what are electrons made out of?
Ahren M Lembke-Windler
I am an entering freshman student at MIT with a great interest in
physics.
I have always wondered the following: If electrons have mass, what is
that mass composed of?
I would really appreciate any info on this topic.
Dan Evens
Ahren M Lembke-Windler wrote:
> I have always wondered the following: If electrons have mass, what is
> that mass composed of?
Good question. Now, what sort of thing would satisfy you as to an
answer? Composed of? Electrons are (so we think today according to
the best theories we have) fundamental particles. That is, they
don't have sub-structure. So, they don't seem to be composed of
anything, they just are.
--
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
Thomas N. Lockyer
In article <321DDE...@MIT.EDU> Ahren M Lembke-Windler <ahr...@MIT.EDU> writes:
>From: Ahren M Lembke-Windler <ahr...@MIT.EDU>
>Subject: what are electrons made out of?
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:36:49 -0400
>I am an entering freshman student at MIT with a great interest in
>physics.
>I have always wondered the following: If electrons have mass, what is
>that mass composed of?
>I would really appreciate any info on this topic.
Ahren, the electron and positron pair are created from the photons during
their pair photoproduction. The positron has a congugate E, B structure to
the electron, allowing their anihilation when they meet in just the right
orientation so that the E from one mates with the B of the other thus
reconstituting the original photons that created them.
If you talk to a particle physicist, they like to think there is no structure
but that is metaphysics.
The electron's mass energy can be shown to consist of the energy stored in
it's spin angular momentum.
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer
inventor84
Hello
I have the book "perfect Symmetry" by Pagels
Its old and my memory is too but I thought he said
electrons are made of pairs of spinning quarks..
any comments ?
inventor84
> >I have always wondered the following: If electrons have mass, what is
> >that mass composed of?
>
> >I would really appreciate any info on this topic.
>
My home page, check it out
Http://www.netcom.com/~inventor/male.html
inven...@worldnet.att.net - please use this address
netcom mail seems to be broken
inve...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Buell PO Box 1113 Boulder CO 80306
Phone 303 443 6270
Nearest star is Alpha Centauri 4.3 light years down range
Gravity Control and Total Recall inventions are required.
Gordon D. Pusch
In article <321FE5...@worldnet.att.net> inventor84
<inven...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I have the book "perfect Symmetry" by Pagels
> Its old and my memory is too but I thought he said
> electrons are made of pairs of spinning quarks..
>
> any comments ?
I rather doubt Pagels would have said that, since it violates both the
experimental data AND the quark model on several levels.
According to the quark model, *hadrons* (strongly-interacting particles)
are made out of quarks; the electron, muon, and tau are leptons, and
presumed to be ``elementary,'' not composite. Hadrons are further
subdivided into two subclasses: *baryons* such as protons, neutrons, etc.;
and *mesons* such as the pi, K, etc. Under the quark model, a quark/
antiquark pair makes a meson, while a *triplet* of quarks makes a baryon.
A *pair* of quarks doesn't make ANYTHING --- it is a so-called ``exotic''
state, and is currently believed to be absolutely forbidden in nature
(except perhaps as a so-called diquark ``effective state'' inside a baryon).
Furthermore, under any variant of the currently accepted quark models,
it will have the wrong spin and charge to make an electron.
There are so-call ``preon'' or ``subquark'' models that attempt to
``explain'' the current ``zoo'' of six quarks flavors (each coming in
three colors) and six leptons flavors (all colorblind) with a further
layer of reductionism. However, all such preon models so far proposed
suffer from serious problems reproducing the observed data; it is
=EXTREMELY= difficult for ANY preon to reproduce the ``pointlike''
nature of quarks and leptons observed in scattering experiments
(I believe the current limit is that quarks and leptons must be
much much smaller than ~1e-18 cm...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch <pu...@mcs.anl.gov>
Bradley Thompson
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, inventor84 wrote:
> I have the book "perfect Symmetry" by Pagels
> Its old and my memory is too but I thought he said
> electrons are made of pairs of spinning quarks..
I have never heard of the book, but that is what a meson is. The most
common ones are pions, which are unstable (as are all known mesons)
(I think). They are about 500 times as massive as an electron.
If I remember, pi+ and pi- decay in about 10^-12s and pi0 decays in
about 10^-24s.
--Brad
________________________________________________________
Bradley Thompson
mailto:bra...@conan.ids.net
http://www.ids.net/~bradley
http://www.ids.net/tollgate
gold...@wisenet.net
Bantam Books, Inc. (1986).
Larry
Bruce Scott TOK
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
|> The electron's mass energy can be shown to consist of the energy stored in
|> it's spin angular momentum.
Read Feynman's Lectures, Volume II, the Chapter on 'Electromagnetic
Mass', for why we know that is not true.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott Congratulations to
b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik Olympic heptathlon champion!
ThomasL283
> b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )wrires:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
|> The electron's mass energy can be shown to consist of the energy stored
in
|> it's spin angular momentum.
>Read Feynman's Lectures, Volume II, the Chapter on 'Electromagnetic
>Mass', for why we know that is not true.
If you believe that, please tell me what portion of the electron's mass
(energy) is stored in the (Joule seconds) of it's spin angular momentum?
(Those who have a copy of my book, please see page 23 for the offered
mathematical proof that *all* of the electron's mass energy is stored in
the spin angular momentum)
Bruce, in all due respect to Feynman (god rest his soul) he never had a
complete model for the
electron, and his model for the positron was the crazy idea of an electron
going backward in time.
It is not possible for mortal man to sit down and say, today I'm going to
make a model for the
electron. That process, by it's very nature, would result in a
childish, ad hoc, incomplete
structure that cannot explain the reason for the electron's spin or give,
from the same model, the known spin angular momentum, Bohr magneton and
magnetic moment of the electron.
Logically, one should start with a model for the photon so as model the
photoproduction and resulting structures in the electron positron pair.
With a model for the photon, VPP self assembles into structures for
*both* the electron
and positron. The model clearly shows how the electron and positron get
their spin. The model
clearly shows the conjugate structures for the electron and positron.
The VPP model successfully ties all of the electron's fundamental physical
constants into one neat package. See again the details by adding,
/home2.htm then /home3.htm to the web address below.
--
>Mach's gut!
>Bruce Scott Congratulations to
>b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de Ghada Shouaa,
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik Olympic heptathlon champion!
Regards: Tom http://www.best.com/~lockyer