> Dan, forgive me, but I fail to see how that should be argued. As I
>> mentioned to Todd, all the particles have to bring to the reaction are
>> their mass, spin, charge and magnetic moment. Now, if one has a model
>> that gives these to the same precision they are known experimentally,
then
>> you tell me why you think they fail?
>If I brought you a model that gave those things, but had an electron the
>size of a bowling ball, would you still think it was correct? I HAVE
such
>a theory, by the way. It is trivial to construct.
I would know the model was not correct because it should be able to give,
from the same structure, the electron's mass, spin angular momentum and
magnetic moment, and also I would demand that the model show why the
electron is spinning. If your model did all that, then I would know that
you started with a model for energy and had ended up (coherently) with a
cube structure, because the cube is the only geometry that one can
simultaneously hang *all* of the electron's numbers on.
(Snip)
Let's cut to the chase here. Do you have "The Feynman LECTURE SERIES ON
PHYSICS" Vol II? See the chapter 28 on Electromagnetic Mass for an over
view of the early work on the electron's structure. See page 28-6 just
before para 28-5, Quote: " And we can see that infinity arises because of
the force of one part of the electron on another --because we have allowed
what is perhaps a silly thing, the possibility of the "point" electron
acting on itself." Unquote. Through out the chapter there is a debate
about the source of the electron's mass. They totally ignore the
electron's mechanical spin angular momentum, which stores energy, and
seemed to be preoccupied with the electromagnetic mass. There were
childish attempts to model the electron as a charged sphere, and then in
the next paragraph the electron became a point particle. That was all 30
years ago, and to this day there has not been a satisfactory model for the
electron. We can continue to muse over those old ad hoc, childish and
failed models, or adopt the successful VPP model for the electron. In
the VPP electron the mass energy is entirely stored in the spin angular
momentum. OTOH, the model combines the positron and conjugating electron
type neutrinos and obtains the mass of the proton *and* neutron. The VPP
proton and neutron mass is the sum of both mechanically stored energy and
stored electrical potential energy in the space between nested cubes. VPP
gets the proton mass to within 0.0000324 % of the CODATA and the neutrons
mass to within 0.000004 % of the CODATA recommended value.
Let me remind you that the VPP models are the only models that have *ever*
been able to give the difference in the mass between the proton and
neutron, and actually require the known decay electron and neutrino of the
neutron.
--
>The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
>whatever to do with my employer. I don't even know what my
>employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
>Dan Evens
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
ThomasL283
> Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>writes:
Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
>> Note the VPP models lead to the only successful models for both the
proton and
> >neutron. No other model can make that claim, so SM models are most
probably
> >false.
>Then I have to tell you some very depressing news: The SM models (Minimal
Standard
>Model, Next-to-minimal-SM Model, supersymmetric extensions of these) are
all
>definitely "wrong" in the sense that they are not a theory for
everything. They
>are just effective theories valid in the energy range we have access to.
Beyond
>this range we can just make some good guesses but nothing more. All we
want to
>achieve is modelling the effects we encounter and build a theory that
predicts
>as many effects as possible with as few input as possible.
Wolfram, thanks for your thoughts, and comments. My big surprise was the
efforts by some
posters to make me out some sort of villain. The VPP models the ordinary
particles that the universe is composed of, so they do not really compete
with the HEP regimes. The HEP methods are designed to require large
machines, and as such are in a bureaucracy of their own. It is all very
interesting, but one is prompted to ask "Does HEP provide a coherent
picture
of the building blocks of matter?" Unfortunately, the answer is no.
>Even if you don't like it: our QFT-type theories are all successful and
(even
>if you don't like their concepts) they do their job and describe the
>phenomenons we encounter quite well.
Trouble is, to make QM theories work, one must impose boundary conditions
that beg the
results. Note that VPP has a natural boundary condition on account of the
non linearity of the
near field magnetic and electric forces. That exclusive (natural)
boundary condition shows only
the electron/ positron pair can be basic particles. This natural boundary
value shows that the postulated quarks (36 at last count) cannot exist.
>If you propose a theory that makes all these predictions with less input
then
>you have done a good job indeed. But unless you show that you can
reproduce
>all experiments, your theory will be considered to be useless. Just show
how
>you reproduce the cross sections from the scattering experiments and
people
>may start to take your thoughts serious.
Wolfram, it seems that cross sections are major tools in the HEP toolbox,
and I can understand
you attaching importance to cross sections.. But, VPP only has been
concerned with developing particle structure and getting the fundamental
physical constants to agree. I am not an expert on scattering, but such
tests, by their nature, require assumptions about the particles, so are
paradigm driven to a large extent.
>Many people have pointed out that your theory is not able to do this. So
either
>you live with this and start to do something different with your time or
you
>should help us and point out why thousands of particle physicists can't
share
>your enlightment.
>As long as you didn't do this the SM-type models will still be wrong but
more
>correct than your model.
My standards for judging a model differ, to me the experimentally measured
physical constants
(known to parts per million) must be used to test any theoretical model
for subatomic particles.
If the VPP models had failed this criteria, then I would have accept that
they were wrong.
The VPP proton does predict a unique angle value (11.84700414 degrees)
for the nutation of the
magnetic moment vector during NMR. This is testable if an NMR goniometer
experiment similar
to one by M. Rakos (Czech. J. Phys. B21 (1971)) can be improved upon. His
results, while not designed for this test, do indicate that the predicted
angle is in the ball park. See /home6.htm
This test, if successful, can prove that the VPP proton model is correct
and that the quark model is not correct
>So long,
> Wolfram 8-)
--
_____________________________________________________________________
| \ /\ / olfram Schroers
| \/ \/ Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
| Institut fuer Theoretische Physik II
| email: Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
| WWW: http://www.tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~wolframs/wolframs.html
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
ThomasL283
> joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>>Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@best.com> wrote:
>>Jim, you cannot justify the point particle from physics.
>Why not? BTW, modern physics claims only that the particles appear to be
>point-like on scales larger than the Planck length. Below that, particles
>could very well have an internal structure, like the one used in string
>theory. But your model claims them to have a much larger structure, which
>is ruled out experimentally. And physics is a science where experiments
>are still decisive.
Johan, I cannot see how a point particle could have mass, spin angular
momentum and magnetic moment. Physics requires a definite radius arm
length, for the spin angular momentum, and definite current loop areas,
for the magnetic moment. The physically required arm lengths and loop
areas are not present on a point particle.
As I suggested to Dan, the VPP electron is spinning at ( c ) so that
relativity would make the VPP electron appear as a point particle to
observers out side of the electron's reference frame.
--
>ir. J.C.A. Wevers (*) For Physics and science fiction
information:
>joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl (*) http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
>Finger joh...@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Wolfram Schroers
In article <4vm2os$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, thoma...@aol.com
(ThomasL283) wrote:
[snip]
> Wolfram, thanks for your thoughts, and
> comments. My big surprise was the efforts by
> some posters to make me out some sort of
> villain. The VPP models the ordinary
> particles that the universe is composed of, so
> they do not really compete with the HEP
> regimes.
Before continuing: What is the "HEP regime"? Can you quantify the energy
range? Any tools we can apply to physics at 1TeV can be applied to 1MeV as
well. Only the coupling constant will be different (perhaps some masses
will no longer be negligible like they were at high energy scales, too) and
in the case of QCD this may cause some mathematical framework to fail. But
current field theories try to cover *ALL* phenomena. And if you only build
an effective theory that is valid in a certain energy range you might want
to relate it more general models.
> The HEP methods are designed to require large
> machines, and as such are in a bureaucracy of
> their own.
What? Scattering theory is a very simple subject; it can be done by a
first year student. You don't need quantum theories, you only need
Newtonian mechanics and Coulomb's law to find out how the cross section of
a point particle differs from a continous charge distribution. You can do
it in a few hours if you tried, believe me.
> It is all very
> interesting, but one is prompted to ask "Does
> HEP provide a coherent picture of the building
> blocks of matter?" Unfortunately, the answer
> is no.
This is true, but the AIM is to find this coherent picture. And a coherent
picture (valid in the energy range up to several TeV and above) will both
have to reproduce low-energy hadron spectra and high-energy scattering
data. The hope is that it is possible to build such a theory - no, the
attempts are not successful yet, since if they were we wouldn't be
discussing here.
> Trouble is, to make QM theories work, one must
> impose boundary conditions that beg the
> results. Note that VPP has a natural boundary
> condition on account of the non linearity of
> the near field magnetic and electric forces.
> That exclusive (natural) boundary condition
> shows only the electron/ positron pair can be
> basic particles. This natural boundary value
> shows that the postulated quarks (36 at last
> count) cannot exist.
This is nonsense. There is no "natural boundary". If you setup a theory
you start with some assumptions. How many of them you have or what they
look like is not prescribed by any God-made laws. (Well maybe there is
one, but we don't know of it.) Of course before you can start with QM you
will need some axioms but with those you can build your theory and then
proceed without further input. ANY other model has to do the same, except
that you don't call your assumptions axioms but somehow different. But
they are still assumptions and nothing more.
> Wolfram, it seems that cross sections are major
> tools in the HEP toolbox, and I can understand
> you attaching importance to cross sections..
> But, VPP only has been concerned with
> developing particle structure and getting the
> fundamental physical constants to agree. I
> am not an expert on scattering, but such tests,
> by their nature, require assumptions about the
> particles, so are paradigm driven to a large
> extent.
Electrons scattering can be done at different energies and even Newtonian
mechanics with Coulombs law can describe it (see above). For scattering
you don't need any further assumptions since it is a simple experiment that
has been made quite often in lots of energy ranges. So any theory that
deals with particles should have to say something about it ... Ah, now I
understand what you want to do. You don't want to setup a theory that
describes experiments. You just setup a theory that describes particles at
rest and look if you can say something about them.
I must admit that this is completely justified. You have done a nice job
in describing some aspects of fundamental particles. But you should be
able to see that this has nothing to do with building a physical theory
that describes particles since such a theory will have to describe *ALL*
aspects and not only a subset that you are experienced with. You cannot
say something about existence or non-existence of quarks and you can
neither say anything about QM since these are completely different from
your theory. Just a comparison: if nature was a car then physicists try to
find out how it drives. YOU are standing outside and ask yourself if it is
possible to paint it red; you don't consider the question of driving it at
all.
> My standards for judging a model differ, to me
> the experimentally measured physical constants
> (known to parts per million) must be used to
> test any theoretical model for subatomic
> particles. If the VPP models had failed this
> criteria, then I would have accept that they
> were wrong.
[BTW: ppm is a unit of concentration and not a unit of a physical constant]
Most people disagree with this; theories are build up by using a few
experimentally measured quantities (what you call physical constants) and
then predict other quantities. Your standards require predicting only some
quantities (that you consider to be extraordinarily important since these
are accidently input values of some other theories) and ignoring others.
[snip]
> This test, if successful, can prove that the
> VPP proton model is correct and that the quark
> model is not correct
Since the QCD model of the proton is very complicated it is hard to make
predictions at this time. But still the evidence is good that QCD is a
useful theory. Anyway, scattering experiments (and these are in the
mid-energy range and can be described with QED by any advanced high-school
student and does not require big machines but it is simply a few pages of
calculations) clearly show that protons and neutrons have a substructure
(sometimes called partons) and thus rule out any model that does not
predict this substructure.
In the meantime you should consider what I said above about sense of
physical theories and since I believe you are intelligent you should see
that your model can not compete modern particle physics.
Greetings,
Wolfram 8-)
ThomasL283
>Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Wolfram Schroers) writes:
In article <4vm2os$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, thoma...@aol.com
(ThomasL283) wrote:
[snip]
>> The VPP models the ordinary
> >particles that the universe is composed of, so
> >they do not really compete with the HEP
> >regimes.
>Before continuing: What is the "HEP regime"? Can you quantify the energy
>range? Any tools we can apply to physics at 1TeV can be applied to 1MeV
as
>well. Only the coupling constant will be different (perhaps some masses
>will no longer be negligible like they were at high energy scales, too)
and
>in the case of QCD this may cause some mathematical framework to fail.
> (snip)
This is true, but HEP seems to be preoccupied with checking for resonances
at higher energies than the proton and neutron, for example. Yes, as you
point out, ordinary electrons and positrons can also be produced as by
products. My point was that these ordinary particles are not ordinarily
the subject of the investigation, but are duly registered in the detectors
for the center of mass energy book keeping purposes. And the general
failure of QCD to model the electron, positron, neutrinos and proton and
neutron, makes it non competitive with the VPP modeling.
>(snip)
>>. Note that VPP has a natural boundary
>> condition on account of the non linearity of
>> the near field magnetic and electric forces.
>> That exclusive (natural) boundary condition
>> shows only the electron/ positron pair can be
>> basic particles. This natural boundary value
>> shows that the postulated quarks (36 at last
>> count) cannot exist.
>This is nonsense. There is no "natural boundary". If you setup a theory
>you start with some assumptions. How many of them you have or what they
>look like is not prescribed by any God-made laws. (Well maybe there is
>one, but we don't know of it.)
>(snip)
I claim that there is a natural boundary that only allows the minimum
energy electron and positron to form at their precise energy. Can you
visualize two forces, one the varies as the reciprocal of the distance of
separation squared, the other as the reciprocal of the distance of
separation to the forth power. If these forces are in opposition, there
will be one and only one separation distance where they are equal. It
turns out that this is approximately equal to the rationalized Compton
wavelength of the electron, exactly what VPP needs to form the cube
framework for the electron model. This is nicely graphed out on the web
page: /home2a.htm The null distance is also responsible for the
elecctron being able to separate from the positron at their
photoproduction.
>(snip)
> So any theory that
>deals with particles should have to say something about it ... Ah, now I
>understand what you want to do. You don't want to setup a theory that
>describes experiments. You just setup a theory that describes particles
at
>rest and look if you can say something about them.
>I must admit that this is completely justified. You have done a nice job
>in describing some aspects of fundamental particles. But you should be
>able to see that this has nothing to do with building a physical theory
>that describes particles since such a theory will have to describe *ALL*
>aspects and not only a subset that you are experienced with. You cannot
>say something about existence or non-existence of quarks and you can
>neither say anything about QM since these are completely different from
>your theory.
Thanks, my dilemma is that VPP clearly shows that only one energy will
allow a basic particle to form (near field E, B forces must balance as
described above). This precludes any of the quarks from existing as basic
particles.
> >My standards for judging a model differ, to me
>> the experimentally measured physical constants
>> (known to parts per million) must be used to
>> test any theoretical model for subatomic
>> particles. If the VPP models had failed this
>> criteria, then I would have accept that they
>> were wrong.
>[BTW: ppm is a unit of concentration and not a unit of a physical
constant]
True, but ppm can also denote the constant's precision of measurement.
The ppm is also used to designate the relative uncertainty that a
constants value can be correlated to other fundamental physical
constants.
>Most people disagree with this; theories are build up by using a few
>experimentally measured quantities (what you call physical constants) and
>then predict other quantities. Your standards require predicting only
some
>quantities (that you consider to be extraordinarily important since these
>are accidentally input values of some other theories) and ignoring
others.
I consider the particles mass, charge, spin and magnetic moment as
absolutely required to test the particle model. Failing that, in my view,
the particle theory is not worthy of further consideration.
[snip]
>> This test, if successful, can prove that the
>> VPP proton model is correct and that the quark
>> model is not correct
>Since the QCD model of the proton is very complicated it is hard to make
>predictions at this time. But still the evidence is good that QCD is a
>useful theory. Anyway, scattering experiments (and these are in the
>mid-energy range and can be described with QED by any advanced
high-school
>student and does not require big machines but it is simply a few pages of
>calculations) clearly show that protons and neutrons have a substructure
>(sometimes called partons) and thus rule out any model that does not
>predict this substructure.
I am pinning my hopes on elastic scattering, since those experiments
agree with the VPP models active core particle size of ( 0.7529 x 10^-15
meters).
Your description of the inelastic scattering calculations as obviously
showing three quarks, I have not found to be the case.
>(snip)
>Greetings,
> Wolfram 8-)
_____________________________________________________________________
| \ /\ / olfram Schroers
| \/ \/ Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
| Institut fuer Theoretische Physik II
| email: Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
| WWW: http://www.tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~wolframs/wolframs.html
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Wolfram Schroers
ThomasL283 wrote:
[snip]
> This is true, but HEP seems to be preoccupied with checking for resonances
> at higher energies than the proton and neutron, for example.
Of course experiments examine the high-energy regime since the
low-energy
phenomena are all known today. What's wrong with searching for new
results?
> And the general
> failure of QCD to model the electron, positron, neutrinos and proton and
> neutron, makes it non competitive with the VPP modeling.
QCD is a theory of the strong interaction. Electrons, positrons and
neutrinos
are NOT subjected by the strong interaction. So it is not the purpose of
QCD to provide models for them. Neutrons and protons CAN be modeled by
QCD;
you can compute their properties either with lattice-QCD (which is
difficult
and currently a research topic, but has already yielded some encouraging
results) or with effective models like the NJL
(Nambu-Jona-Lasinio-model).
The NJL-model can be derived from QCD with some additional assumptions
and reproduces most data in the low-energy regime quite well.
[snip to natural boundary condition]
I still consider your input to your theory as an assumption, not
something
that is self-evident and a universal law.
> Thanks, my dilemma is that VPP clearly shows that only one energy will
> allow a basic particle to form (near field E, B forces must balance as
> described above). This precludes any of the quarks from existing as basic
> particles.
IF and only IF your assumptions are correct. So if I manage to convince
you
that nucleons have a sub-structure will you then admit that your model
is
wrong?
> >[BTW: ppm is a unit of concentration and not a unit of a physical
> constant]
> True, but ppm can also denote the constant's precision of measurement.
> The ppm is also used to designate the relative uncertainty that a
> constants value can be correlated to other fundamental physical
> constants.
Then you should say: "The quantity is known with an accuracy of 10^{-x},
which denotes a relative accuracy.
> I am pinning my hopes on elastic scattering, since those experiments
> agree with the VPP models active core particle size of ( 0.7529 x 10^-15
> meters).
Ah, you finally consider scattering. But is there something you can say
about inelastic scattering? BTW, even elastic scattering does not agree
with your finite-size-electrons.
If you reply that "Lorentz-contraction" makes electrons appear like
points
outside their restframe then I must ask you, why centrifugal forces do
not simply destroy the electron?
> Your description of the inelastic scattering calculations as obviously
> showing three quarks, I have not found to be the case.
Since inelastic scattering EXISTS, i.e. there are processes like
N+N->\mu^+ + \mu^- + X
(Drell-Yan-process, just ONE example) there MUST be some structure that
explains it. Please do not say that HEP-physics are somehow adjusted to
produce these results since I must ask you in that case why do you
believe in things like neutrinos at all. Neutrino experiments are MUCH
more complicated and you could simply say that neutrinos don't exist
since the experiments where driven to find them.
--
ThomasL283
> Wolfram Schroers <Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
ThomasL283 wrote:
[snip]
>> And the general
>> failure of QCD to model the electron, positron, neutrinos and proton
and
>> neutron, makes it non competitive with the VPP modeling.
>QCD is a theory of the strong interaction. Electrons, positrons and
>neutrinos
>are NOT subjected by the strong interaction. So it is not the purpose of
>QCD to provide models for them.
So, the QCD is no competition for models of the electron and neutrino,
that was my point. There is no reason for that VPP successful effort to
be dismissed.
> Neutrons and protons CAN be modeled by
>QCD;
>you can compute their properties either with lattice-QCD (which is
>difficult
>and currently a research topic, but has already yielded some encouraging
>results)
Not true, the current research has to start with the proton's measured
characteristics. Latest research has claimed to calculate the ratios of
masses (gets a limited set of particle mass ratios to within 5 percent of
their measured values). See for example "Hadron Mass Predictions of the
Valence Approximation to Lattice QCD" Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol 70, Number 19
(10 May 93)
> or with effective models like the NJL
>(Nambu-Jona-Lasinio-model).
The only ref. I could find about this was a 1961, and did read that this
was the precursor to the Gross-Nevev model, but I have no details.
>The NJL-model can be derived from QCD with some additional assumptions
>and reproduces most data in the low-energy regime quite well.
With the ad hoc nature of QCD, I seriously doubt these claims.
[snip to natural boundary condition]
>I still consider your input to your theory as an assumption, not
>something
>that is self-evident and a universal law.
Originally I had made the assumption that there was a reason that nature
always created the e-e+ pair at her stunning precision, and that it was
related to equal forces joining hands. Then with some research of the
literature was able to develop the math shown on /home2a.htm web page. It
is immediately apparent that these balanced E, B forces also allow the
e-e+ pair photoproduction despite the enormous near field electrostatic
attraction. VPP indicates that this happy result makes it possible for
the material universe to exist as we know it.
Do you have any other logical reason why e-e+ should form at their
precise energy?
>> Thanks, my dilemma is that VPP clearly shows that only one energy will
>> allow a basic particle to form (near field E, B forces must balance as
>> described above). This precludes any of the quarks from existing as
basic
>> particles.
>IF and only IF your assumptions are correct. So if I manage to convince
>you
>that nucleons have a sub-structure will you then admit that your model
>is
>wrong?
I would expect you to show that QCD can give the proton's mass and
magnetic moment, and the neutron's mass and a logical (not just
postulated) reason for the electron and neutrino of neutron beta decay.
(And your theory should also predict the beta decay particles contribution
to the neutron's mass *exactly*)
I just described the success of the VPP model that you claim is wrong! I
know it is painful, but the SM has played out it's string.
>> I am pinning my hopes on elastic scattering, since those experiments
>> agree with the VPP models active core particle size of ( 0.7529 x
10^-15
>> meters).
>Ah, you finally consider scattering. But is there something you can say
>about inelastic scattering?
No, I have considered from the first. (Those who have a copy of my book
can see the reference to Hofstadter's work on page 42.)
Inelastic scattering is too messy, I don't like to see extra particles
show up.
>BTW, even elastic scattering does not agree
>with your finite-size-electrons.
>If you reply that "Lorentz-contraction" makes electrons appear like
>points
>outside their restframe then I must ask you, why centrifugal forces do
>not simply destroy the electron?
Centrifugal forces would be a problem with mass structures, but the
electron is constructed by the *massless* photon chasing it's tail! The
linear momentum of the photon goes over into the spin angular momentum of
the electron creating the electron's rest mass. (Those who have my book,
see page 23). And the reason that spin angular momentum has the value of
( ) h bar is because of the geometry of the electron's structure, giving
the correct radius of gyration. All the QCD can say about spin angular
momentum is that *it is declared* VPP actually shows the source of that
quantum.
>> Your description of the inelastic scattering calculations as obviously
>> showing three quarks, I have not found to be the case.
>Since inelastic scattering EXISTS, i.e. there are processes like
>N+N->\mu^+ + \mu^- + X
>(Drell-Yan-process, just ONE example) there MUST be some structure that
>explains it.
Yes, I agree, but the claim that the jets signify a quark substructure is
a stretch. Most of the jets are 2 in number, only about 5% are the three
claimed as quark signatures.
>Please do not say that HEP-physics are somehow adjusted to
>produce these results since I must ask you in that case why do you
>believe in things like neutrinos at all. Neutrino experiments are MUCH
>more complicated and you could simply say that neutrinos don't exist
>since the experiments where driven to find them.
I believe in neutrinos because the VPP self assembles into particles that
act like neutrinos in forming the composite models.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
| \ /\ / olfram Schroers
| \/ \/ Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
| Institut fuer Theoretische Physik II
| email: Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
| WWW: http://www.tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~wolframs/wolframs.html
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Wolfram Schroers
>So, the QCD is no competition for models of the electron and neutrino,
>that was my point. There is no reason for that VPP successful effort to
>be dismissed.
Sigh ... QCD is a model for the strong INTERACTION. Unless you fail to
consider inelastic scattering you cannot compare VPP and QCD. QCD does much
more than VPP so comparing them is like comparing the taste of an apple to
the speed of a car.
>> or with effective models like the NJL
>>(Nambu-Jona-Lasinio-model).
>The only ref. I could find about this was a 1961, and did read that this
>was the precursor to the Gross-Nevev model, but I have no details.
What? OK, I'll give you some literature, but sadly I am going now to a
summer school for the next two weeks and at the moment have no access to
the references at my office. Could you please be so kind to send your
reply also by email in case the original article gets deleted (so that I
won't forget it)? (Could other people with some suggestions also do the
same, please?)
[snip]
>I just described the success of the VPP model that you claim is wrong! I
>know it is painful, but the SM has played out it's string.
For me it wouldn't be painful to see that the SM is wrong. Since there are
huge efforts to find better theories with less input parameters it wouldn't
be surprising to anybody if there is a better one (we all HOPE there is)!
But you still didn't convince me that the VPP should be such a theory.
>Inelastic scattering is too messy, I don't like to see extra particles
>show up.
See above and below and my other post in the other thread ...
>BTW, even elastic scattering does not agree
>with your finite-size-electrons.
>Centrifugal forces would be a problem with mass structures, but the
>electron is constructed by the *massless* photon chasing it's tail! The
>linear momentum of the photon goes over into the spin angular momentum of
>the electron creating the electron's rest mass. (Those who have my book,
>see page 23). And the reason that spin angular momentum has the value of
>( ) h bar is because of the geometry of the electron's structure, giving
>the correct radius of gyration. All the QCD can say about spin angular
>momentum is that *it is declared* VPP actually shows the source of that
>quantum.
Well, it may be my fault, but I fail to see how Lorentz contraction of any
kind can cause a body's radius to shrink (in this context your cubes). If
you examine a cube from a frame moving at a finite velocity v relative to
its rest frame you would see that the cube is ROTATED, but not contracted.
So how can a ROTATING cube (rotating among a certain axis, I suppose?)
which is something COMPLETELY different appear like a point particle?
BTW, does your model also predict that there are exactly TWO kinds of
orientation of the spin of the electron? Furthermore does it also include
the Pauli exclusion principle (QFTs derive this from the requirement of
causality)? Look at the Helium atom, since you will need both
characteristics to describe the spectrum correctly!
>>> Your description of the inelastic scattering calculations as obviously
>>> showing three quarks, I have not found to be the case.
>>Since inelastic scattering EXISTS, i.e. there are processes like
>>N+N->\mu^+ + \mu^- + X
>>(Drell-Yan-process, just ONE example) there MUST be some structure that
>>explains it.
>Yes, I agree, but the claim that the jets signify a quark substructure is
>a stretch. Most of the jets are 2 in number, only about 5% are the three
>claimed as quark signatures.
Hey, it is NOT important how the substructure looks like in the first
place. The point was THAT IT EXISTS. You must explain this process; if
there IS a substructure you must say something about it if you claim your
model to be correct. Then we can start discussing if your model or any
other model can describe it correctly.
In the first article (I think it was Gellman's article on the
eight-fold-way?) covering quarks these objects had to be considered to be
purely mathematical constructs used to order the particles into
multipletts. Later (when the substructure was discovered) it turned out
that the so-called partons had spin 1/2. Look in the book of Nachtmann (I
sadly don't have it available at the moment) for further explanations.
ThomasL283
>Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Wolfram Schroers) writes:
>>thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote:
>>So, the QCD is no competition for models of the electron and neutrino,
>>that was my point. There is no reason for that VPP successful effort
to
>>be dismissed.
>Sigh ... QCD is a model for the strong INTERACTION. Unless you fail to
>consider inelastic scattering you cannot compare VPP and QCD. QCD does
much
>more than VPP so comparing them is like comparing the taste of an apple
to
>the speed of a car.
Wolfram, that point of view ignores that the QCD model cannot give
particle mass and magnetic moment. When I first started to study it's
methods, I was appalled. I thought, why, this quark model does not even
perform like a good model should, and make models for the proton and
neutron. QCD adds nothing to our understanding of the most important
particles in the universe (electron , proton and neutron).
[snip]
>Well, it may be my fault, but I fail to see how Lorentz contraction of
any
>kind can cause a body's radius to shrink (in this context your cubes).
If
>you examine a cube from a frame moving at a finite velocity v relative to
>its rest frame you would see that the cube is ROTATED, but not
contracted.
>So how can a ROTATING cube (rotating among a certain axis, I suppose?)
>which is something COMPLETELY different appear like a point particle?
Good question, I'm no relativist, but would argue that the high energy
electron is polarized to travel with the spin axis parallel to the
direction of travel. . It all concerns the information coming to the
observers frame of reference at the speed of light, giving the apparent
contraction of events going across the field of view from left to right,
say. By the same token, the circumference of a ring spinning at c would
be contracted to a point on the spin axis, when viewed face on.
>BTW, does your model also predict that there are exactly TWO kinds of
>orientation of the spin of the electron?
. The Stern-Gerlach experiment does not work with the electron, but the
VPP electron is spinning clockwise if you face the north seeking pole of
it's magnetic moment vector, (right hand rule) and counter clockwise when
you face the model's south seeking pole.
>Furthermore does it also include
>the Pauli exclusion principle (QFTs derive this from the requirement of
>causality)? Look at the Helium atom, since you will need both
>characteristics to describe the spectrum correctly!
Tough questions, since the VPP electron model consists of all of the
electron's fundamental physical constants, I would expect the VPP electron
to act as it should in those situations.
>(snip)
>>Yes, I agree, but the claim that the jets signify a quark substructure
is
>>a stretch. Most of the jets are 2 in number, only about 5% are the
three
>>claimed as quark signatures.
>Hey, it is NOT important how the substructure looks like in the first
>place. The point was THAT IT EXISTS. You must explain this process; if
>there IS a substructure you must say something about it if you claim your
>model to be correct. Then we can start discussing if your model or any
>other model can describe it correctly.
In retrospect, sometimes the right combination of ignorance and knowledge
can allow one to travel avenues that would be rejected by those working in
the field. So, VPP gives a damn good models for the electron and proton
and neutron, while the mainstream QCD is still struggling to model the
proton and neutron. Go figure!
_____________________________________________________________________
| \ /\ / olfram Schroers
| \/ \/ Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
| Institut fuer Theoretische Physik II
| email: Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
| WWW: http://www.tp2.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~wolframs/wolframs.html
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Jim Carr
Wolfram....@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Wolfram Schroers) writes:
}
} Before continuing: What is the "HEP regime"? Can you quantify the energy
} range?
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>
>This is true, but HEP seems to be preoccupied with checking for resonances
>at higher energies than the proton and neutron, for example.
This is an energy range that ceased being of much interest in HEP about
thirty years ago. It is now the province of nuclear physics, and will
be examined with great precision at CEBAF over the next decade. That
is, I interpret the above statement to be about the N* and Delta
resonances involving a GeV or so of excitation energy.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "Internet weasle drunkedness
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | syndrome .... Ah, the power
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | of anymousity." -- Jim Kelly
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | (muj...@bgu.edu) 8/29/96