fundamentals of the electron
Dave
of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
Gordon D. Pusch
> Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
> of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
No one knows. However, so far there is no experimental evidence to
indicate that the electron is anything but a ``pointlike'' particle
without subcomponents.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Y.Porat
> Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
> of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
you dont need to collect new evidence
you have just to use the existing ones, combine them
and use a little of your head, to realise
that the electron is not a 'point particle'
but a conglomeration of smaller subparticles.
--------
all the best
Y.Porat
Eric Prebys
Dave wrote:
>
> Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
> of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
All experimental evidence to date is consistent with the
electron being a fundamental point charge. I'm not sure of
a limit in terms of radius, but all tests for electron
compositeness have come up negative. See
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2001/s054.pdf
You might also look at
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2001/s003.pdf
which give some limits on other, more esoteric
electron properties. Suffice to say that so far the
evidence is that yes, it is "as small as it gets".
You will often hear the term "classical electron radius", which
is sometimes shortened to just "electron radius". This is the
radius one obtains by treating the electron as a classical charge
distribution and making the volume such that the electrostatic
potential is equal to the rest mass. The value is 2.8 fm. See
http://www.tcaep.co.uk/science/constant/detail/classicalelectronradius.htm
It comes up a lot in calculations
for dimensional reasons but should never be confused with an actual
measurement of the electron size.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ThomasL283
Wrote in:
>Message-id: <42ba89a.02020...@posting.google.com>
>
>Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
>of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
Dave, you will find that, to a man, the particle physicists will tell you that
the electron is a point particle. (Ask them about the positron and muon and
they will claim those are also point particles!!!!!)
As an engineer, I find point particles not very satisfactory. In fact I find
that the electron and positron can be modeled as spinning cubes of
electromagnetic energy.
What makes the positron differ, from the electron, is the models show a
conjugate arrangement of the electric and magnetic fields, within their
structures.
See the models and math in:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubes.html
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Partcles and Nuclear Models"
0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
you know something about it." Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Jim Panetta
>>dave...@yahoo.ca (Dave) Wrote in:
>>Message-id: <42ba89a.02020...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
>>of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
>
>Dave, you will find that, to a man, the particle physicists will tell
>you that the electron is a point particle. (Ask them about the
>positron and muon and they will claim those are also point
>particles!!!!!)
>
>As an engineer, I find point particles not very satisfactory. In
>fact I find that the electron and positron can be modeled as spinning
>cubes of electromagnetic energy.
Thomas's views have been picked apart and debunked ad nauseam
in this group. They have no basis in reality, and he simply
ignores rational criticism. See groups.google.com for more
information.
--Jim
--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Penn's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
pan...@slac.stanford.edu -- Save the whales! Free the mallocs!
sally jenessen
S.J.
"Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.02020...@posting.google.com...
> dave...@yahoo.ca (Dave) wrote in message
news:<42ba89a.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> > Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
> > of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
> -------------------------
> you dont need to collect new evidence
[snipped]
> all the best
> Y.Porat
ThomasL283
>Date: 2/5/2002 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a3pk97$d81$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>
>ThomasL283 said:
>>>dave...@yahoo.ca (Dave) Wrote in:
>>>Message-id: <42ba89a.02020...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
>>>of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
>>
>>Dave, you will find that, to a man, the particle physicists will tell
>>you that the electron is a point particle. (Ask them about the
>>positron and muon and they will claim those are also point
>>particles!!!!!)
>>As an engineer, I find point particles not very satisfactory. In
>>fact I find that the electron and positron can be modeled as spinning
>>cubes of electromagnetic energy.
>
>snip<
>Thomas's views have been picked apart and debunked ad nauseam
>in this group. They have no basis in reality, and he simply
>ignores rational criticism. See groups.google.com for more
>information.
>
Jim Panetta simply argues from his distorted point of view. He made the
ridiculus claim that the mathematics, you can see on the web page, simply shows
"e" equals "e".
When I pointed out that the volume of the spinning cube gives the proper
charge density (see the ovals and blocked results in the last equations on the
web page) and that the same cube's two current loop areas (L2) as circled,
when multiplied by the cube derived charge density (D) give the fundamental
charge (e) always regardless of cube size!
Jim, it's the geometry. You are not stupid, so I can only think you are simply
not wanting me to be correct.
On the Web first page, notice the cube has a spin radius of (lambda/4pi). This
is exactly what is needed to give the quantized spin angular momnetum from:
(spin angular momentum eqauls a mass times a velocity times a mass radius of
gyration, just good engineering)
1/2 h bar = me x c x (lambda/4pi)
Where (lambda) is the electrons Compton wavelength, (me) is the electron's mass
and (c) is the velocity of light.
Notice the cube has a charge radius of sqrt of 2 (lambda/4pi) which is exactly
the value to give the electron's Bohr magneton.
See:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubes.html
I have the correct math to prove my points.
I would advise you to get a good high level math program, and set it up for
double precision and simultaneous dimensional and numeric calculations. Make a
starter page listing all of the fundamental constants, as the variables list,
and have at my equations.
Then throw rocks at my critics.
Regards: Tom:
Yousuf Khan
news:42ba89a.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Just wondering if there have been any advancements on the fundamentals
> of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
Well, currently people think it's a point particle. But the string theorists
will argue that that's just an approximation, and it really is a vibrating
loop of string not much bigger than the Planck length.
Yousuf Khan
Ralph E. Frost
> of the electron, or if indeed its as small as it gets...
In the realm we inhabit, tracks on detector plates apparently show that
quanta of electrons resolve to being e-.
That is, if you look at the HEP attempt to get the substructure of an
electron to hold still and show itself ( TOPAZ
http://tophp1.kek.jp/physics/ew/figures/electron.gif ) and think for a
minute you may remember that photgraphs and various measures, even in the
brain, under the local energy conditions will always procede in units of
one electron. So, at the conditions of the test, the wonderfully
intricate plus/minus electron substructure electron may certain fit
elegantly as appearing at nodes in nested, flexing spin network models
(rather than as points "in orbit or jumping levels mysteriously, however,
when "developed at the local energy level" the photograph WILL blurr and
show the evidence as "point particle electrons".
My hunch is the math imagery, or just plain old logic regarding how quantum
gravity can emerge otherwise will tip the scale.
Everything else shows nested substructure (structured duality). Can you
suggest what is the rule why electron can be different?
--
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Frost Low Energy Physics
http://www.dcwi.com/~refrost/l_HGRPMTE.htm single frequency --
position~momentum
"When God is about to do something great, he starts with a difficulty. When
he is about to do something truly magnificent, he starts with an
impossibility." --Armin Gesswein--
"...Love one another..." John 15:12
Y.Porat
> LOLLLLLLL.
> S.J.
>
-----------
??????????
what did you want to say, speek explicitly.
if you want arguments for the above,
i will suply it
all the best
Y.Porat
ps what is the electron which is in *your* mind and understanding
-------------------
Anatoli Kuznetsov
"Ralph E. Frost" wrote:
I am agry that everything shows nested substructure (structure duality)
and I also can't suggest what is the rule why electron can be different.
In this connection, I am be grateful to Thomas Lockyer (ingener, 75 and
retired)
who have courage to begin find right path to solution of this big and
complicated problem.
Anatoli Kuznetsov