The electron mass is electromagnetical
David Jonsson
> I think this also works for an electron at rest. I believe at the
> classical radius the magnetic+electric field energy is the same as
> the electron rest mass?
Correct. The electric field outside the electron is half of the mass of
the electron. I haven't verified but I think the rest of the field is inside.
Now how do I continue with the rest of the elementary particles.
Especially quarks? In order to entirely explain inertia.
David
David Jonsson Voice +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-18-10 37 37
P.O Box 353 da...@ibg.uu.se GSM +46-70-543 71 16, +46-70-721 25 19
S-751 06 UPPSALA Postgiro 499 40 54-7 Web: http://www.ibg.uu.se/~david/
SWEDEN ++++ Acceleration/gravity is electromag: see web above ++++
Andrew Bennett
DJ> On Sun, 30 Jul 1995, Lawrence Foard wrote:
>> I think this also works for an electron at rest. I believe at the
>> classical radius the magnetic+electric field energy is the same as the
>> electron rest mass?
DJ> Correct. The electric field outside the electron is half of the mass of
DJ> the electron. I haven't verified but I think the rest of the field is
DJ> inside.
I could be wrong here,but wasn't the classical radius of the electron chosen
to make the e/m self energy equal to the rest mass ??
DJ> Now how do I continue with the rest of the elementary particles.
DJ> Especially quarks? In order to entirely explain inertia.
If I *do* remember right,then simply calculate a "classical" value for the
particles radius consistent with it's self energy...
This would simply shift the problem to discovering why the radii of the
fundamental particles are whatever they are...
Andrew Bennett
Douglas A. Singleton
David Jonsson <da...@vesicle.ibg.uu.se> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 1995, Lawrence Foard wrote:
>
>> I think this also works for an electron at rest. I believe at the
>> classical radius the magnetic+electric field energy is the same as
>> the electron rest mass?
>
Not correct. The electron radius is the artifical cutoff at which just
the electrostatic energy (not the magnetostatic energy) becomes equal
to the rest mass of the electron. If you include the magnetostatic
energy due to the fact that the electron has a magnetic dipole and
again place the cutoff at the classical electron radius you'd get
an energy in the E and B fields which is greater than the mass of the
electron. There was a discussion of this either here or on sci.physics.
particle not to long ago and someone said that when you do the calculation
that the magnetostatic energy is actually much larger than the
electrostatic energy. So the erngy stored in the classical fields (E and B)
down to the electron radius is greater than the rest mass of the electron.
This just tells you that the classical fields are no longer a good thing
to use down in this range and quantum effects need to be taken into
account. This isn't a very good answer (at least for my tastes) and
it probably means we don't understand at a deep level what's going on.
A lot of people from Lorentz to Feynman liked the idea that rest mass
comes from static field energy, but it doesn't seem to work.
Doug
.
David Jonsson
: In a message of 31 Jul 95 David Jonsson wrote to All:
: DJ> On Sun, 30 Jul 1995, Lawrence Foard wrote:
: >> I think this also works for an electron at rest. I believe at the
: >> classical radius the magnetic+electric field energy is the same as the
: >> electron rest mass?
: DJ> Correct. The electric field outside the electron is half of the mass of
: DJ> the electron. I haven't verified but I think the rest of the field is
: DJ> inside.
: I could be wrong here,but wasn't the classical radius of the electron chosen
: to make the e/m self energy equal to the rest mass ??
Yes this is correct. This means that much of the mass of the electron is
outside the electron. Or should the electron be considered as something
fuzzy extending throughout the entire universe?
: DJ> Now how do I continue with the rest of the elementary particles.
: DJ> Especially quarks? In order to entirely explain inertia.
: If I *do* remember right,then simply calculate a "classical" value for the
: particles radius consistent with it's self energy...
: This would simply shift the problem to discovering why the radii of the
: fundamental particles are whatever they are...
No I don't think I can do it for quarks as they reside inside the
nucleons. I know to little about this.
David
--