Electron diameter
Jeppe Stig Nielsen
says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from. I told
my students that the electron has really zero diameter (to the best of
what is known today). Certainly, I believe I know more than the authors
of the book...!
Maybe someone here can tell me if I am wrong.
(The book even has exercises asking to find the size an electron would
have if the atom was enlarged to a certain macroscopic scale).
Is it possible for a fundamental particle to have a nonzero diameter?
--
Jeppe Stig Nielsen <URL:http://jeppesn.dk/>. «
"Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothčse (I had no need of that
hypothesis)" --- Laplace (1749-1827)
Jon Bell
Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> wrote:
>I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
>says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
>and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
>has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
>
>I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
That value probably represents the the upper limit to the electron
diameter, as determed from experimental data at some point in time. In
other words, there's no evidence that the electron actually has a
diameter, but it *could* have a diameter of this value and still be
consistent with experimental results.
I don't remember what the actual current value for the upper limit is
right now; it obviously gets smaller with time, as experiments improve.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Matthew Nobes
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jeppe Stig Nielsen wrote:
> I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The
> textbook says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is
> 10^-15 m = 1 fm , and that seems uncontroversial. But it also
> claims that the electron has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
>
> I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes
> from. I told my students that the electron has really zero
> diameter (to the best of what is known today). Certainly, I
> believe I know more than the authors of the book...!
>
> Maybe someone here can tell me if I am wrong.
No you're correct. To the best of our ability to test it the
electron's radius is zero. The number you quote seems a
reasonable upper bound though.
A tremendous resource for all this sort of stuff (though a bit
complicated) is the particle data book, online at pdg.lbl.gov.
This summerizes the current state of knowledge in experimental
particle physics.
> (The book even has exercises asking to find the size an
> electron would have if the atom was enlarged to a certain
> macroscopic scale).
What book is it?
> Is it possible for a fundamental particle to have a nonzero
> diameter?
Well that all depends on what you want to classify as
fundemental. Certainly the people who do string theory postulate
that *all* fundemental particles have some non-zero diameter, as
they are all merely excitations of something more fundemental.
But we won't be able to test that anytime soon.
--
``We may feel that at last, unlike all previous generations, we
have found certitude. They thought so too'' -Robert Conquest
Matthew Nobes, c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada, http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Jeppe Stig Nielsen
>
> No you're correct. To the best of our ability to test it the
> electron's radius is zero. The number you quote seems a
> reasonable upper bound though.
Yes, I just searched a little around on the web, and it seems that
the value 10^-18 m is an upper bound found by electron-electron
scattering.
The mistake of the book is to say that 10^-18 is the value of the
diameter, when this number is really an experimental upper bound.
Certainly, if it should turn out some day that the electron is not
fundamental and has a finite size, there is no reason to believe
that this size will be of order 10^-18 m. It could as well be of
order 10^-28 m or something else, I guess.
>
> What book is it?
It is a Danish gymnasium textbook by Gjøe, Keller, Møller, Vaaben,
Jespersen and Brydensholt.
See http://www.systime.dk/titel.asp?udgivelseid=2551
--
Jeppe Stig Nielsen <URL:http://jeppesn.dk/>. «
"Je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse (I had no need of that
hypothesis)" --- Laplace (1749-1827)
Daniel McCarty
>From: Matthew Nobes man...@fraser.sfu.ca
>Date: 23-Oct-01 11:05 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.30.011023...@fraser.sfu.ca>
>
>Posted and emailed
>
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jeppe Stig Nielsen wrote:
>
>> I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The
>> textbook says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is
>> 10^-15 m = 1 fm , and that seems uncontroversial. But it also
>> claims that the electron has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
>>
>> I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes
>> from. I told my students that the electron has really zero
>> diameter (to the best of what is known today). Certainly, I
>> believe I know more than the authors of the book...!
A diameter for the electron is also calculated with the Uncertainity
Principle, because that principle implies that the exact position of "zero"
could only be measured over infinite time.... Also calculations attributing the
mass of the electron to the energy of collecting the charge into a sphere give
a hypothetical diameter. None of these are satisfactory determinations of
"size". The use of collisions to measure the diameter imply the zero value.
The "surface" of the electron is not found until deflection no longer follows
the expected value from the inverse square law of repulsion...
Gordon D. Pusch
> I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
> says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
> and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
> has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of the
electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
> I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
The tightest bound we currently have comes from measurements of the
so-called ``anomalous magnetic moment'' of the electron, which is its
deviation from the ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly two Bohr
magnetons (AKA ``(g-2) experiments,'' since they are equivalently
measuring the deviation of the electron's gyromagnetic ratio ``g''
from its ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly 2). These experiments
are based on the 1987 Nobel-prize winning work of Hans Dehmelt on measuring
the properties of single electrons held in a ``Penning trap,''
<http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1989/dehmelt-autobio.html>.
> I told my students that the electron has really zero diameter (to the
> best of what is known today).
More precisely, the data are _NOT INCONSISTENT_ with a ``point'' electron;
i.e., no clear deviations from the predictions of the ``Standard Model''
that assumes ``point'' particles have yet been found.
> (The book even has exercises asking to find the size an electron would
> have if the atom was enlarged to a certain macroscopic scale).
I'm sure that was just a well-meaning attempt on the part of the author to
provide a visual image to your students that he felt they could intuitively
relate to. Many people have a hard time intuitively understanding the
difference between an attometer and a femtometer; they just blur together
into the concept ``very, very small'' --- just as for many, millions,
billions, trillions, etc. all seem to blur together into ``illions,''
or just ``very, very big'' --- with no gut feel that each one is
a THOUSAND times larger than its predecessor.
(U.S. Politicians such as Sen. Everett Dirksen seem to be particularly bad
at grasping this fact --- they figure that if they just save ``a few million
here and a few million there,'' the multi-trillion dollar US debt will quickly
vanish. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they will have to save a _MILLION_
millions ``here and there'' to add up to a trillion --- or maybe they figure
the US public doesn't understand this fact either, so that all that matters
is that they *appear* to be saving money, rather than _actually_ doing it !!! :-(
> Is it possible for a fundamental particle to have a nonzero diameter?
It's certainly *theoretically* possible --- but most theorists would consider it
to be extremely ugly, both esthetically and mathematically.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Matthew Nobes
> >Subject: Re: Electron diameter
> >From: Matthew Nobes man...@fraser.sfu.ca
> >Date: 23-Oct-01 11:05 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.30.011023...@fraser.sfu.ca>
> >
> >Posted and emailed
> >
> >On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jeppe Stig Nielsen wrote:
> >
> >> I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The
> >> textbook says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is
> >> 10^-15 m = 1 fm , and that seems uncontroversial. But it also
> >> claims that the electron has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
> >>
> >> I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes
> >> from. I told my students that the electron has really zero
> >> diameter (to the best of what is known today). Certainly, I
> >> believe I know more than the authors of the book...!
>
> A diameter for the electron is also calculated with the
> Uncertainity Principle, because that principle implies that
> the exact position of "zero" could only be measured over
> infinite time....
No that's not right. You can use the UP to get a rough estimate
on the *POSITION* of an electron. But that's a different thing
than it's size.
> Also calculations attributing the mass of the electron to the
> energy of collecting the charge into a sphere give a
> hypothetical diameter.
Which is inconsistent with experiment.
> None of these are satisfactory determinations of "size".
> The use of collisions to measure the diameter imply the zero
> value. The "surface" of the electron is not found until
> deflection no longer follows the expected value from the
> inverse square law of repulsion...
Well, there are QED and GWS corrections. More to the point, the
standard model assumes that the electron is a point particle.
And no deviations from the SM have been found.
WorkWithMe(TRUE)
proton has a diameter of approximately 1/25,000,000,000,000 inch
(0.000000000001 mm). Source:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DannyDonohue.shtml
Randy
"Jeppe Stig Nielsen" <ma...@jeppesn.dk> wrote in message
news:3BD58F60...@jeppesn.dk...
Y.Porat
> The diameter of an electron is less than 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. A
> proton has a diameter of approximately 1/25,000,000,000,000 inch
> (0.000000000001 mm). Source:
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DannyDonohue.shtml
>
> Randy
> "Jeppe Stig Nielsen" <ma...@jeppesn.dk> wrote in message
> news:3BD58F60...@jeppesn.dk...
> > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
> > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
> > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
> > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
> >
i would like to ask all the above learned poeple:
who is the devil, that made you asuming that the electron
in a sort of a sphere? and therefore lookink for its 'radius'
is you creative immagination so poor that you are able to think
of nothing but a sphere?
and what is that talking about a 'zero size'?
a zero size means *a zero particle* you can speak about
an unknown size, but once you deal with physical particles
and not 'ghosts' there is no 'zero sise'
now as far as i can gather from the acumulative information
is first: the electron is not a 'basic particle'
it is a conglomeration of more basic particles.
that is the reason why it is so elusive fron shape point of view,
in other words; *it has many 'faces' many shapes,
i found that in the solid state 9that 'conglomeration'
extends to a longish large and *constant size* of about
2 angstrem (asuming that there is only one electron
between to atoms and not 2 , if there is two the size is
half of it )
on the other hand we meet 'electron like particles'
electron positron)
in 'binding energies, which are actually subparticles-
that are much smaller in size.
therefore i conclude that the electron is very 'elastic' in shape
it is not the real matter of the electron that makes the job
but the orbits that those subparticles are doing,
in a methaphoric way if we take the earth around the sun
(oops a bloody circle again (:-)
than our 'electron is not only the earth sise-
but rather the whole orbit the the earth is doing around the sun
but since we have in the electron not only one 'earth' but
many of them the orbit is not a circle, but many possible
orbital shapes maybe connected as links of a chain,
and a chian as you know can get many shapes,
all the best
Y.Porat
that is why i say
Charles Francis
<ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes
>I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
>says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
>and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
>has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
>
>I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from. I told
>my students that the electron has really zero diameter (to the best of
>what is known today). Certainly, I believe I know more than the authors
>of the book...!
>
>Maybe someone here can tell me if I am wrong.
>
>(The book even has exercises asking to find the size an electron would
>have if the atom was enlarged to a certain macroscopic scale).
>
>Is it possible for a fundamental particle to have a nonzero diameter?
>
locality, as well as the small scale self interaction of the e.m. force
on a charge distributed over a small volume for thinking that
fundamental particles have zero diameter. String theorists have some
other ideas, but I don't find them coherent.
I don't see the notion of a point-like particle being much changed by
quantum gravity, except in one highly significant respect. If we could
describe it correctly (and we can't) a point-like particle should be a
singularity, and so it would appear with a Schwarzschild radius 9.02 x
10^-66 sec = 3x10^-58 m.
In other words, the electron would still be point-like, but taking into
account the curvature of space-time (if we can push the model this far)
it would be measured to have radius 3x10^-58 m.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Daniel McCarty
>Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.30.01102...@fraser.sfu.ca>
I don't know where Jepe Stig Neilson' s textbook got its claim that the size
of the electron was non-zero, so I was merely listing a few methods that have
been used to calculate such a "size". I know perfectly well that the diameter
of an electron is zero according to theory and not much more than that by any
measurement that we have been able to do.
ralph sansbury
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:gihesqw...@pusch.xnet.com...
> Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
>
> > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
> > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
> > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
> > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
>
> More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of the
> electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
>
>
> > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
From scattering experiments of electrons by electrons such as earlier
ones
at lesser energies that showed the electron the scattering was as
predicted
by coulomb repulsion assuming 10^-16 meters.
The implication is that the higher the energy the smaller you can drive
this
lower limit.
This is consistentt with the view that the electron is an orbital system
containing
a central charge of -2e and mass equal to the mass of the electron
approximately
and a smaller charge of +e of much smaller mass.
>
> The tightest bound we currently have comes from measurements of the
> so-called ``anomalous magnetic moment'' of the electron, which is its
> deviation from the ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly two Bohr
> magnetons (AKA ``(g-2) experiments,'' since they are equivalently
> measuring the deviation of the electron's gyromagnetic ratio ``g''
> from its ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly 2).
You show no relation here between g and the diameter of the electron.
But it is possible to show a relation between magnetic moments of
electrons
the size of electrons.
:
The magnetic moment of electron systems in atoms can be interpreted
in terms of charge polarization inside the electrons and not in terms of the
spin
components and the orbital components of electrons orbiting an atomic
nucleus.
(that is, the response of atoms and ions to magnetic fields as measured
in spectra or in deflections are due to the net electrostatic dipole and not
to the sum of magnetic moments artifically attributed to orbital motion and
spin motions.)
And from this interpretation one can determine the non zero size of the
electrons.
Jim Carr
Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> wrote:
}
} I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
} says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
} and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
} has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
}
} I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
In article <GLo1J...@presby.edu>
jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
>
>That value probably represents the the upper limit to the electron
>diameter, as determed from experimental data at some point in time. In
>other words, there's no evidence that the electron actually has a
>diameter, but it *could* have a diameter of this value and still be
>consistent with experimental results.
>
>I don't remember what the actual current value for the upper limit is
>right now; it obviously gets smaller with time, as experiments improve.
The value in his book is the current "round" value for the upper
limit, as others have noted. Pretty up to date.
BTW, the proton radius is more like 0.8 fm (the r.m.s. charge
radius), so the diameter they give for it is a bit on the low side.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
SirCam Warning: read http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-22.html
e-mail info: new...@fbi.gov pyr...@ftc.gov enfor...@sec.gov
Jim Carr
>
>i would like to ask all the above learned poeple:
>who is the devil, that made you asuming that the electron
>in a sort of a sphere?
Any shape can be described by a "multipole expansion" where
each term in the series consists of a coefficient giving the
magnitude of the term as a radial distribution function and
an orthogonal polynomial giving the shape associated with
that term. The first term is always a sphere, so it always
makes sense to ask about that term. The next term is a dipole,
then quadrupole, etc. Theorems limit the expansion to terms
consistent with angular momentum of the the particle, so you
don't have too many choices for a spin-1/2 particle like the
electron. More importantly, experiments, not assumptions,
tell you which terms are observed.
The most trivial observation is that since an electron has a
charge, the existence of a non-zero monopole moment means that
it has a non-zero leading term in that series. It then makes
perfect sense to ask what the radial distribution is that
produces that moment.
Y.Porat
> In article <c91f39eb.01102...@posting.google.com>
> por...@netvision.net.il (Y.Porat) writes:
> >
> >i would like to ask all the above learned poeple:
> >who is the devil, that made you asuming that the electron
> >in a sort of a sphere?
>
> Any shape can be described by a "multipole expansion" where
> each term in the series consists of a coefficient giving the
> magnitude of the term as a radial distribution function and
> an orthogonal polynomial giving the shape associated with
> that term. The first term is always a sphere, so it always
> makes sense to ask about that term. The next term is a dipole,
> then quadrupole, etc. Theorems limit the expansion to terms
> consistent with angular momentum of the the particle, so you
> don't have too many choices for a spin-1/2 particle like the
> electron. More importantly, experiments, not assumptions,
> tell you which terms are observed.
>
> The most trivial observation is that since an electron has a
> charge, the existence of a non-zero monopole moment means that
> it has a non-zero leading term in that series. It then makes
> perfect sense to ask what the radial distribution is that
> produces that moment.
Thank you Carr for you detailed answer
anyway would it be consistant with many experimental data
to claim that the electron has 'many shapes' and not just
one shape -- a sphere ?
i know at least one more shape from crystall analysis
ie a nerow and longish shape, and if you do not mind-
with a *constant length* in all cases (a constant length!)
see my table 2 and 3 of my site (if you don't have
my book)and its meaning.)
TIA
Y.Porat
Jim Carr
news:gihesqw...@pusch.xnet.com...
}
} Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
} > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
} > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
} > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
} > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
}
} More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of the
} electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
}
} > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
In article <ttjcu8f...@corp.supernews.com>
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
> From scattering experiments of electrons by electrons such as earlier
>ones at lesser energies that showed the electron the scattering was as
>predicted by coulomb repulsion assuming 10^-16 meters.
You got that correct.
> The implication is that the higher the energy the smaller you can drive
>this lower limit.
Your sentence seems to say that you think this "implication" by those
who used those scattering experiments is just speculation that is
unsupported by theory or other experiments. The fact is that the
relationship between the form factor at high momentum transfer and
the size of an object is easily derived, either as Rutherford did
or via simple Fourier transform arguments. Further, to reject it
is to reject the use of an electron microscope where comparison
between it and optical microscopy show the equivalence.
> This is consistentt with the view that the electron is an orbital system
>containing a central charge of -2e and mass equal to the mass of the electron
>approximately and a smaller charge of +e of much smaller mass.
No, it is not, unless your "orbital system" is smaller than that size.
More importantly, such an 'orbital system' would require a model for
the force that holds it together with such energy that it cannot be
taken apart even at LEP energies.
} The tightest bound we currently have comes from measurements of the
} so-called ``anomalous magnetic moment'' of the electron, which is its
} deviation from the ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly two Bohr
} magnetons (AKA ``(g-2) experiments,'' since they are equivalently
} measuring the deviation of the electron's gyromagnetic ratio ``g''
} from its ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly 2).
> You show no relation here between g and the diameter of the electron.
He probably assumes that you know that your next sentence
> But it is possible to show a relation between magnetic moments of
>electrons the size of electrons.
means that you already know about it if you know what g is.
ralph sansbury
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:9scf3n$dnd$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:gihesqw...@pusch.xnet.com...
> }
> } Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
> } > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
> } > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
> } > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
> } > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
> }
> } More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of
the
> } electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
> }
> } > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
>
> In article <ttjcu8f...@corp.supernews.com>
> "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
> >
> > From scattering experiments of electrons by electrons such as earlier
> >ones at lesser energies that showed the electron the scattering was
>
> You got that correct.
>
> > The implication is that the higher the energy the smaller you can drive
> >this lower limit.
>
> Your sentence seems to say that you think this "implication" by those
> who used those scattering experiments is just speculation that is
> unsupported by theory or other experiments.
But the theory does not take into account the splitting of the
electron at these
higher energies- greater than those for an electron microscope or a color
CRT.
> > This is consistentt with the view that the electron is an orbital
system
> >containing a central charge of -2e and mass equal to the mass of the
electron
> >approximately and a smaller charge of +e of much smaller mass.
>
> No, it is not, unless your "orbital system" is smaller than that size.
The orbital system could have a circular radius of 10^-15 but
when elliptically distended the distance between the core-2e and the
orbital +e could be 10^-18 etc..
> More importantly, such an 'orbital system' would require a model for
> the force that holds it together with such energy that it cannot be
> taken apart even at LEP energies.
At energies beyond those of pair production approximately the
electron comes
apart and the assumptions that it does not lead to a complete
misunderstanding
of all high energy experiments for the last fifty years.
Jim Carr
You are welcome.
>anyway would it be consistant with many experimental data
>to claim that the electron has 'many shapes' and not just
>one shape -- a sphere ?
No.
Y.Porat
> In article <c91f39eb.01110...@posting.google.com>
> por...@netvision.net.il (Y.Porat) writes:
> >
> >Thank you Carr for you detailed answer
>
> You are welcome.
>
> >anyway would it be consistant with many experimental data
> >to claim that the electron has 'many shapes' and not just
> >one shape -- a sphere ?
>
> No.
will it be reasonable to think that the electron
is composed of smaller subparticles?
will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
(i would say that this question is thouching
the phylosophy of scince) but not only philosophy we have
many indications for it ie
as we advance we notice that you discover a 'basic particle'
that after a period you discover it is not 'the end'
you find it is composed of smaller subparticles etc etc.
so if you make the 'extrapulating logic of it'
you come to the ok assumption as i indicated above.
TIA
Y.Porat
Max Keon
>
> will it be reasonable to think that the electron
> is composed of smaller subparticles?
> will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
> is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
> basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
The latter part of your comment is exactly correct. But why have
you not noticed that the electron and positron fulfill this role
with exacting precision? Why do assume that these are not at the
end of the particle road? Charge is always exactly the unique charge
of an electron or positron wherever it appears. It's never a partial
charge.
You are implying that an electron could consist of many subparticles
which all carry the same charge sine, and that these particles can
defy all logic and assemble together in discrete number packages
that add up to produce the whole charge of the electron. But these
subparticles can never appear as individuals. What kind of laws
could govern such bizarre logic?
You need look no further than the electron and positron for the
foundation of existence. They are literally screaming out to be
noticed.
--
Max Keon
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > will it be reasonable to think that the electron
> > is composed of smaller subparticles?
> > will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
> > is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
> > basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
>
> The latter part of your comment is exactly correct. But why have
> you not noticed that the electron and positron fulfill this role
> with exacting precision? Why do assume that these are not at the
> end of the particle road? Charge is always exactly the unique charge
> of an electron or positron wherever it appears. It's never a partial
Max
i do not agree with your claim that the electronis ..
the 'end of the day' particle
it is i believe from pure abstract logic reasons;
if you say ; we have an electrons 'that has a charge'
at that moment you sayed in other words(without noticing it)
that the electron is *not the end of the day particle*
because that lets give it a new name TEOD particle (the end of the day)(:-)
because had it been that particle, you would not have to add anything to it!
no charge- nothing, just the bare basic particle-
*thogether with its special properties- had to be enough*
and while i say properties ie not justundefined words like
electric charge but a complete 8built in * explanation
why is that particle produces charch etc etc
i am not sure i explained myself properly
anyway i hope that from the little i saied you got some clue to what
i mean
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
ps old Catto saied:
all matter and energy in our universe is composed of ;
only one basic unit (does it makes sense to you?)
---------------------
Vertner Vergon
> >
> > will it be reasonable to think that the electron
> > is composed of smaller subparticles?
> > will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
> > is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
> > basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
>
> The latter part of your comment is exactly correct. But why have
> you not noticed that the electron and positron fulfill this role
> with exacting precision? Why do assume that these are not at the
> end of the particle road? Charge is always exactly the unique charge
> of an electron or positron wherever it appears. It's never a partial
> charge.
>
> You are implying that an electron could consist of many subparticles
> which all carry the same charge sine, and that these particles can
> defy all logic and assemble together in discrete number packages
> that add up to produce the whole charge of the electron. But these
> subparticles can never appear as individuals. What kind of laws
> could govern such bizarre logic?
Vergon
What is Bizarre about it? It may be strange and new to you
but there is nothing bizzare about it. Nor is it inconsistent
internally nor with impericism.
Take a look:
Assume a basic subparticle particle ( as we know them).
This basic subparticle, let's call it Q, has 5 characteristics.
(1) It is spherical.
(2) it is composed of a materal "substance" that
is extremely tenuous or rare (in the sense of high altitude atmosphere),
this substance has mass.
(3) It is perfectly elastic, meaning it has no internal friction.
(4) It continually expands and contracts at c velocity
(5) It has spin and angular momentum.
These Q can be assembled like an Erector Set to form
a model of the universe as we see it on an observable scale.
Because of their tenuousness, they can be co-spatial -- up to a point
where the density becomes too great and then they exhibit the well
known principle that two bodies cannot occupy the same space
at the same time.
In the co-spatial mode -- and if traveling in tandem they are EM radiaiton.
If in a concentric mode, they form particles (electrons, protons).
In this mode the Q are dispersed evenly, each expanding and
contracting in its turn. Each cycle of this pulsation registers as
an element of frequency. Thus a particle of n frequency will be
composed of n Q.
Calculations show that such particles, so composed, will exhibit
a fall off of density as the 4th power of the distance from the center.
Thus -- the same as we regard astro bodies -- the particle will react
as though all the mass were at the center. Therefore the observation
has been that the particles are mass points.
The same is true for charge. Electrostatic charge is the manifestation
of the pulsation (expansion/contraction) and thus manifests outward
from the center.
Elctromagnetism is the manifestation of the spin -- which is orthoganol
to the polar vector of electric charge.
With this theory, I was able to advance an equation for the strong force
that fits exactly the best experimental quantification of the variation in
attractive force -- including the point of repelling.
I was also able to show *why* the charge on the electron and proton
are equal (though opposite) despite a huge disparity in mass.
The theory also includes a cause and effect (mechanical) explanantion
for gravity that dispells the *illusion* of action at a distance.
It also demonstrates the how and why of gravitational force.
Below is a repeat of a post I placed on another thread that
more appropriately belongs here.
....................................
Electrons, positrons and photons are all composed of the same sub particle.
These particles are extremely tenuous and have the ability to be
co-spatial -- up to a point where they are too dense and then they reject
additional
units.
As EM radiation they travel in tandem and because of their elastic nature
are subject to the laws of superposition. Thus they form group waves known
as photons.
Crash a photon of sufficient particles (a high energy photon) into a
backstop (atomic nucleus) and the tandem mode collapses into a concentric
mode.
The concentric mode takes the form of an electron and a positron
The constituent particle has a spin and counter spin in equal quantities.
That's why EM radiation is charge neutral -- and that's why an electron
and a positron are the products in pair production.
This individual sub-particle has a mass of 7.372039 x 10-48 gr.
Take the frequency (each oscillation being one particle) of the electron
and multiply it by that figure -- and you get the mass of the electron.
Take the frequency of a photon, multiply it by that figure -- then multiply
that result by c -- and you get the momentum of the photon, which is
equal to (h nu/c). And of course, if you multiply it by c^2 you get
the energy of the photon -- equal to (h nu).
Next, take the frequency of a proton, go through the same procedure and
you get the mass of the proton.
Which shows that matter is not made of photons -- but PHOTONS AND
MATTER ARE MADE OF SUB-PARTICLES I CALL QUANTA.
The energy of expansion and contraction of the quantum is
6.62566 x 10-27erg. This divided by its mass is c^2.
This basic energy unit times the frequency of a particle = mc^2 (the
frequency being the number of quanta in a particle -- or photon)
~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, the neutrino is discussed in another thread.
The neutrino is a loosely associated group of individual quanta of
insufficient number to form a particle. Nor are they configured in
tandem to form EM radiation. We may think of them as having the same
configuration as pellets from a shot gun.
In the near future I shall post my theory (developed over 10 years ago)
on a website for those to read on a take it or leave it basis.
It's named "The Quantum as a Physical Entity".
V. Vergon
Y.Porat
> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3BF78289...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > >
> > > will it be reasonable to think that the electron
> > > is composed of smaller subparticles?
> > > will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
> > > is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
> > > basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
> >
> > The latter part of your comment is exactly correct. But why have
> > you not noticed that the electron and positron fulfill this role
> > with exacting precision? Why do assume that these are not at the
> > end of the particle road? Charge is always exactly the unique charge
> > of an electron or positron wherever it appears. It's never a partial
> > charge.
> >
> > You are implying that an electron could consist of many subparticles
> > which all carry the same charge sine, and that these particles can
> > defy all logic and assemble together in discrete number packages
> > that add up to produce the whole charge of the electron. But these
> > subparticles can never appear as individuals. What kind of laws
> > could govern such bizarre logic?
Max Keon
it seems that you did not get to the 'botton of the idea'
that me and Vergon are trying to push forwards,
you are still imprisoned in the 'charge idea'
charge is nothing but a word that people invented
in order to fill the gapp in our knwledge
no one today is realy explaining the physics
of a chrge, thwere is only mathematical junglairing
that is only partialy successful.
while we talk (vergon about the Q particle and me
lately sugested to call it the EOTD - end of the day particle(:-)
not in the sense that it is going to destroy us (:-))
so we are meaning that that basic particle will have some basic
properties that had not yet defined, and *thats all*
(nothing needed in addition to it as 'the' basic particle
those properties will be enogh to eexplain the phenomena
of higher composed particle, and those properties should not
be just vague words like charge but properties that lead
directly and *simply* to anything we know (not an easy mission!)
now for instance i suggest to both of you
Keon and Vergon to think about 'our' basic particle
of having a simple built in property ie:
that particle *moves naturally in a closed circle*
it was created like that by lets say 'God' (whatever you call
God
see my idea how it creates the attraction force
and at the same time create 'chaines of orbitals of matter'
at the appendix of my site:
http;//sites.netscape.net/poraty/site4.html
actually it 'hides around any corner' of my Model
as you see at the main body of that site)
so Vergon , may be we can combine our Model
to a new better combined Model
please think about it ,and i wil;l do the same
Y.Porat
--------------------
ps i saied lately the 'all matter is composed of one
'single' particle i was of coarse meaning
one single *kind* of a particle (a single particle cannot
build the whole universal matter(:-) )
Vlado Bevc
Jim Carr
in message news:9scf3n$dnd$1...@news.fsu.edu...
|
| "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
| news:gihesqw...@pusch.xnet.com...
| }
| } Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
| } > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
| } > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm ,
| } > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
| } > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
| }
| } More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of
| } the electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
| }
| } > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
|
| In article <ttjcu8f...@corp.supernews.com>
| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| > From scattering experiments of electrons by electrons such as earlier
| >ones at lesser energies that showed the electron the scattering was
| >predicted by coulomb repulsion assuming 10^-16 meters.
|
| You got that correct.
|
| > The implication is that the higher the energy the smaller you can drive
| >this lower limit.
|
| Your sentence seems to say that you think this "implication" by those
| who used those scattering experiments is just speculation that is
| relationship between the form factor at high momentum transfer and
| the size of an object is easily derived, either as Rutherford did
| or via simple Fourier transform arguments. Further, to reject it
| is to reject the use of an electron microscope where comparison
| between it and optical microscopy show the equivalence.
In article <tunsuvl...@corp.supernews.com>
"ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
> But the theory does not take into account the splitting of the
>electron at these higher energies - greater than those for an
>electron microscope or a color CRT.
Your statement has no relevance to your original implication
that there was no theoretical justification for the relationship
between the form factor at high momentum transfer and the size of
an object. I thus conclude that you know your claim was false and
are just trying to change the subject away from your previous error
by making a new one.
As to your error, your statement is based on two false premises.
First, there is no evidence that the electron splits in high energy
collsions. Second, even if it did "split", the theory concerns
events where an intact electron is detected in the final state
with the kinematics of _elastic_ scattering.
| > This is consistentt with the view that the electron is an orbital system
| >containing a central charge of -2e and mass equal to the mass of the
| >electron approximately and a smaller charge of +e of much smaller mass.
|
| No, it is not, unless your "orbital system" is smaller than that size.
> The orbital system could have a circular radius of 10^-15 but
>when elliptically distended the distance between the core-2e and the
>orbital +e could be 10^-18 etc..
Sorry, but if your "theory" consists of an experimentally falsified
size combined with a theoretically unjustified ad hoc change to
avoid this falsification, we can reach two conclusions: there is
zero evidence in support of your claim that the electron is an
orbital system, specifically no evidence that it splits, and that
you are just making up explanations for why something is not seen.
| More importantly, such an 'orbital system' would require a model for
| the force that holds it together with such energy that it cannot be
| taken apart even at LEP energies.
> At energies beyond those of pair production approximately the
>electron comes apart ...
That comment is not a description of a model for the force that
holds it together. Further, since LEP energies are _well_ beyond
those of pair production (of all sorts of things), my comment above
covers this preposterous claim of yours that the electron can be
taken apart. Please post the experimental paper you have totally
misinterpreted to make this claim.
> ... and the assumptions that it does not lead to a complete
>misunderstanding
>of all high energy experiments for the last fifty years.
ROTFL. Written by a guy who does not even seem to understand
that a particle does not come apart in elastic scattering.
| } The tightest bound we currently have comes from measurements of the
| } so-called ``anomalous magnetic moment'' of the electron, which is its
| } deviation from the ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly two Bohr
| } magnetons (AKA ``(g-2) experiments,'' since they are equivalently
| } measuring the deviation of the electron's gyromagnetic ratio ``g''
| } from its ideal ``point particle'' value of exactly 2).
|
| > You show no relation here between g and the diameter of the electron.
|
| He probably assumes that you know that your next sentence
|
| > But it is possible to show a relation between magnetic moments of
| >electrons the size of electrons.
|
| means that you already know about it if you know what g is.
Did you figure it out yet?
Vertner Vergon
> "Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote
> in message news:9scf3n$dnd$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> |
> | "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> | news:gihesqw...@pusch.xnet.com...
> | }
> | } Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
> | } > I teach physics in a Danish gymnasium ("high-school"). The textbook
> | } > says that the diameter of a proton or a neutron is 10^-15 m = 1 fm
,
> | } > and that seems uncontroversial. But it also claims that the electron
> | } > has a diameter of 10^-18 m = 1 am .
> | }
> | } More precisely, the current _UPPER BOUND_ on the ``charge radius'' of
> | } the electron is less than about 1e-18 m.
> | }
> | } > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
*******
Vergon:
I have developed a model for QM. It predicts the diameter of the
proton at 1.321 x 10^-13 centemeters. which agrees with your figure.
Applying the same principles to the electron, I obtain for its diameter,
2.426 x 10^-10 cm.
Seeking experimental verification, I noted that the electron is an
oscillating electric field. I also noted that the electric field and the
magnetic field have an incestuous relationship and that the oscillation
of the electron, since it is stable, can be considered as in resonance.
I therefore turned to experiments done with an oscillating electromagnetic
cavity, the *resonance radius* of which is given as a = 2.41c/ 2 pi nu.
Thus the radius of the electron is 1.213 x 10^-10cm
and the radius of the EM cavity is 9.306 x 10^-11cm
Acceptably close.
************************************************************************
Y.Porat
> so what is the diameter?
Mr Bevc
i would like to add to your question, another question:
(just to assert the absurdic notion of an electron
as a point 'like' particle
firt of all what is that 'like' is doing here
just decide; is it a point or a zero point
(the lik' shows that you have no idea and you just *immagine*
now another question:
if it is a 'zero size' how can it have a charge
just show me the force agent that can hit a 'zero size'
particle (it is by definition idiotic!
how can have a zero size have a mass?
folowing that 'logic' - all space and vacum in universe
should have a mass!
it is so idiotic that i wonder how is it that people
that call themselves 'phisycists' can spend their time
with such fulish notions,
or else may be that physics was taken over by mathematiciens
that lost any touch to physics.
all the best
Y.Porat
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
Can't you read? I gave it at 9:10 PM
Y.Porat
> >
-------------------
can someone tell us something substantial
about the experimental data (experimental data)
that lead to what is considered today the 'electron diameter'
just to explain my question:
you certainly know that experimental data is acompanied by
interpretations, and you know ,interpretations ar interpretations
(people once had experimental data that the earth is flat (:-))
so may be we have to do some revisions to those interpretations
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Max Keon
But these properties are only postulated. There is nothing in the
universe that suggest that this particle could exist.
This is exactly why I so strongly denounce the photon. Even though
there has never been any evidence that photons exist, their particle
nature is so entrenched in our thinking that we can now extend the
reasoning even further away from the wave nature of light to include
a QUANTA particle stage. But what lies beneath the surface of the
QUANTA particle? Is there yet another particle stage? The wave
nature of light hasn't changed, we have. And we've got it wrong.
>The energy of expansion and contraction of the quantum is
>6.62566 x 10-27erg. This divided by its mass is c^2.
>This basic energy unit times the frequency of a particle = mc^2 (the
>frequency being the number of quanta in a particle -- or photon)
>~~~~~~~~~~
You can't postulate reality in the way that you have because
postulates are only a tool of superstition. They have little
to do with physics. Realistically, any theory that's based on
postulates is invalid.
It's impossible to create a universe from a single, base particle,
as you have proposed, unless you go along with something like the
Big Bang Theory, where a singularity can house just about anything
you wish to postulate as the foundation of your universe. But
however you wish to describe your universe you must first explain
where whatever it was "in" your singularity that manifests itself
into a universe came from. Even if you don't go along with a big
bang type theory, unless you start with nothing whatever, there is
always some explaining to do. And there are never any answers that
don't raise more questions.
The only universe that can tie up all loose ends without any
postulates is a universe that originates from absolutely nothing.
That universe requires there to be two absolute opposites, and this
role is filled perfectly by the electron and positron. These two,
truly fundamental components of the universe, create the opposing
forces that hold our universe in (very dynamic) existence. **But
there must be two. **
--
Max Keon
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
Nothing except everything we see.
As I said, it is consistent with empiricism.
*********************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
Vergon:
Einstein showed the photon exists in his paper on the photoelectric effect.
This gives it a corpuscular construction.
However, the wave nature is equally evident in many experiments.
What is the answer to the duality?
As I said earlier, the constituent quantum particle is very tenuous,
expands and contracts continually and has no internal friction. It is
perfectly elastic.
These features give it the wavelike attributes when traveling in tandem.
However, these wavelike attributes subject it to the mechanics of
superposition, which in turn result in a gaussian group wave configuration.
this is your photon -- both wave and particle. Or you can think of it as
a particle composed of waves.
*************************************************************************
> >The energy of expansion and contraction of the quantum is
> >6.62566 x 10-27erg. This divided by its mass is c^2.
> >This basic energy unit times the frequency of a particle = mc^2 (the
> >frequency being the number of quanta in a particle -- or photon)
> >~~~~~~~~~~
>
> You can't postulate reality in the way that you have because
> postulates are only a tool of superstition. They have little
> to do with physics. Realistically, any theory that's based on
> postulates is invalid.
***************************************************************
Vergon:
That's your (unqualified) opinion.
Einstein based SR on two postulates.
**************************************************************
> It's impossible to create a universe from a single, base particle,
> as you have proposed, unless you go along with something like the
> Big Bang Theory,
*****************************************************************
The Big Bang theory -- or any other theory of the Univers's origin
is a non sequitur and has no bearing on this discussion.
*****************************************************************
>where a singularity can house just about anything
> you wish to postulate as the foundation of your universe. But
> however you wish to describe your universe you must first explain
> where whatever it was "in" your singularity that manifests itself
> into a universe came from. Even if you don't go along with a big
> bang type theory, unless you start with nothing whatever, there is
> always some explaining to do. And there are never any answers that
> don't raise more questions.
>
> The only universe that can tie up all loose ends without any
> postulates is a universe that originates from absolutely nothing.
*******************************************************************
Vergon:
You just made a postulate to negate postulates.
So you have just shot yourself down in flames. :-)
****************************************************************
Jim Carr
in message news:<9sv7kh$j2o$1...@news.fsu.edu>...
|
| In article <c91f39eb.01110...@posting.google.com>
| por...@netvision.net.il (Y.Porat) writes:
| >Thank you Carr for you detailed answer
|
| You are welcome.
|
| >anyway would it be consistant with many experimental data
| >to claim that the electron has 'many shapes' and not just
| >one shape -- a sphere ?
|
| No.
In article <c91f39eb.01111...@posting.google.com>
por...@netvision.net.il (Y.Porat) writes:
>
>will it be reasonable to think that the electron
>is composed of smaller subparticles?
Will it? No one knows. Is it reasonable to think that it might
be? Or course. You must not be paying attention if you have to
ask that question, since searches for compositeness have been
going on for ages. Look in the PDG reviews.
>will it not be reasonable to think that all matter
>is composed at the end of the day' of some *single
>basic particle*, that builds all the others 'above' it?
String theorists think so, ditto for advocates of other models.
Max Keon
>>
>>Vertner Vergon wrote:
-----
-----
Vergon:
> Einstein showed the photon exists in his paper on the photoelectric
> effect. This gives it a corpuscular construction.
>
> However, the wave nature is equally evident in many experiments.
>
> What is the answer to the duality?
The only answer is that there is no duality, that light propagates
in wave form only. There was never a problem with the wave nature
of light. The problem was in our understanding of it.
-----
-----
Vergon:
>>>The energy of expansion and contraction of the quantum is
>>>6.62566 x 10-27erg. This divided by its mass is c^2.
>>>This basic energy unit times the frequency of a particle = mc^2 (the
>>>frequency being the number of quanta in a particle -- or photon)
>>You can't postulate reality in the way that you have because
>>postulates are only a tool of superstition. They have little
>>to do with physics. Realistically, any theory that's based on
>>postulates is invalid.
> That's your (unqualified) opinion.
Forgive my unqualified intrusion but I think your boat has run
aground.
> Einstein based SR on two postulates.
And that's why SR is invalid.
>>It's impossible to create a universe from a single, base particle,
>>as you have proposed, unless you go along with something like the
>>Big Bang Theory,
> The Big Bang theory -- or any other theory of the Univers's origin
> is a non sequitur and has no bearing on this discussion.
But the discussion is about a particle that is the very base of
all existence, therefore explaining its origin would seem to be
mandatory.
>>The only universe that can tie up all loose ends without any
>>postulates is a universe that originates from absolutely nothing.
> You just made a postulate to negate postulates.
>
> So you have just shot yourself down in flames. :-)
Postulating an origin and following its consequences isn't the same
as postulating a particle and then trying to find an origin for it.
You would have a hell of a time explaining how and why the universe
was built on your particle.
There is no such difficulty following the postulated zero origin
for the universe, where the electron and positron are the very
obvious base for all that exists. And I don't need to explain why
they behave the way they do because their properties just happen
to be exactly what they should be. With my guiding light clearly
showing the way, I expect (I know) that the diameter of the electron
or its positron counterpart is non dimension. They are no more zero
size than they are infinite size. They both exist where dimension
has no meaning, in the **instantaneous** present. Dimension can
extend from the present into the past or into the future, but
cannot be part of the present.
Every part of everything is made up of electrons and positrons which
exist only in the present but any reference between them can occur
only in the past and future, through time and dimension. Every
thought, every nervous twitch, everything that is part of our
comprehension of life, occurs in the past and the future, not in
the present. And the bigger we get, the further from the present
our life's functions will shift.
The zero origin concept can take you on quite a wild ride.
--
Max Keon
Jim Carr
Since you are replying to <c91f39eb.01111...@posting.google.com>,
an article by Porat posted in response to some nonsense posted by Vergon
after earlier nonsense was posted by Porat, you seem to have failed to
notice that you are witnessing one "new thinker" use the article of
another "new thinker" to promote ideas each think is wrong when the
other says it -- and that all physicists see as wrong.
The electron size is smaller than 10^{-18} m based on current data.
Jim Carr
in message news:9thk6e$nng$1...@news.fsu.edu...
|
| "Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote
| in message news:9scf3n$dnd$1...@news.fsu.edu...
| | } Jeppe Stig Nielsen <ma...@jeppesn.dk> writes:
| | } > I wonder where this value for the electron diameter comes from.
| |
| | "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| | > From scattering experiments of electrons by electrons such as earlier
| | >ones at lesser energies that showed the electron the scattering was
| | >predicted by coulomb repulsion assuming 10^-16 meters.
| |
| | You got that correct.
|
| Your statement has no relevance to your original implication
| that there was no theoretical justification for the relationship
| between the form factor at high momentum transfer and the size of
| an object.
|
| | > This is consistentt with the view that the electron is an orbital system
| | >containing a central charge of -2e and mass equal to the mass of the
| | >electron approximately and a smaller charge of +e of much smaller mass.
| |
| | No, it is not, unless your "orbital system" is smaller than that size.
|
| "ralph sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
| > The orbital system could have a circular radius of 10^-15 but
| >when elliptically distended the distance between the core-2e and the
| >orbital +e could be 10^-18 etc..
|
| Sorry, but if your "theory" consists of an experimentally falsified
| size combined with a theoretically unjustified ad hoc change to
| avoid this falsification, we can reach two conclusions: there is
| zero evidence in support of your claim that the electron is an
| orbital system, specifically no evidence that it splits, and that
| you are just making up explanations for why something is not seen.
In article <nV%K7.1884$Cg.196...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
"Vertner Vergon" <VVe...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
>I have developed a model for QM. It predicts the diameter of the
>proton at 1.321 x 10^-13 centemeters. which agrees with your figure.
>
>Applying the same principles to the electron, I obtain for its diameter,
>2.426 x 10^-10 cm.
That is even worse than Ralph's model.
>Seeking experimental verification, I noted that the electron is an
>oscillating electric field.
You must have not looked for any experimental data when you were
looking for verification, or you would have seen plenty of data
that show an electron is not the size of an atom.
<... snip more nonsense from Vergon ...>
Vertner Vergon
> In article <ORNLJtycBHA.1732@cpimsnntpa04>
> "Vlado Bevc" <ako...@email.msn.com> writes:
> >
> >so what is the diameter?
>
> Since you are replying to
<c91f39eb.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> an article by Porat posted in response to some nonsense posted by Vergon
> after earlier nonsense was posted by Porat, you seem to have failed to
> notice that you are witnessing one "new thinker" use the article of
> another "new thinker" to promote ideas each think is wrong when the
> other says it -- and that all physicists see as wrong.
>
> The electron size is smaller than 10^{-18} m based on current data.
Vergon:
Well, no one is going to accuse you of being a "new thinker" -- or any kind
of a thinker at all.
Will Rogers always said that all he knew was what he read in the paper.
All you know is what you read in the *current* data.
Do you know what that "data" is based on?
Do you know that "current" data is constantly changed? That's why it's
called
"currrent". The change of data represents the progress of physics. The size
and age of the universe has been changed several times.
Data is simply the present state of the art -- which is changing all the
time.
And anyone who would use "current data" to ridicule someone is an
arrogant unknowledgeable fool who confesses his lack of how the
scientific process works..
To one who thinks, it would be significant that the method I used gives
a figure for the proton that is accepted -- so why does it not have credence
for the electron?
Plus the fact that *experiment* in the form of the electromagnetic cavity
confirms my figure. Since you love data, we could call that data.
I don't know about you but I'd rather think than pontificate, hiding
behind the skirts of others.
****************************************************************************
*
Vertner Vergon
> "Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote
> in message news:9thk6e$nng$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> |
> | "Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote
> "Vertner Vergon" <VVe...@prodigy.net> writes:
> >
> >I have developed a model for QM. It predicts the diameter of the
> >proton at 1.321 x 10^-13 centemeters. which agrees with your figure.
> >
> >Applying the same principles to the electron, I obtain for its diameter,
> >2.426 x 10^-10 cm.
>
> That is even worse than Ralph's model.
>
> >Seeking experimental verification, I noted that the electron is an
> >oscillating electric field.
>
> You must have not looked for any experimental data when you were
> looking for verification, or you would have seen plenty of data
> that show an electron is not the size of an atom.
>
> <... snip more nonsense from Vergon ...>
Vergon:
The snip above reveals you for the underhanded degenerate you are.
Note, the snip is not just a snip -- but a snip of the "nonsense",
thus you proclain your superiority by being the arbiter of what is
nonsense and what isn't. And the funny part is you are such a stupe.
What you deliberartely snipped was the experimental verification of my
diameter for the electron, namely the resonant radius of an electromagnetc
cavity for the frequency of the electron.
Then you go on to exhibit your ignorance by stating there is " plenty of
data
that show an electron is not the size of an atom."
Just for fun I looked it up in Van Nostand's Scientific Encylopedia
(which of course is not as knowledgeable as the GREAT CARR).
Diameter of electron (by Vergon) 10^-10 cm
Diameter of hydrogen atom (by encyclopedia) 10^-8cm.
Which shows the electron to be a hundred times smaller than
the hydrogen atom.
Of course the size of the electron and the size of its orbit are
two different things.
I repeat the part re the verification you snipped:
Seeking experimental verification, I noted that the electron is an
oscillating electric field. I also noted that the electric field and the
magnetic field have an incestuous relationship and that the oscillation
of the electron, since it is stable, can be considered as in resonance.
I therefore turned to experiments done with an oscillating electromagnetic
cavity, the *resonance radius* of which is given as a = 2.41c/ 2 pi nu.
Thus the radius of the electron is 1.213 x 10^-10cm
and the radius of the EM cavity is 9.306 x 10^-11cm
So the diameters are: electron: 2.426 x 10^-10cm
. cavity: 1.861 x 10^-10cm
Acceptably close.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
And while we are at it, why don't you tell us something that is not in
the "current data"?
You are brilliant, so you no doubt can figure it out -- I did -- and I'm
full of nonsense. So, chips are down. How smart are you?
Question: Why are the charges of the electron and proton equal
(though opposite) when their mass is so disparate?
It's going to be fun to watch the Great Carr dodge this one.
Come, O Great One, show us.
*******************************************************************