Size of the electron?
Jeff K deJong
I'm just curious as to how 'big' you think the electron is? Ie is it on
the nanometer scale or on the femtometer scale etc?
Cheers,
Jeff
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
Jeffrey K. de Jong | "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm
U. of Alberta | pondering?"
Center for Subatomic research | "I think so Big Brainy Fish Face
Edmonton,AB Canada T6G 2N5 | Stovepipe Wiggleworm Arlene. But if
(W) (780) 492-9658 | you get along little doggy wouldn't
(F) (780) 492-3408 | you just call it a Dauchshound?"
http://csr.phys.ualberta.ca/~jdejong | -Pinky and The Brain
Jeff K deJong
> >Hi smart,
> >
> >I'm just curious as to how 'big' you think the electron is? Ie is it on
> >the nanometer scale or on the femtometer scale etc?
> >
>
> About 10^-15 meters = radius of electron EM helix field but EM plane waves
> project further from the helix field... .
>
So by your logic if an electron is roughly 10^-15m would you expect it to
show up on an image that is only on the order of 10^-10m?
Smart1234
>
>I'm just curious as to how 'big' you think the electron is? Ie is it on
>the nanometer scale or on the femtometer scale etc?
>
About 10^-15 meters = radius of electron EM helix field but EM plane waves
project further from the helix field... .
But this is the size region in the helix EM field of the electron. More
analysis of where the electron _mass_ is, within this region, is going to be
smaller. I have other equations that predict where this hard pressurized shell
is and it's aprox. size. I will show later hopefully.....
EMail Address : Smar...@aol.com
My Home Page : http://members.aol.com/smart1234
Topics At Home Page:
1) The New Atomic Testament (Alternative Model Of Atom)
New Internal Structure of Particles Shown...
2) AGD -- primitive model shown
Smart1234
>
>> >
>> >I'm just curious as to how 'big' you think the electron is? Ie is it on
>> >the nanometer scale or on the femtometer scale etc?
>> >
>>
>> About 10^-15 meters = radius of electron EM helix field but EM plane
>waves
>> project further from the helix field... .
>>
>show up on an image that is only on the order of 10^-10m?
>
No, I would expect people to start seeing the image of the "protons", EM
helix field, at about 10^ -10 meters.
Peter Wilkie
Jeff K deJong wrote:
> Hi smart,
>
> I'm just curious as to how 'big' you think the electron is? Ie is it on
> the nanometer scale or on the femtometer scale etc?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
> Jeffrey K. de Jong | "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm
> U. of Alberta | pondering?"
> Center for Subatomic research | "I think so Big Brainy Fish Face
> Edmonton,AB Canada T6G 2N5 | Stovepipe Wiggleworm Arlene. But if
> (W) (780) 492-9658 | you get along little doggy wouldn't
> (F) (780) 492-3408 | you just call it a Dauchshound?"
> http://csr.phys.ualberta.ca/~jdejong | -Pinky and The Brain
Size is a rather spurious concept. Generally you might think of size and the
volume of space in which a particle causes a significant effect. But of course
that depends on what you call significant.
In QM , an electron is really infinite in size, it's everywhere in the universe
at once! But it is only significantly present in a very small region of space.
It also depends on what interaction you are talking about. One proton looks
bigger to another proton than it would to a neutron. The electrostatic force
between protons is longer ranged than the nuclear force between proton and
neutron.
Smart1234 has given some estimates. But again, you have to keep in mind what
size means if the numbers you attach to this quantity are to carry any real
meaning.
--
Peter Wilkie
Jeff K deJong
> >On 23 Aug 1999, Smart1234 wrote:
> >>
> >So by your logic if an electron is roughly 10^-15m would you expect it to
> >show up on an image that is only on the order of 10^-10m?
> >
>
> No, I would expect people to start seeing the image of the "protons", EM
> helix field, at about 10^ -10 meters.
>
So then how can you use the carbon 'wire' to so call prove that
electrons/orbitals don't exist?
Smart1234
>> helix field, at about 10^ -10 meters.
>>
>So then how can you use the carbon 'wire' to so call prove that
>electrons/orbitals don't exist?
>
Because the size of the protons are larger than the electrons, large enough
to _see_ the protons _now_ ( the helix field), which is what the image shows.
That's bull corn about a stupid electron orbiting, showing the electron image
everywhere at the same time. This is worst than Mr. Roger's Neighborhood of
Make Believe. Hey, you want to take a ride on a trolly trolly, and see King
Friday???
Why don't you get a real education, and stop being a brainwashed evolved
APE... .
purdey
It's about the size of one of smart123's bollocks, actually.
purdey
----------
In article <19990826212012...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, smar...@aol.com
Herbetaa Glazier
Simon Skelly
I believe so.
purdey
----------
In article <261-37C...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, herbert...@webtv.net (Herbetaa Glazier) wrote:
Is the size smaller than the Planck diamenion?
David Kipping
Simon Skelly <pur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7qmueh$l15$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
purdey
It's been convincingly argued in modern theoretical physics that entities of sorts *do* exist at sub-plank scales. Multi-dimensional entities have been predicted which also seem to tie in very neatly with String theory/M-theory.
You prove your assertion and I'll support mine.
purdey
----------
In article <7rjejq$t8a$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "David Kipping" <Da...@axminster.swinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Impossible. Planck's dimension is the smallest possible thing in the universe. So, the electron MUST be larger, but it's size is so small it is often just used as a 1 dimensional point.
Dave
Simon Skelly <pur...@earthlink.net <mailto:pur...@earthlink.net> > wrote in message news:7qmueh$l15$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Herbetaa Glazier
Harald Grossauer
David Kipping <Da...@axminster.swinternet.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7rjejq$t8a$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Impossible. Planck's dimension is the smallest possible thing in the universe. So, the electron MUST be larger, but it's size is so small it is often just used as a 1 dimensional point.Dave
Simon Skelly <pur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7qmueh$l15$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
purdey
I wouldn't say that's completely out of the ballpark. 16mm may not actually be the 'real' size - but it may be a statement of the properties of a 16mm object. Maybe an electron has a wierd property that makes it appear so. Interesting, either way.
purdey
----------
I once tried to calculate the size of the electron assuming that it has nothing material but that it's mass is a result of the energy of it's electric field.Using this assumption I calculated the diameter of an electron to be about 16 mm (milimeters!). So I quickly forgot about it ;-)
David Kipping <Da...@axminster.swinternet.co.uk <mailto:Da...@axminster.swinternet.co.uk> > schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7rjejq$t8a$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk <mailto:7rjejq$t8a$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> ...
Impossible. Planck's dimension is the smallest possible thing in the universe. So, the electron MUST be larger, but it's size is so small it is often just used as a 1 dimensional point.
Dave
Simon Skelly <pur...@earthlink.net <mailto:pur...@earthlink.net> > wrote in message news:7qmueh$l15$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Herbetaa Glazier
Dai'Shia
No, best we shouldn't. An electron is the fourth most common singularity in
the universe. It has the cohesion of a partical, but it is not a partical.
I remember seeing advertisments for a toy of sorts. It was a ball suspended
on a loop of string. When a person pulls open the loop on one side, the
ball is forced along the loop to the other end. This better explains how an
electron works. It moves along a line of energy, but does so passively;
that's why I can not use the analogy of a train or anything else that
requires a motor.
The energy provided is the natural decay of the larger particals, such the
neutron and proton. However, keep in mind, there is no real partical
presence to an electron, but a cohesive point, yes, an apparant point to
every single meaning of the word.
How does it form images of atoms from a needle? The point is pulled by the
atom's energy towards the nucleus. The lepton is deflected off the shell
and bounces back to the needle.
Also to be considered, electrons dissapate and are created all the time.
This has been done in laboratories all over the world, such as C.E.R.N.:)