 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005Electron is note a point particle mathematically.
There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a point particle. HEP can not determine electron size from the far field detectors, and the electron is indestructable unless anihilated by a positron. Hence the mistaken conclusion that the electron is a point particle. QED had renormalization problems because a point charge gave infinite energy. Worse, a point electron does not explain the electrons characteristics of spin, mass, charge and magnetic moment. If the positron is also a point particle, how is it smart enough to know it has a positve charge and should anihilate the electron? I find the electron models as a spinning cube of electromagnetic energy with a cube edge length of the electron's rationalized Compton wavelength. Such an approach has resulted is deducing a new fundamental flux quantum physical constant associated with the electron. The newly discovered electron fundamental constant is a flux quantum equal to the fine structure constant (a) times the fluxon (h/2e). Here are the math arguments. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif And, as one might expect, the electrons flux quantum, using the spinning electron cube dimensions, gives the electron's anomalous magnetic moment, as proof of concepts. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/FluxtoMag.gif These results make a point particle electron out of the question. Regards: Tom; www.Amazon.com search on 0963154664 > There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a > point particle. > > HEP can not determine electron size from the far field detectors, and > the electron is indestructible unless annihilated by a positron. Or gets squeezed into the nuclei of atoms in the collapsing core of a massive star.... or slams into any Fermion with enough kinetic energy. [snip] > And, as one might expect, the electrons flux quantum, using the > spinning electron cube dimensions, gives the electron's anomalous > magnetic moment, as proof of concepts. [snip] Idiot.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf tnlockyer@aol.com (T.N.Lockyer) wrote in news:53d24a72.0504251012.107f8859 @posting.google.com: > Here are the math arguments. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/FluxtoMag.gif how about you post a link to your mathcad files. Those gifs are hard to read. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > tnlockyer@aol.com (T.N.Lockyer) wrote in news:53d24a72.0504251012.107f8859 > @posting.google.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > how about you post a link to your mathcad files. Those gifs are hard to read. Very perceptive of you to pick up on the Mathcad symbol (:=). There is no way I know of to FTP Mathcad files to newsgroups, anyway the program in Mathcad shows a lot of other stuff, as used in the book. The above gif's were as shown on pages 155, 156. Regards: Tom; www.Amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >> tnlockyer@aol.com (T.N.Lockyer) wrote in >> news:53d24a72.0504251012.107f8859 @posting.google.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Very perceptive of you to pick up on the Mathcad symbol (:=). I like mathcad. Have been using it for many years. Would hate to be without it. > There is no way I know of to FTP Mathcad files to newsgroups, anyway > the program in Mathcad shows a lot of other stuff, as used in the > book. The above gif's were as shown on pages 155, 156. If you can post a .gif file on your aol web site, you can post a .mcd file :) Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a > point particle. *Real* physicists understand that the electron is not a point particle *OR* an infinite wave. *Real* physicists understand that the *appearance* of the electron depends entirely upon how it is being observed. *Real* physicists understand that the electron is something with very precisely known quantum numbers (charge, spin, etc.) that can *appear* to be either a particle or a wave or something in between. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA >There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a >point particle. There's been some debate on these newsgroups about a finite frame being God, too. The size of the electron is measured in scattering experiments. It's always possible that there's a diameter inside of the error bars, but we say the electron is a point particle because it acts like a point particle. Signature"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids." -- 1 Samuel 6:11 Actually every electron fills the universe. Chris. > There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a > point particle. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > www.Amazon.com search on 0963154664 | Actually every electron fills the universe. What makes you think that? I believe by definition a particle quantum object like an electron is "localized". If we take the quantum "vacuum" to be a relativistic medium, then theoretically an electron's effect ("tilt" of the relativistic medium) goes out to infinity but that is not very practical as I am sure an electron's effect is swamped out by quantum noise pretty quickly. I have been meaning to try to research that. How far away from an electron is it possible to actually detect it? FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps > There has been debate on these news groups about electron > size being a point particle. .... Fact: within experimental error, 1 x 10^(-16) cm, 0.001 fm, the charge radius of the electron is consistent with zero. > HEP can not determine electron size from the far field > detectors, ... "far field" nonsense. Lockyer hasn't the faintest idea of how electron size is measured. The range of the electromagnetic interaction has naught to do with electron charge radius. The differential cross-sections for high energy electron- electron and electron-positron scattering are in excellent quantitative agreement with the predictions of QED wherein the charge radius of the electron is zero. The measured cross-sections for electron-electron and electron-positron scattering are consistent with that of point charges. > Regards: Tom; [Old Man] knowing scattering is not enough for ful understanding of the electron!! there are other considerations as well Y.Porat ---------------- > knowing scattering is not enough for ful understanding > of the electron!! That's not the point, the point is: within experimental error, 1 x 10^(-16) cm, 0.001 fm, the charge radius of the electron is consistent with zero. | > knowing scattering is not enough for ful understanding | > of the electron!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | within experimental error, 1 x 10^(-16) cm, 0.001 fm, | the charge radius of the electron is consistent with zero. If we take Planck length to be the smallest possible size, I don't see how a "size" that is some 16 orders of magnitude bigger to be "consistent with zero". "When are humans going to learn that size doesn't matter?" --MIB Besides all that, an electron or any elementary fermion is most likely both point-like and not point-like considering its full dress. A "bare" electron could probably not be distinguished from a "bare" neutrino or a "bare" quark. At current level of experiments, we have only barely started to "pierce" the cloud of shielding. String theory probably has somewhat of the right approach. They are all made of the same basic entity. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps > | > knowing scattering is not enough for ful understanding > | > of the electron!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > how a "size" that is some 16 orders of magnitude bigger to be > "consistent with zero". If "zero" is within the error range of the measurements, then the measurement is consistent with zero. What's so hard to understand about that? Yes, a size of the order of the Planck length, or even 15 magnitudes greater, is *also* consistent with the measurements. But that was not the point here! [snip] Byw, Bjoern > | > knowing scattering is not enough for ful understanding > | > of the electron!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > how a "size" that is some 16 orders of magnitude bigger to be > "consistent with zero". It's about as zero as we can achieve! if you cant understand that a point particle cannot behave like a wave than go on with that understanding for the next thousand years. Y.Porat ----------------------------- > There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a > point particle. > > HEP can not determine electron size from the far field detectors, Is "HEP" supposed to mean "high-energy physics"? If yes, you are wrong. > and > the electron is indestructable unless anihilated by a positron. Hence > the mistaken conclusion that the electron is a point particle. No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was only pointed out that that would be consistent with the experimental upper bounds we have. > QED had renormalization problems because a point charge gave infinite > energy. As did already classical electrodynamics. > Worse, a point electron does not explain the electrons characteristics > of spin, mass, charge and magnetic moment. Wrong for spin, mass and magnetic moment. Look up Dirac's equation and the Higgs mechanism. And why do you think there is a problem with a pointlike particle having a charge? > If the positron is also a point particle, how is it smart enough to > know it has a positve charge and should anihilate the electron? That's one of the most stupid questions I've seen in quite a while. You could as well ask: How is the Earth smart enough to know that it should go around the Sun? > I find the electron models as a spinning cube of electromagnetic > energy with a cube edge length of the electron's rationalized Compton > wavelength. Feel free to explain the experimental data on Bhabha scattering with this model. > Such an approach has resulted is deducing a new fundamental flux > quantum physical constant associated with the electron. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif Nice for you. You can deduce whatever you want - until you don't explain the available data, no one cares for that. > And, as one might expect, the electrons flux quantum, using the > spinning electron cube dimensions, gives the electron's anomalous > magnetic moment, as proof of concepts. > > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/FluxtoMag.gif Unfortunately for you, the QED prediction agrees with the measurements to several more decimal places. > These results make a point particle electron out of the question. Explain the results of Bhabha scattering, or shut up. Bye, Bjoern > > There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a > > point particle. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > out that that would be consistent with the experimental upper bounds > we have. The experiments used Bhabba electron-electron scattering and was done in a large accelerator where measurements were made meters away. This means the experiment had to be extrapolated back to the reaction center. The fact that electrons rarely scattered from each other only is a measure of their small mass and large mobility. > > QED had renormalization problems because a point charge gave infinite > > energy. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wrong for spin, mass and magnetic moment. Look up Dirac's equation and > the Higgs mechanism. Dirac did not have a model for the electron's structure. The Higgs mechanism theory reqauires that one know the coupling factor to the theorectical Higgs field which, depends on the particle mass!!!! You have to know the particles mass to get the coupling (varies with mass) just to BEG the results. Higgs theory is a fraud. > And why do you think there is a problem with a pointlike particle having > a charge? Bjoern, I calculate the electron's charge from the dimensions of an electron as a spinning cube of electromagnetic energy, as shown on the DVD sent you. A point particle has nothing to hang your hat on, so cannot be used to calculate anything. Are you happy with that point particle fact? > > If the positron is also a point particle, how is it smart enough to > > know it has a positve charge and should anihilate the electron? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You could as well ask: > How is the Earth smart enough to know that it should go around the Sun? You missed my point. If you think a point particle can anihilate another point particle, please tell how, or why. Electron, positron anihilation has to produce a least two photons, try that with the silly idea of a point particle. Science by fiat is science under the color of authority, never appealed to me. > > I find the electron models as a spinning cube of electromagnetic > > energy with a cube edge length of the electron's rationalized Compton > > wavelength. > Feel free to explain the experimental data on Bhabha scattering with > this model. See above Bhabba is electron to electron scattering which will never be detected because mass is soo small and momentum is so large. > > Such an approach has resulted is deducing a new fundamental flux > > quantum physical constant associated with the electron. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif > Nice for you. You can deduce whatever you want - until you don't > explain the available data, no one cares for that. No, you put too much store in "experimental results" whose interpretation requires a large theoretical input (much like circular reasoning) > > And, as one might expect, the electrons flux quantum, using the > > spinning electron cube dimensions, gives the electron's anomalous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Unfortunately for you, the QED prediction agrees with the measurements > to several more decimal places. Nope, QED is false; see my note to Old Man in the thread Re: Electron is a Point particle. QED uses phony coefficients to their alternating power series which only makes a very small correction to the Bohr magneton (measured experimetally) +1/2 = +1/2 Schwinger correct -1/3 = (-0.328478444) (close but wrong) +1/4 = (+1.1763) (QED WRONG) -1/5 = (-0.8) (QED WRONG) Why does the QED lie live on? Because there is not much effect on the Bohr after the second coefficient. > > These results make a point particle electron out of the question. > > Explain the results of Bhabha scattering, or shut up. I did above. Regards: Tom; www.Amazon.com search 0963154664 >> No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was >> only pointed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in a large accelerator where measurements were made meters away. This > means the experiment had to be extrapolated back to the reaction center. The measurement of an angular distrubution has naught to do with target-detector distance. [Old Man] > Regards: Tom; > >> No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was > >> only pointed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The measurement of an angular distrubution has naught > to do with target-detector distance. I mistook Bhabha with Moeller scattering as Bjoern reminded me. The point is that scattering does not work well usless there is a stationary target. Scattering requires a photon exchange, if both particles are moving at faster and faster speeds, that photon becomes smaller and smaller wavelength. I am reasonable sure the electron is a spinning cube of electronmagnetic energy with an edge length equal to the electron's rationalized Compton wavelength. As I said in the other thread "Re; electron as a point particle" The electron is not a point particle because one can hang ALL of the electrons numbers on the geometry of the spinning EM cube. For some reason Google can not retrive Bjoern's reply to me. Maybe I can respond later. One can derive the electron's charge from the geometry of the EM cube. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPcharge1.gif Lets see Bjoern do that with his silly "point" electron. Regards: Tom; www.Amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >> >> No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was >> >> only pointed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I mistook Bhabha with Moeller scattering as Bjoern reminded me. Either way, Lockyer hasn't a clue. The reference frame is of no consequence to the physics of the interaction. > The point is that scattering does not work well usless there is a > stationary target. Scattering requires a photon exchange, if both > particles are moving at faster and faster speeds, that photon > becomes smaller and smaller wavelength. .... Nonsense. The physics is identical in all reference frames. The transformation between lab and center-of-momentum frames is routine. One to one, straight forward geometry. [Old Man] > Regards: Tom; >>>>No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was >>>>only pointed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The point is that scattering does not work well usless there is a > stationary target. What do you mean with "does not work well"? That it does not occur very often? If yes, why is that relevant? The fact is that it *does* occur, and that QED describes the angular distribution very nicely. > Scattering requires a photon exchange, if both > particles are moving at faster and faster speeds, that photon becomes > smaller and smaller wavelength. Wrong. Why do you think so? > I am reasonable sure the electron is a spinning cube of > electronmagnetic energy with an edge length equal to the electron's > rationalized Compton wavelength. As I said: feel free to explain the experimental results on Bhabha scattering (and/or Moeller scattering, whatever you like) based on this model. > As I said in the other thread "Re; electron as a point particle" The > electron is not a point particle because one can hang ALL of the > electrons numbers on the geometry of the spinning EM cube. What is "hang all the numbers on the geometry" supposed to mean? > For some reason Google can not retrive Bjoern's reply to me. Maybe I > can respond later. > > One can derive the electron's charge from the geometry of the EM cube. > > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPcharge1.gif Js is defined as h * c * alpha / lambda. But h*c*alpha is identical to e^2/(2 epsilon). So you don't "derive" the electron's charge - you merely extract it from alpha! Alpha and lambda are still *measured* parameters. So there is really no reason for you to boast that you can calculate the charge and the mass: standard physics is here essentially on the same footing, since it uses the measured charge and mass and calculate alpha and lambda from that. You merely use two different quantities as fundamental parameters of your model. Nothing revolutionary about that. > Lets see Bjoern do that with his silly "point" electron. No assumption about the shape of the electron is needed in order to get e from alpha. All your formulas are in the end merely obfuscation of the simple relationship e = sqrt(4 pi epsilon hbar c alpha). Bye, Bjoern >> One can derive the electron's charge from the geometry of the EM cube. >> >> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPcharge1.gif >Js is defined as h * c * alpha / lambda. But h*c*alpha is identical to >e^2/(2 epsilon). So you don't "derive" the electron's charge - you >merely extract it from alpha! I see Tom is still doing his famous "x=x" proofs which he was doing here several years ago. By this I mean "proofs" deriving x from y when y was originally defined in terms of x, thus a roundabout way of proving x=x. In this case, x is e and y is alpha. Signature-Mike > >>>>No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was > >>>>only pointed [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What do you mean with "does not work well"? That it does not occur > very often? Bjoern, in the case of Bhabha (e+, -e) scattering, right down the street is Stanford and their PEP. The luminousity was bad, you would expect that electrons bunches would annihilate with the positron bunches going the other way. But, NO. They had to continuosly run the apparatus for hours just to get a few "events". Since I have the correct model for both the electron and positron, I know there are second order effects due to spin. If fact QVPP electron and positron structures can explain ortho and para positronium differing lifetimes. By that is all beside the point, I don't have to justify scattering theory. There is no doubt that QVPP is the correct model for energy and matter. Rather than reconciling QVPP with Bhabha, it is Bhabha that should be questioned. >snip< > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What is "hang all the numbers on the geometry" supposed to mean? The electron's mass radius becomes (lambda/4pi) and this gives the spin angular momentum, and mass. The charge radius is (sqr 2 lambda/4pi) which gives the charge, Bohr magneton, anomalous magnetic moment and the newly discoverd particle flux quantum (a (h/e). > > For some reason Google can not retrive Bjoern's reply to me. Maybe I > > can respond later. This happens always, I have to wait 3-6 hrs to get posted, and it takes ~24 to be able to reply. Maybe it's a good thing. Gives time to calmly post. > > One can derive the electron's charge from the geometry of the EM cube. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You merely use two different quantities as fundamental parameters of > your model. Nothing revolutionary about that. What is done in (QVPcharge1.gif) is first start with the electric or magnetic energy (J)s by the well known fine structure constant (a) ratio between the electric potential energy and the rest mass energy (hc/lambda). But then Bjorn, the cyclindrical volume (Vol)of the spinning electron model is calculated to get the porwer density (Pe). Then the electric field intensity (E)is obtain using the impedance of space (Zo) which is by definition Zo=(E/H). From this the charge density (D)is calculated, which has the dimensions of charge (e) times area (m^2). Then one refers back to the QVPP electron and get the areas of the two current loops (L2)= m^2. Then of course charge becomes D x L2. Why go to all this bother? These formulations allow calculating the charge of the muon, constructed as a miniature electron. And also calculate the charge on the core particle of the proton and neutron QVPP models. > > Lets see Bjoern do that with his silly "point" electron. > > No assumption about the shape of the electron is needed in order to > get e from alpha. All your formulas are in the end merely obfuscation > of the simple relationship e = sqrt(4 pi epsilon hbar c alpha). But you must use the QVPP cube structures so as to maintain the RATIO between (Vol) and (L2). Charge then becomes a lambda don't care, being the universal constant that it is. Regards: Tom; www.Amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >>>>>>No one said that the electron *has* to be a point particle. It was >>>>>>only pointed [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > expect that electrons bunches would annihilate with the positron > bunches going the other way. No. Why would you expect that? The probability amplitude for that isn't that big. Also, consider that most of these annihilations will lead to one virtual photon, from which quickly an electron-positron pair forms again. In fact, that's one of the contributions the Bhabha scattering! > But, NO. They had to continuosly run the > apparatus for hours just to get a few "events". Your point? > Since I have the correct model for both the electron and positron, I > know there are second order effects due to spin. Stop bragging and obfuscating. Explain the observed angular distribution in Bhabha scattering, or shut up. > If fact QVPP electron and positron structures can explain ortho and > para positronium differing lifetimes. Can it do so *quantitatively*? > By that is all beside the point, I don't have to justify scattering > theory. You have. You claim to have a correct model of electrons. The only way to justify that claim is if you explain all available data on the behaviour of electrons. And that includes scattering. > There is no doubt that QVPP is the correct model for energy > and matter. Au contraire, there is a lot of doubt about that. So far, you seem to be the only one who is convinced of its validity. > Rather than reconciling QVPP with Bhabha, it is Bhabha > that should be questioned. That's the mark of a true crackpot: when he can't explain the data, he simply questions its validity, instead of admitting that there may be a problem with his model. Wake up. Face reality. >>>As I said in the other thread "Re; electron as a point particle" The >>>electron is not a point particle because one can hang ALL of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The electron's mass radius becomes (lambda/4pi) Please support the assertion that the electron has this "mass radius". I.e. give experimental evidence. > and this gives the spin angular momentum, and mass. With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. > The charge radius is (sqr 2 lambda/4pi) Please support the assertion that the electron has this "mass radius". I.e. give experimental evidence. > which gives the charge, Bohr > magneton, anomalous magnetic moment and the newly discoverd particle > flux quantum (a (h/e). With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. [snip] >>>One can derive the electron's charge from the geometry of the EM cube. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Why go to all this bother? Indeed, I also wonder why you bother to go such a long-winded way in order to prove x=x. > These formulations allow calculating the > charge of the muon, constructed as a miniature electron. And what's your result? And what's your evidence that your result is right? > And also > calculate the charge on the core particle of the proton and neutron > QVPP models. And what's your evidence that such a core particle exists? If you now mention Hofstadter: please explain how one can get the scattering cross section measured by Hofstadter from your model. You *do* know that Hofstadter used scattering cross sections, don't you? >>>Lets see Bjoern do that with his silly "point" electron. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But you must use the QVPP cube structures so as to maintain the RATIO > between (Vol) and (L2). Since the volume is zero, I don't have to "maintain" this ratio. [snip] Bye, Bjoern NOTE: Bjoern, GOOGLE is BETA testing and I am just learning to post with their new system today. I sent this reply to you and not the group by mistake. > > Bjoern, in the case of Bhabha (e+, -e) scattering, right down the > > street is Stanford and their PEP. The luminousity was bad, you would [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Stop bragging and obfuscating. Explain the observed angular > distribution in Bhabha scattering, or shut up. If you had looked at those DVD's I sent you, you would know that QVPP shows the structures for the electron and positron, as unique arrangement of the E,H and S vectors into a cube framework. The structures are automatically created by simply connecting the Poynting vectors together in all possible ways. The structures show that the linear momentum of the pair production photons is conserved in and causes the spin angular momentum and mass in the electron and positron. See: http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif > > If fact QVPP electron and positron structures can explain ortho and > > para positronium differing lifetimes. > > Can it do so *quantitatively*? No, the differing structures only show they require a favorable spin direction when merging. It is known experimentally, that this effect is real. See: "Physics of NUCLEI and PARTICLES" (Academic Press 1969) p.p145,146, anti-parallel spins in the case of parapositronium with a mean lifetime of 1.25 E-19 seconds, and parallel spins to form orthopositronium with mean lifetime 1.4 E-7 seconds. >snip< > > There is no doubt that QVPP is the correct model for energy > > and matter. > > Au contraire, there is a lot of doubt about that. So far, you seem to > be the only one who is convinced of its validity. Hence the DVD sent you. You can sit back and listen to the arguments, rather than laboriously reading. >snip< > >>>As I said in the other thread "Re; electron as a point particle" The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please support the assertion that the electron has this "mass radius". > I.e. give experimental evidence. Experimentally the electron has a spin anguklar momentum equal to 1/2 hbar (h/4pi) that has the dimensions of a stored energy (Joule-seconds) See: http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Massradius.gif > > and this gives the spin angular momentum, and mass. > > With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. No, see above, it is the geometry of the QVPP structures. > > The charge radius is (sqr 2 lambda/4pi) > > Please support the assertion that the electron has this "mass radius". > I.e. give experimental evidence. Compton scattering by photons give the size quite accurately. See; http://physics.nist.gov/constants > > which gives the charge, Bohr > > magneton, anomalous magnetic moment and the newly discoverd particle > > flux quantum (a (h/e). > > With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. No, Bjoern, it is the geometry of the spinning EM cube framework. See for example the Bohr obtained from the power density and QVPP current loop areas. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/BohrMagH.gif > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And what's your result? And what's your evidence that your result is > right? See: http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spincharge.gif > > And also > > calculate the charge on the core particle of the proton and neutron > > QVPP models. > > And what's your evidence that such a core particle exists? Bjoern, the binding energy of the deuteron, using the quadratic gives similar magnetic moments for the proton and neutron. Since these are about 28 percent larger than the nmr measurement, there is a damping loss. QVPP can calculate this damping loss and get the nmr proton moment to within 33ppm as proof of the structure. See the DVD. > If you now mention Hofstadter: please explain how one can get the > scattering cross section measured by Hofstadter from your model. > > You *do* know that Hofstadter used scattering cross sections, don't you? Yes, a paper of his is listed in; "The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics" Cambridge University Press 1989, Cahn and Goldhaber, page 234-240. Hofstadter measures the charge radius of the proton and it turns out to agree with the QVPP proton core particle size. And of course, I know that the QVPP form factor assures that the proton core particle has a positve charge equal to (+1e). BTW. One of my sons (Richard) had Hofstadter as a professor at Stanford. He said that Hofstadter was the best techer he ever had!! Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 [snip] >>>Bjoern, in the case of Bhabha (e+, -e) scattering, right down the >>>street is Stanford and their PEP. The luminousity was bad, you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>again. In fact, that's one of the contributions the Bhabha >>scattering! Ignored. >>>But, NO. They had to continuosly run the >>>apparatus for hours just to get a few "events". >> >>Your point? Hello? >>>Since I have the correct model for both the electron and positron, >>>I know there are second order effects due to spin. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you had looked at those DVD's I sent you, Hello? Already forgotten that I don't have a DVD player? > you would know that QVPP > shows the structures for the electron and positron, as unique [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > See: http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif I said: "Stop bragging and obfuscating. Explain the observed angular distribution in Bhabha scattering, or shut up." And what do you do? You go on bragging and obfuscating, you don't explain the observed angular distribution in Bhabha scattering, and you don't shut up. No surprise. It's hard to deal with reality, right? >>>If fact QVPP electron and positron structures can explain ortho and >>>para positronium differing lifetimes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, the differing structures only show they require a favorable spin > direction when merging. Bad for you, since QED *can* explain these lifetimes *quantitatively*. > It is known experimentally, that this effect is real. See: "Physics of > NUCLEI and PARTICLES" (Academic Press 1969) p.p145,146, anti-parallel > spins in the case of parapositronium with a mean lifetime of 1.25 E-19 > seconds, and parallel spins to form orthopositronium with mean lifetime > 1.4 E-7 seconds. Indeed. And in any textbook on QFT, you can see the calculation of these lifetimes. Hint: they come out nicely consistent with the experimental values. >>>There is no doubt that QVPP is the correct model for energy >>>and matter. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hence the DVD sent you. You can sit back and listen to the arguments, > rather than laboriously reading. Yet again an attempt at obfuscating. 1) I pointed out that your claim that there is "no doubt that QVPP is the correct model" was wrong; you chose to ignore that. 2) Instead, you bring again the DVD up, although I already told you that I don't have a DVD player. Do you merely have reading comprehension problems or memory problems, or are you deliberately trolling? [snip] >>>>What is "hang all the numbers on the geometry" supposed to mean? You did not answer that so far. >>>The electron's mass radius becomes (lambda/4pi) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Experimentally the electron has a spin anguklar momentum equal to 1/2 > hbar (h/4pi) Indeed. So what? That has precisely nil to do with your assertion that the electron has this mass radius. > that has the dimensions of a stored energy (Joule-seconds) What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? > See: > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Massradius.gif Oh, another x=x proof. >>>and this gives the spin angular momentum, and mass. >> >>With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. > > No, see above, it is the geometry of the QVPP structures. It is indeed a x=x proof, as suspected. >>>The charge radius is (sqr 2 lambda/4pi) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Compton scattering by photons give the size quite accurately. See; > http://physics.nist.gov/constants Compton scattering by photons gives the Compton wavelength of the electron. That has precisely nil to do with a "charge radius". >>>which gives the charge, Bohr >>>magneton, anomalous magnetic moment and the newly discoverd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/BohrMagH.gif x=x. [snip] >>>These formulations allow calculating the >>>charge of the muon, constructed as a miniature electron. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spincharge.gif x=x. >>>And also >>>calculate the charge on the core particle of the proton and neutron [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bjoern, the binding energy of the deuteron, using the quadratic gives > similar magnetic moments for the proton and neutron. "the quadratic"? > Since these are > about 28 percent larger than the nmr measurement, What's your evidence for that assertion? > there is a damping > loss. QVPP can calculate this damping loss and get the nmr proton > moment to within 33ppm as proof of the structure. See the DVD. Hello? Already forgotten that I don't have a DVD player? >>If you now mention Hofstadter: please explain how one can get the >>scattering cross section measured by Hofstadter from your model. I notice that you chose to ignore that. No surprise. >>You *do* know that Hofstadter used scattering cross sections, don't >Xyou? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > page 234-240. Hofstadter measures the charge radius of the proton and > it turns out to agree with the QVPP proton core particle size. x=x. > And of > course, I know that the QVPP form factor assures that the proton core > particle has a positve charge equal to (+1e). What exactly do you mean with "form factor" here? Somehow, I doubt very much that you mean the same meaning as commonly used in scattering experiments [snip] Bye, Bjoern ... > >>Stop bragging and obfuscating. Explain the observed angular > >>distribution in Bhabha scattering, or shut up. > > If you had looked at those DVD's I sent you, > > Hello? Already forgotten that I don't have a DVD player? Bjoern, you're telling us that in the entire University of Have-a-beer, you guys don't have a DVD player!? Is Fred Flintstone a recent graduate? > > you would know that QVPP > > shows the structures for the electron and positron, as unique > > arrangement of the E,H and S vectors into a cube framework. Well, it's good of Lockyer to take the effort to make a DVD and send it, too bad Bjoern hasn't got any friends - with a DVD player. BTW, does Germany still use clay tablets or have they discovered paper yet? :-) Ken > [snip] > > >>>Since I have the correct model for both the electron and positron, > >>>I know there are second order effects due to spin. >{snip} > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > See: http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif >[snip] > >>>If fact QVPP electron and positron structures can explain ortho and > >>>para positronium differing lifetimes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bad for you, since QED *can* explain these lifetimes *quantitatively*. Yes, Bjoern, and I am still trying to understand how they backed into that with QED's mistaken idea that both electron and positron have no structure!! Seems they work backward from polarization of the anihilation photon(s) , either two photons or three photons (triplet state) For example see Kallen, "Quantum Electrodynamics" Springer-Verlag 1972 (translated from the German)on page 188,189, 190. > > It is known experimentally, that this effect is real. See: "Physics of > > NUCLEI and PARTICLES" (Academic Press 1969) p.p145,146, anti-parallel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > these lifetimes. Hint: they come out nicely consistent with the > experimental values. Yes, Bjoern, I agree. See Kallen above. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Experimentally the electron has a spin angular momentum equal to 1/2 > > hbar (h/4pi) > > Indeed. So what? That has precisely nil to do with your assertion that > the electron has this mass radius. The mass radius can be obtained from the mass and Compton wavelength. This is the reason that ALL subatomic particles have a spin of 1/2 (i.e. 1/2 hbar) > > that has the dimensions of a stored energy (Joule-seconds) > > What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? Surely you know that energy can be stored in a spinning flywheel, and that energy has the dimensions of Joule seconds. (i.e. spin angular momentum) > > See: > > > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Massradius.gif > > Oh, another x=x proof. Nope, it is the geometry of the spinning vector cube framework. The cube edges have a length that can have no other value than lambda/2pi from the calculus of related rates. This elegant QVPP truth explains particle spin angular always being 1/2hbar. > >>>and this gives the spin angular momentum, and mass. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is indeed a x=x proof, as suspected. Nope, it is the vector cube framework geometry of QVPP particles that allows us to know why spin angular momentum of 1/2hbar is a universal characteristic of basic particles. > >>>The charge radius is (sqr 2 lambda/4pi) > >>Please support the assertion that the electron has this "charge > >>radius". I.e. give experimental evidence. > > > > Compton scattering by photons give the size quite accurately. See; > > http://physics.nist.gov/constants > Compton scattering by photons gives the Compton wavelength of the > electron. > That has precisely nil to do with a "charge radius". Yes, a little vague, sorry. Here is the QVPP calculation for the fundamental charge, Bjoern. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPcharge1.gif > >>>which gives the charge, Bohr > >>>magneton, anomalous magnetic moment and the newly discoverd > >>>particle flux quantum (a (h/e). > >> > >>With your usual x=x tricks, I suspect. Nope, it is the QVPP particle geometry, see: http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif > > No, Bjoern, it is the geometry of the spinning EM cube framework. See > > for example the Bohr obtained from the power density and QVPP current > > loop areas. > > > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/BohrMagH.gif > x=x. Bjoern, one cannot get the power density in a volume and current loop areas from a point particle. It is the geometry of QVPP particles that does the trick.. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > x=x. Nope. Just substitute the muons Compton wavelength (lambda) in the above (spincharge.gif). > > Bjoern, the binding energy of the deuteron, using the quadratic gives > > similar magnetic moments for the proton and neutron. > > "the quadratic"? See; http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/quadratic.gif The magnetic moments for the proton and neutron are obtained from the deuteron's known binding energy. > > Since these are > > about 28 percent larger than the nmr measurement, > > What's your evidence for that assertion? In the quadratic above the deuteron binding energy results plus the fact the damping loss can be calculated from QVPP. > > there is a damping > > loss. QVPP can calculate this damping loss and get the nmr proton [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [snip] Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >> > If you had looked at those DVD's I sent you, >> >> Hello? Already forgotten that I don't have a DVD player? I guess Thomas doesn't like me. He gives Bjoern unsolicited DVDs for free but demands I buy his book. :-) >The mass radius can be obtained from the mass and Compton wavelength. >This is the reason that ALL subatomic particles have a spin of 1/2 >(i.e. 1/2 hbar) Even the omega-minus? And the deltas? (and I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt that by "subatomic particles" you meant fermions) >> > that has the dimensions of a stored energy (Joule-seconds) >> >> What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? >Surely you know that energy can be stored in a spinning flywheel, and >that energy has the dimensions of Joule seconds. (i.e. spin angular >momentum) That's not the correct dimensions of energy. The kinetic energy of a flywheel is 1/2 I*w**2 where I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular frequency. What you show is a unit of angular _momentum_, which is I*w. Angular momentum is not energy. >> > See: >> > >> > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Massradius.gif >> >> Oh, another x=x proof. >Nope, it is the geometry of the spinning vector cube framework. You may think so, but the proof in that .gif is just an x=x proof. I have a feeling that you don't even know what an 'x=x' proof is, other than something I'm always claiming your proof to be. >> > Bjoern, the binding energy of the deuteron, using the quadratic >gives >> > similar magnetic moments for the proton and neutron. >> >> "the quadratic"? >See; > http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/quadratic.gif Yet another x=x. Signature-Mike [snip] >>http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/quadratic.gif > > Yet another x=x. I have troubles seeing that; probably due to the fact that I don't understand where his definition of "C" comes from. Can you help me out? Bye, Bjoern >>>http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/quadratic.gif >> >> Yet another x=x. >I have troubles seeing that; probably due to the fact that >I don't understand where his definition of "C" comes from. >Can you help me out? This one is a little trickier. First, that .gif really doesn't show where he gets C, but that that 2.24573E6 with the wrong units is the deuteron's binding energy. The second line is itself a circular proof, he defines B in terms of "Up and Un", then defines "Up" and "Un" as the roots of a quadradic involving B (he flips signs around). You then have to jump to another of his .gifs, http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif, first half. Here he derives the deuteron's binding energy from those Up and Un terms, which are the roots of the quadradic. But wait, if you multiply the roots of the quadradic Ax**2+Bx+C together, you get: ((-B+sqrt(B**2-4AC))/2A * (-B-sqrt(B**2-4AC))/2A)) which simplifies to ((-B)**2 - (sqrt(B**2-4AC)**2)/4*A**2 or (B**2 - B**2 + 4AC)/4*A**2 which is just C/A, or since A is implicitly 1, just C. From this, you can substitute his definition of C (start of quadratic.gif) for the (Up*Un) term, you get Bpn = (e**2/sqrt(e**4/(2.24573E6)**2 or Bpn = 2.24573E6 "volts". (Remember he started with the wrong units on the energy term in the start of quadratic.gif) The "B" term in the quadradic is irrelevant as it cancels. Oh watch the signs. Rereading this I see that the "A" term is really -1, not 1, in quadradic.gif, but am not about to rewrite all this. Signature-Mike >>>>http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/quadratic.gif >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Oh watch the signs. Rereading this I see that the "A" term is really > -1, not 1, in quadradic.gif, but am not about to rewrite all this. Thanks. Bye, Bjoern [tnlockyer wrote] > The mass radius can be obtained from the mass and Compton wavelength. > This is the reason that ALL subatomic particles have a spin of 1/2 > (i.e. 1/2 hbar) [tnlockyer] > > > that has the dimensions of a stored energy (Joule-seconds) [Someone else] > > What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? [tnlockyer] > Surely you know that energy can be stored in a spinning flywheel, and > that energy has the dimensions of Joule seconds. (i.e. spin angular > momentum) > Regards: Tom; [EL] What a confusion! Energy has the dimensions [LF] or [L^2MT^-2] and its units are (kgf).m or (erg or Joule), respectively. The units Js are for action (Plank's Constant) which is also angular momentum. Power is a rate of energy (rate of doing work) [L F / T] Action is a period of energy (a cycle of work being done) [L F T] Energy is "stored energy" [LF] So, stop writing books. EL > [tnlockyer wrote] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The units Js are for action (Plank's Constant) which is also angular > momentum. Yes, EL, we are talking about STORED energy. Not kinetic or potential chemical energy. So the stored energy is in the spin angular momentum. Spin is the ONLY mechanism that particles can store energy with. Spin causes mass effects. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif > Power is a rate of energy (rate of doing work) [L F / T] > Action is a period of energy (a cycle of work being done) [L F T] > Energy is "stored energy" [LF] No, you missed the point. You STORE energy in a flywheel. Or chemically. The Joule is a measure of expended energy. > So, stop writing books. That book, EL, is the final particle physics theory. Here is what the book does that the standard model cannot: THEORY QVPP QCD/QED __________________________________________________ Model for energy Yes No Precision electron Yes NO Precision positron Yes No Model for electron type neutrino Yes No Model for muon type neutrino Yes No Precision proton Yes No Precision neutron Yes No Calculate (n-1H) Yes No Model nuclei structures Yes No Model stable, unstable, and isomeric states Yes No Model alpha particle decay tunneling Yes No Calculate electron to proton binding Yes No This is just a partial list, four new fundamnetal constants are also the result of the Quantum Vectro Particle Physics (QVPP). Here is one of them. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif That is why I wrote the book. Get a copy and READ it. It explains the physics coherently and the particles all develop automatically from the energy model. I did not invent the structures for the vector leptons, they are given simply by combining the photon vectors in all possible ways. Bjoern will tell you as soon as he listens and looks at the DVD's I sent him. Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >> [Someone else] >> > > What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> The units Js are for action (Plank's Constant) which is also angular >> momentum. >Yes, EL, we are talking about STORED energy. Not kinetic or potential >chemical energy. So the stored energy is in the spin angular momentum. Angular momentum is *not* energy! It is angular momentum. It's the same idea as linear momentum and the kinetic energy of linear motion. >Spin is the ONLY mechanism that particles can store energy with. You forgot simple linear motion. > Spin >causes mass effects. Huh? >http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif x=x. >> Power is a rate of energy (rate of doing work) [L F / T] >> Action is a period of energy (a cycle of work being done) [L F T] >> Energy is "stored energy" [LF] >No, you missed the point. You STORE energy in a flywheel. Or >chemically. The Joule is a measure of expended energy. Energy is always measured in units with dimensions of Joule, regardless of whether you call it "stored", "expended", kinetic or potential energy. It is true there is a relation between angular momentum (I*w) and angular kinetic energy of a flywheel (I*w**2/2), but they are not the same. Same difference as linear momentum (mv) and kinetic energy (mv**2/2). You seem to have a problem understanding units, or is it just units of energy you have problems with (considering you also don't grasp the concept of electron volts). Signature-Mike > >> [Someone else] > >> > > What has "Joule-seconds" to do with "stored energy"? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Yes, EL, we are talking about STORED energy. Not kinetic or potential > >chemical energy. So the stored energy is in the spin angular momentum. > Angular momentum is *not* energy! It is angular momentum. It's the same > idea as linear momentum and the kinetic energy of linear motion. Exactly my point, Mike. It is stored energy in Joule-seconds. I think of the analogy of stored charges Ampere-seconds. By using seconds, we can get a handle on the quantity of charge stored. > >Spin is the ONLY mechanism that particles can store energy with. > You forgot simple linear motion. True, but in the case of particle spin angular momentum, 1/2hbar is Joule-seconds. > > Spin > >causes mass effects. > Huh? > >http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/spinmass.gif > x=x. Mike, remember it is the mass radius of lambda/4pi given by QVPP that makes it x=x > >> Power is a rate of energy (rate of doing work) [L F / T] > >> Action is a period of energy (a cycle of work being done) [L F T] > >> Energy is "stored energy" [LF] > >No, you missed the point. You STORE energy in a flywheel. Or > >chemically. The Joule is a measure of expended energy. > Energy is always measured in units with dimensions of Joule, regardless of > whether you call it "stored", "expended", kinetic or potential energy. It > is true there is a relation between angular momentum (I*w) and angular > kinetic energy of a flywheel (I*w**2/2), but they are not the same. > Same difference as linear momentum (mv) and kinetic energy (mv**2/2). Of course, Mike. But the case in point is spin angular momentum, the energy is stored. It is not kinetic energy until it is released from the flywheel. > You seem to have a problem understanding units, or is it just units of > energy you have problems with (considering you also don't grasp the concept > of electron volts). I thought we settled that argument years ago. Look, Volt is Joule divided by charge, any way you slice it. In order for me to calculate with Volts as energy, I must keep the units purely basic, else Mathcad will hiccup. Mathcad keeps you honest because it calculates the dimensional analysis along with the numerical. If you foul up you get factional units like m^2/3 or some such. BTW, Bjoern thinks I invented (n-1H) so I scanned a page from the book reasearch papers to prove that (n-1H) is well known in the nuclear business. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/n-1H.gif The page has my penciled calculations on the subject. (it's in the book.) Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com search on: 0963154664 > In order for me to calculate with Volts as energy, I must keep the > units purely basic, else Mathcad will hiccup. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you foul up you get factional units like m^2/3 or some such. As I found out recently, one must be very careful to avoid overriding mathcads definitions. I got very strange results when I used 'N' as a variable. :) Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > > In order for me to calculate with Volts as energy, I must keep the > > units purely basic, else Mathcad will hiccup. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > As I found out recently, one must be very careful to avoid overriding > mathcads definitions. I got very strange results when I used 'N' as a > variable. :) BZ, yes but my problems are driving functions from basic physical units. This means I can't mix the phoney eV short cuts physics uses with their dimensionless electron volts. That practice was convenient when everyone used slidrules and did not have to bother with dimensional analysis. Here is a scan of page 47 from my book that shows you my problem. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47 So, as shown, I use honest to god units to express energy in equivalent volts. Try to derive (C) using dimensionless electron volts. Regards Tom; www.amazon.com research on; 0963154664 > > > In order for me to calculate with Volts as energy, I must keep the > > > units purely basic, else Mathcad will hiccup. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > www.amazon.com research on; 0963154664 >> BZ, yes but my problems are driving functions from basic physical >> units. >> >> This means I can't mix the phoney eV short cuts physics uses with >> their dimensionless electron volts. .... >> So, as shown, I use honest to god units to express energy in equivalent >> volts. >> >> Try to derive (C) using dimensionless electron volts. This may be your problem: You show xx electron volt xx (1 quantum of charge) divided by Joule which is NOT correct!!!! An electron volt is (1 quantum of charge) times (1 volt) where 'e' is (1 quantum of charge) is 1.6x10^19 coul. eV is not dimensionless. I use eV := (6.242x10^18)^-1 Joule to define a value for eV in Mathcad. Of course you could just as well use 1.6x10^-19 joules, like Fundamentals of Physics by David Halliday and Rober Resnick do. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > An electron volt is (1 quantum of charge) times (1 volt) > > where 'e' is (1 quantum of charge) is 1.6x10^19 coul. By the way, if you define e_0 as 1.60217733x10^19 coul and you define eV as e_0 x V You will find that eV is .... guess what 1.602x10^-19 Joules exactly as the physics books say. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >> An electron volt is (1 quantum of charge) times (1 volt) >> >> where 'e' is (1 quantum of charge) is 1.6x10^19 coul. >By the way, if you define e_0 as 1.60217733x10^19 coul >and you define eV as e_0 x V >You will find that eV is .... guess what 1.602x10^-19 Joules >exactly as the physics books say. A volt is defined as 1 joule/coulomb. An electron's charge is 1.602x10^-19 coulombs. So if you move an electron through a potential of 1 volt you get (1.602x10^-19 coulombs) times (1 Joule/coulomb), the coulomb units cancel out and you get 1.602x10^-19 Joules. This is the definition of an electron volt. Thomas, why do you have so much trouble with this? Signature-Mike In sci.physics.particle Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: : So if you move an electron through a potential of 1 volt : you get (1.602x10^-19 coulombs) times (1 Joule/coulomb), the coulomb : units cancel out and you get 1.602x10^-19 Joules. This is the definition : of an electron volt. Thomas, why do you have so much trouble with this? I really sincerely hope that that was a rhetorical question. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > > An electron volt is (1 quantum of charge) times (1 volt) > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You will find that eV is .... guess what 1.602x10^-19 Joules > exactly as the physics books say. Of course, BZ. Please read again the scan of page 47 from my book. I'll try to get the reference correctly typed this time (if my bifocals don't fail me). http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif What you are stating is the convenional (my own words in the referenced page 47) definition of an electron volt. Notice conventionally (eV) is defined as (e/A.s) Joule. That makes it difficult to actually calculate binding energy in eV, later on, when deriving the binding energy. Numerically conventional (Volt= Joule/Coulomb) is equal to physics dimensionless eV. It may not be difficult for FrediFizzics with his skill in using Mathcad, but for this old man, I refuse to complicate my life, by trying to accomodate funky energy units. The bottom line is the same. A Volt is allways Joule/Coulombs, and in this case Coulombs are the fundamental charge (e). What physics does is multiply dimensionless Volts (is there such a thing?) times a stripped down Coulomb (e/A.s) and calls it Joules. Are you happy with this? I am not, it causes all sorts of problems when working with basic structures for energy and matter. But there is a larger result here. With realizing that the near field magnetic moments are superior to the near field electric forces, and that the neutral neutron's negative magnetic moment, negative charge currents are exposed, when nucleons merge, QVPP methods are the first to show the strong force is electromagnetic, and to calculate binding energy between nucleons. Here is an example for helium 3, using NIST 1986 constants, showing the math for nucleon binding energy. (My book uses the new NIST 2004 adjustments to the constants) http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/helium3.gif Regards: Tom: www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 >> > An electron volt is (1 quantum of charge) times (1 volt) >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif I read the page the first time, after you corrected the link, Tom. > What you are stating is the convenional (my own words in the referenced > page 47) definition of an electron volt. That is the correct definition of an electron volt, normally abreviated eV. > Notice conventionally (eV) is defined as (e/A.s) Joule. That notation is confusing. I see now that you are actually taking e times joule/(Amp seconds) You do recognize that joule/(amp seconds) is Volts, don't you? that is e x Volts and since the units of e are coulombs you can write e times joule/coul = eV substitute in e, which is 1.6e-19 coul giving 1.6e-19 coul times joule/coul = eV now, cancel coul you end up with 1.6e-19 joule = eV which is a perfectly good unit of energy. In fact, you use joule earlier in the page. > That makes it > difficult to actually calculate binding energy in eV, later on, when > deriving the binding energy. There should be no problem. > Numerically conventional (Volt= > Joule/Coulomb) is equal to physics dimensionless eV. It is NOT unitless. The units are joules. e x joule/ coul = eV substitute for e 1.6 coul x joule/ coul = eV 1.6 joule = eV The units of eV are joules. > It may not be difficult for FrediFizzics with his skill in using > Mathcad, > > but for this old man, I refuse to complicate my life, by trying to > accomodate funky energy units. There are no funky energy units. The joule is a non funky energy unit. > The bottom line is the same. A Volt is allways Joule/Coulombs Yes. > , and in > this case Coulombs are the fundamental charge (e). e is 1.6e-19 coulombs. the coulombs cancel. > What physics does is multiply dimensionless Volts no > (is there such a > thing?) no. times a stripped down Coulomb (e/A.s) no. and calls it Joules. they canceled the coulombs. The units of e are coulombs. > Are you happy with this? the coulombs cancel. > I am not, it causes all sorts of problems > when working with basic structures for energy and matter. Nothing is going to work out right until you realize what is going on here. > But there is a larger result here. With realizing that the near field > magnetic moments are superior to the near field electric forces, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > 1.6 coul x joule/ coul = eV > > 1.6 joule = eV c/1.6/1.6e-19/ Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Tom, you have another problem: you say "from the well known J=V/e" but that is incorrect. 1 Joule = 1 Volt/1 coulomb e, the charge of the electron is 1.6e-19 coulombs. So your formula for J is wrong. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > Tom, you have another problem: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So your formula for J is wrong. Nope, read again Page47 in my book. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif The equivalent electron volts are (V=J/e) Any other normal electrical volts are (V=J/coulomb) Electron volts are a special case, and you use the electron's charge. Physics takes a shortcut and simply calls an electron volt 1.602 E-19 Joule. They don't bother to use normal volts that have a dimension of; 1 Volt = 1 (kg.m^2.s^-3.A^-1) And normal electron charge with dimensions of; e = 1.602 E-19 (A.s) So that Joule (kg.m^2.s^-2) is derived normally thus; 1.602 E-19 (kg.m^2.s^-2) = 1 (kg.m^2.s^-3.A^-1) times 1.602 E-19 (A.s) No, they take a shortcut and simply define an electron Volt as 1.602 E-19 (kg.m^2.s^-2) (Joule) Which violates dimensional analysis. Volts are not dimensionless and electron charge sure is not Joule (kg.m^2.s^-2). See Page 52 of my book and see why I must use dimensional analysis correctly in order to derive the binding energy equation (8.8) http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page52.gif The text references the page 47 equations. Try your luck deriving (8.3) and (8.8) as an interesting exercise in algebra. Note that the proof of (8.8) is equation (8.9) which results in the electrons known mass (energy) of 5.10998918 E5 eV. Note this is in my EQUIVALENT VOLTS, with dimensions of (kg.m^2.s^-3.A^-1)!!! Now if the experts in this newsgroup can dervive those equations based on the funky shortcut eV= 1.602 E-19 Joule,(i.e. kg.m^2.s^-2) everyone seems to adore, I wish them lots of luck. Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 | > Tom, you have another problem: | > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] | | I wish them lots of luck. Electronvolt From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. An electronvolt (symbol: eV) is the amount of *ENERGY* gained by a single unbound electron when it falls through an electrostatic potential difference of one volt. This is a very small amount of energy: 1 eV = 1.60217653 (14) × 10^-19 J. (Source: CODATA 2002 recommended values) It is a non-SI unit of energy, accepted for use with SI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt Definitions are set so everyone can be on the same "page". Nobody cares about or uses "EQUIVALENT VOLTS" in this day and age except you. As I said before; it is just un-necessary confusion and you hang on to it so you can have something to argue about apparently. FrediFizzx > | > So your formula for J is wrong. > | [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > | > | I wish them lots of luck. >snip< > Definitions are set so everyone can be on the same "page". Nobody cares > about or uses "EQUIVALENT VOLTS" in this day and age except you. As I > said before; it is just un-necessary confusion and you hang on to it so > you can have something to argue about apparently. Please realize that physics (incorrectly) uses the electron volt to give the binding energy between nucleons. The electron volt has NO relationship to binding energy of nucleons. The binding energy should have been expressed in Joules only, not electron volts. And that is what is discussed on page 47 and 52 of my book. To workaround the old physics error of expressing binding energy in electron volts, equations (8.2) are simply Joule divided by the electron's charge. This emmediately creates VOLTs for derivation of (C). Sure, I could have expressed 2.224573 E6 as 3.592 E-13 Joule, and would not have had to have this argument, but did you ever hear of the binding energy between the proton and neutron expressed as 3.592 E-13 Joule? So, I use 2.224573 E6 equivalent volts, so everyone is on the same page. Please try to understand my POV. Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 > Please realize that physics (incorrectly) uses the electron volt to > give the binding energy between nucleons. Please give up on the idea that everyone else is wrong and you have found a hidden mistake. They are not wrong and you are the one that is incorrect in your interpretation. I speak as a disinterested 3rd party. I am NOT a physicist. I do know some and work with physical chemists. They must know and understand physics. > The electron volt has NO relationship to binding energy of nucleons. > The binding energy should have been expressed in Joules only, not > electron volts. Joules and electron volts are easily interconvertable. Experiments that probe the nucleus often involve accelerated particles. The energies of those particles are often expressed in eV. It is natural that nuclear forces would also be expressed in the same units. > And that is what is discussed on page 47 and 52 of my book. > To workaround the old physics error of expressing binding energy in > electron volts, Your calling it an error does not make it so. It makes perfect sense to those working in the field. > equations (8.2) are simply Joule divided by the electron's charge. > This emmediately creates VOLTs for derivation of (C). But your 'VOLTs' are not volts and it makes no sense to call them volts. You decry the use of eV rather than Joules and then turn right around and use VOLTs rather than Joules. What you are doing less sense than what you say they should not do. Use tV's if you want. But keep in mind that 1 tV is 6.242e18 volts. It is a huge potential difference, rather than 1 volt. > Sure, I could have expressed 2.224573 E6 as 3.592 E-13 Joule, > > and would not have had to have this argument, > > but did you ever hear of the binding energy between the proton and > neutron expressed as 3.592 E-13 Joule? I never hear of anything expressed in equivalent volts [which, incidently are not equivalent to anything useful]. 3.59e-13 Joules = 2.24e6 eV = 5.755e-32 coulomb.tV [coulomb had to be added to make factor lable analysis work] > So, I use 2.224573 E6 equivalent volts, so everyone is on the sam |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message