electron substructure question
Bob Morrison
Gordon Pusch writes:]
Look --- From the TOPAZ collaborations OWN CAPTION: ``The _UNRESOLVED_
bright spot in the middle of the picture represents the BARE ELECTRON.
It is unresolved because we have _NOT PENETRATED TO A LEVEL THAT
ELECTRON
STRUCTURE EXISTS_'' [my emp.] The caption author has CLEARLY STATED
that
to the LIMITS OF THEIR RESOLUTION, NO SUBSTRUCTURE WAS DETECTED.
The other thing you don't seem to understand is that the things that you
falsely believe are ``electron substructure'' are OTHER `BARE' ELECTRONS
AND POSITRONS, not some sort of electron ``subcomponents.''
Specifically,
they are vacuum-fluctuation pairs of ``virtual'' electrons and positrons
that are NO DIFFERENT FROM and NO LESS POINTLIKE than the ``real''
electron
in the center, except that they have insufficient energy to materialize.
In particular, the ``virtual'' pairs would STILL have been popping out
of the vacuum and re-annihilating REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
``REAL'' ELECTRON WAS THERE --- the vacuum fluctuation electron-positron
pairs are NOT PART OF THE ``REAL'' ELECTRON. The ``real'' electron
simply
PERTURBS THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF VACUUM FLUCTUATIONS IN ITS
IMMEDIATE VICINITY --- it does NOT *create* the vacuum-fluctuations
pairs,
and the vacuum-fluctuation pairs are NOT ``subcomponents'' of it.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
OK, looks to me like the electron substructure business is popping
up enough that it should be put in the physics FAQ. Gordon P, Jim
Carr, Matthew Nobes et al have made it quite clear that scattering
experiments show that if there is electron substructure, it is
tiny, less than 10^-18 radius.
But before this gets put to rest, could you educate one of the
dimmer bulbs in your physics class (me) about the following: how
does current physics resolve what appears to me to then result in
a paradox with the uncertainty principle, which simple mindedly
says that the smallest observable measurement in one commuting
variable times another such variable (eg, delta x and delta
momentum) cannot be less than Planck's constant. If the
electron is this tiny (10^-18), it seems to put an lower limit on the
electron's mass that is 7 orders too big. In other words, a
particle that is intrinsically an infinite point would Fourier
transform into infinite energy due to its infinitely small
size. It seems that the uncertainty relation is stating that
in principle an experiment to resolve the electron's size
*cannot* find a size that approaches 10^-18 radius or smaller
and still have the electron rest mass currently shown by experiment.
One of the neat things that pops out of the charge loop model
of the electron is that it appears to be the very smallest structure
that meets the uncertainty relation. The charge loop is similar
to the DeBroglie wave model in that a single period sine wave
of charge density is distributed in a loop that is circulating
at speed c. This loop, when accelerated to velocity v, will
decrease in radius by the geometrically derived interesting
value r0 (Sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ]), and still maintains this
Planck's constant relation as v -> c.
Thanks for any replies, I promise to listen and take them without
resorting to flames, endless arguments, etc. I
Bob Morrison
r...@nospam.boi.hp.com
replace nospam with hpbs1326
Matthew Nobes
[snip]
> OK, looks to me like the electron substructure business is
> popping up enough that it should be put in the physics FAQ.
> Gordon P, Jim Carr, Matthew Nobes et al have made it quite
> clear that scattering experiments show that if there is
> electron substructure, it is tiny, less than 10^-18 radius.
It should be an FAQ. I once again call for help in creating one.
I'm willing to write some articles and maintain it, but I need
some help.
> But before this gets put to rest, could you educate one of
> the dimmer bulbs in your physics class (me) about the
> following: how does current physics resolve what appears to
> me to then result in a paradox with the uncertainty
> principle, which simple mindedly says that the smallest
> observable measurement in one commuting variable times
> another such variable (eg, delta x and delta momentum) cannot
> be less than Planck's constant. If the electron is this tiny
> (10^-18), it seems to put an lower limit on the electron's
> mass that is 7 orders too big. In other words, a particle
> that is intrinsically an infinite point would Fourier
> transform into infinite energy due to its infinitely small
> size. It seems that the uncertainty relation is stating that
> in principle an experiment to resolve the electron's size
> *cannot* find a size that approaches 10^-18 radius or smaller
> and still have the electron rest mass currently shown by
> experiment.
You are, in some sense, confusing the *position* of the electron
with it's size. The electron is a point particle in the sense
that all of it's interactions are pointlike (i.e. a stationary
electron produces a columb potential down to 10^{-18}). This is
a different thing than the HUP is concerened with. The HUP is
concerned with the effect of a position *measurement*. It would
apply to *any* quantum system, even if that system were
composite.
That is, the electron interacts as if it were a point particle,
but one with an indeterminate position (at least if you try to
measure it).
Of course, your point about infinite mass is true in another
context. The pointlike interactions produce infinite quantities,
which need to be renormalized. But that's a whole nother ball o
wax...
[snip rest]
--
"Neutral kaons are even more crazy than silly putty"
-G. 't Hooft
Matthew Nobes, c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada, http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Bob Morrison
OK, one more question if I may, then I will go away: The cross section
amplitude of intersection of two point particles whose mass is distributed
about some moment radius less than 10^-18 can be shown to be
identical to the cross section amplitude of two loops lying flat
in a plane whose mass is distributed about the loop such that the
radius of the loop is much larger than the thickness of the loop
(moment about the loop radius). Perhaps another way to say it
is, in a 1/r^2 central force system, the interaction cross section
of two point particles will be identical to the interaction cross
section of two loops with a thickness radius moment the same
as the point particle moment radius (two loops wont significantly
interact unless they are lying right on top of each other, you can
show this by integrating over R2 all possible positions of the
loop relative to the other loop. You will only get a significant
amplitude when the loops centers are within the space defined
by the point particle, thus appearing in the far field that there
was a coloumb potential down to 10^-18. Some time ago you,
or perhaps Gordon P, said that you were certain that experiments
could distinguish between a collision of point particles and such loops.
The calculations I have done seem to indicate that the interactions
would be identical, thus leaving the door open for loops rather
than point particles.
> Of course, your point about infinite mass is true in another
> context. The pointlike interactions produce infinite quantities,
> which need to be renormalized. But that's a whole nother ball o
> wax...
>
> [snip rest]
> --
> "Neutral kaons are even more crazy than silly putty"
> -G. 't Hooft
> Matthew Nobes, c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
> Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada, http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Additionally, in reference to your comment about point
particles requiring renormalization to converge to a valid
rest mass: Because the loop computations have distance
factors (2 - 2r Cos(theta)) that equal the computed
charge around the loop, the path integral for loops becomes
a 1/r integral (the charge amplitude cancels one of the r's in
the 1/r^2 factor, thus removing one of the integral's poles).
Thus, unique to ring path integrals only, it converges without
needing to renormalize, as the point particle model requires.
Can you see why I find the loop solution an interesting one,
or do you still feel it's a waste of time?
Any further comments?
Thanks for your reply,
Bob Morrison
r...@nospam.boi.hp.com
replace the nospam with hpbs1326
Vertner Vergon
I would like to offer my hypothesis on the electron.
I cannot give all the details because I would have to present my 140 page
dissertation to do so. So you'll just have to accept a certain part on
faith.
Just as a photon consists of fields that oscillate and give it frequency,
so does the electron. In substantiation of this, why do you suppose
electrons (and positrons) can be converted to photons and vice versa?
In a photon, these elements are sequential and under certain conditions
manifest as a wave pattern. when a photon of sufficient elements hits
a backstop, the elements collapse into a concentric pattern and form an
electron and a positron.
The elements of the electron oscillate in expansion/contraction sequence
giving the electron a frequency.
The expansion is out to quite a distance and the contraction is to a
*virtual*
but not actual point.
These elements have mass. Despite that they can be co-spatial.
The result is there is a dense 'point center' that manifests, and which
we consider the location of the electron.
Calculations show that the density of the electron falls off as the *fourth*
power of the distance from the center. Thus, going outward from the center,
the electron quickly become so rarified it loses its effectiveness to
manifest.
Notice I said the density fell off from the center, I did not mention a
radius. That would require a surface -- and the electron has no surface.
Like a star, the plasma/gas of which just keeps becoming more rarified
until there is no more star substance -- so does the electron lose density
'till there is just no more electron.
So, what is the "size" of the electron?
I have what I call the "effective" diameter of the electron. It is the
diameter of the innermost element. It is this element that manifests.
The subsequent elements fall off in density so rapidly, that it is the
central one that we detect.
There is one other aspect to the central point. We are all familiar with the
fact
that in dealing with astronomical bodies ( and many here on earth also)
we treat the body as though all the mass were at the center. We do the
same with the electron.
The effective diameter of the electron is determined by dividing the number
of elements (frequency) of the particle into one light second.
I determined the one light second under the assumption that the elements,
being essentially electromagnetic in nature, travel (expand) at c -- and
since
the frequency is based on the second, that would give the maximum
extension of one light second.
the frequency of the electron is 1.236 x 10^20. That is the number of
elements. Dividing that into one light second, we get the diameter of the
most inner element as 2.426 x 10-10 cm . that is the effective diameter. --
although, like astro bodies, it will behave as a point (except when it comes
to cross sections).
******************************************************
"Bob Morrison" <r...@hpbs1326.boi.hp.com> wrote in message
news:3B7AD8C9...@hpbs1326.boi.hp.com...
Y.Porat
and the one with the loop structure are right partially and wrong partially
each one is holding only a part of 'reality':
everyone agrees that 'there is something there, that rotates'
it is not only the mass itself but the mass together
withits movement*
you have to consider that while a mass is rotating in a closed circle
at high speeds *the whole loop path it does becomes
'a solid ring' which is much gibber in volume than the
actuall solid mass that cretes that 'ring'
just in a methaphoric way:
supose that our moon whold move arownd the earth with the velocity
of light! what will happen than(just ignore the clasic
centrifugal and inward attraction, and clasic radius calculations
because it is microcosm and not macrocosm, and it is in many ways
other rules,but one thing remanes in both hypothetic cases:)
any body that will approach in a much slower velocity to that
system will be hit and nocked *as if it was hitting
a solid ring!*
so bottom line: we have here a very small basic particle or many particles
combined possibly in a chain bond,that occupy a much bigger volume
than their 'actual volume'and that should bridge the
'contradiction betwee a small mass that ocupies a much bigger
volume than expected,
and actually what is more relevant for us is not the actual
volume of the subconstituents, but rather the shape of their
orbits,and in that issue i am afraid, there is still a lot to be done
btw i agree more to what Morisson says, and i have
a hunch that it is not only 2 suborbitals but much more than 2,
the reason for it is that in my findings, the electron in solid state
is somethin 'very narrow and very longish- a sort of a beam
and that can be accomplished by many suborbitals connected linearily*
all the best
Y.Porat
Bob Morrison <r...@hpbs1326.boi.hp.com> wrote in message news:<3B7AD8C9...@hpbs1326.boi.hp.com>...
Ralph E. Frost
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.30.010815...@fraser.sfu.ca...
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > OK, looks to me like the electron substructure business is
> > popping up enough that it should be put in the physics FAQ.
> > Gordon P, Jim Carr, Matthew Nobes et al have made it quite
> > clear that scattering experiments show that if there is
> > electron substructure, it is tiny, less than 10^-18 radius
> That is, the electron interacts as if it were a point particle,
> but one with an indeterminate position (at least if you try to
> measure it).
Sounds like "wink/blink electron substructure" cast in a spin network
imagery all over again.
I think the measurment/point particle "proof" situation you refer to is
akin to burning a fly with a magnifying glass. That is, consider that you
bring the magnifying glass into focus, then move it far away. Then you bring
it into focus... then move it far away. Etc, etc. ditto and so on......
The electron is the "bright white light" . Now you see it, now you don't.
Yet, ALWAYS when you look, you see it pop into focus. Darn that old
detection problem.
Taking any one of the many small arguements you folks raise, separately,
the arguements _seem_ to be exceptionally rationally (if you've had the
indoctrinations..}
But it <is not> when you look at the whole ball of wax. How, praytell, do
you suggest that the more unified models can possibly emerge in such an
adverse intellectual climate?
Ralph
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bob Morrison wrote:
[snip]
I don't believe this. Sorry, but it doesn't seem right. Have
you done a fully relativistic, quantum mechanical calculation?
You're reference to a 1/r^{2} central force suggests otherwise.
What you should probably do is get ahold of a particle physics
textbook that discusses deep inelastic scattering. This will
show you how to compute the scattering ampiltude for an extend
object. It should be a straightfoward excercise to modfiy these
calculations to do your ring scattering.
> > Of course, your point about infinite mass is true in another
> > context. The pointlike interactions produce infinite quantities,
> > which need to be renormalized. But that's a whole nother ball o
> > wax...
> >
> > [snip rest]
[snip: please don't quote my signature when you respond]
> Additionally, in reference to your comment about point
> particles requiring renormalization to converge to a valid
> rest mass: Because the loop computations have distance
> factors (2 - 2r Cos(theta)) that equal the computed
> charge around the loop, the path integral for loops becomes
> a 1/r integral (the charge amplitude cancels one of the r's in
> the 1/r^2 factor, thus removing one of the integral's poles).
??? None of this is lorentz invariant. You cetainly *can* use
loops to make a theory divergence free. That's what string
theory does. But I suspect that this is not what you have in
mind.
> Thus, unique to ring path integrals only, it converges without
> needing to renormalize, as the point particle model requires.
> Can you see why I find the loop solution an interesting one,
> or do you still feel it's a waste of time?
I can see why you find it an interesting idea. But it is very
(very) difficult to implement in a proper manner.
> Any further comments?
See above.