 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / November 2005Particle Radii
Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a Tau? Best Regards, Todd Desiato > Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a Tau? To not confuse with neuronal tau (in chromosom, of a few nm !) Close to 10-14m, like a small nucleus ? There is a way : 10^80 muon or tau were in the volume of the universe at the time of the electroweak breaking of symmetry So 10^-11 sec after the big bang, the size of the universe was about 10^14 cm or 10^(-4) light years Remain to divide and convert this in fermi. Now is it correct ? There is no reason that at this early epoq their size was different that now. The scale factor changed, for sure. Thierry http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry > Best Regards, > Todd Desiato > Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a Tau? Neither of these have a measurable charge radius. They are, like the electron, "point-like" as far as we can tell. PD > > Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a Tau? > Neither of these have a measurable charge radius. They are, like the > electron, "point-like" as far as we can tell. Ignore this delusional misinformation from PD. I already proved that the particles do have a finite radius in the other thread with Bilge. Look up Coulomb's law. -Aut | Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a Tau? | | Best Regards, | Todd Desiato Hi Todd, As PD mentions, they don't have a "charge" radius that is inconsistent with point-like. I suppose you mean something like their "spread" due to relativistic and quantum "vacuum" effects? If so, probably their rationalized compton wavelength could be used as an effective radius. hbar/(m*c) FrediFizzx | | Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a | Tau? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | rationalized compton wavelength could be used as an effective radius. | hbar/(m*c) Or you could ask Gordon Kane and/or David Gerdes how they came up with this. ;-) http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1 FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com they forgot about the : 'Chain of orbitals' !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- > Or you could ask Gordon Kane and/or David Gerdes how they came up with > this. ;-) > > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1 Those drawings look more like what those particles /do/ than what they /are/. They forgot to get the cross-sections. People understand still-lifes. BTW, I don't see any points; do you? -Aut > Or you could ask Gordon Kane and/or David Gerdes how they came up with > this. ;-) > > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1 Those drawings look more like what those particles /do/ than what they /are/. They forgot to get the cross-sections. People understand still-lifes. BTW, I don't see any points; do you? -Aut > "main_engineering" wrote in message > | Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon and a > Tau? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > FrediFizzx Actually no. The Compton wavelength is several orders of magnitude too large. What I am looking at is the harmonic "cut-off" frequency for the particle. The Compton wavelength is a wave packet, constructed of a superposition of higher and lower frequency waves. It is the "rest" or low-energy limit. At the high-energy end of the specturm, there is a limiting cut-off, beyond which there is no wave propagation permitted. That high-end cut-off defines a boundary condition on the size of the "point-like" electron. It's < .02 fm, but it is not zero. Think of it similar to a black hole, where from our perspective it shrinks to nothing, but in fact, it has a finite radius at the event horizon. A paticle too has a horizon, beyond which nothing can propagate. Alson it's analogous to the cut-off of a waveguide. main_engineering main_engineering wrote: > > > "main_engineering" wrote in message > > | Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon > > | and a Tau? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > constructed of a superposition of higher and lower frequency waves. > It is the "rest" or low-energy limit. -=- Compton wavelength = wlc = 2*pi*wls = h / me*c = 2.351133492*10^-12 meter; ..where: wls = sqrt(re / ao) = wlc / 2*pi = re / a = hbar / me*c (pi)^3*("e")^195 = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = 3.741945171*10^-13 meter. 10^104*(pi + 1)^3*Qx Electron radius = re = a*wlc / 2*pi = a*wls (pi)^4*("e")^203*Qx = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = 2.728876078*10^-15 meter. 10^95*(pi + 1)^4 Non-dimensional Stefan-Boltzmann Qx sets the apparent "bounds". brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > -=- At the high-energy end of the specturm, there is a > limiting cut-off, beyond which there is no wave propagation permitted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > main_engineering CORRECTED, wls = sqrt(re*ao) ..22 lines down: main_engineering wrote: > > > "main_engineering" wrote in message > > | Anyone know where to find a reference for the radius of a Muon > > | and a Tau? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > constructed of a superposition of higher and lower frequency waves. > It is the "rest" or low-energy limit. -=- Compton wavelength = wlc = 2*pi*wls = h / me*c = 2.351133492*10^-12 meter. Note, wls = sqrt(re*ao) = wlc / 2*pi = re / a = wlbar = hbar / me*c (pi)^3*("e")^195 = -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = 3.741945171*10^-13 meter. 10^104*(pi + 1)^3*Qx Electron radius = re = a*wlc / 2*pi = a*wls = a*sqrt(re*ao) = a*hbar / me*c = a^3*loo / 4*pi = a*{mph}*ls / me = a^3*lo / pi = me*a^4*ao / Moo = a*k*{e} / 2*pi*me (pi)^4*("e")^203*Qx = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = 2.728876078*10^-15 meter. 10^95*(pi + 1)^4 Non-dimensional Stefan-Boltzmann Qx sets the apparent "bounds". brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > -=- At the high-energy end of the specturm, there is a > limiting cut-off, beyond which there is no wave propagation permitted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > main_engineering | > "main_engineering" wrote in message | [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | to nothing, but in fact, it has a finite radius at the event horizon. A | paticle too has a horizon, beyond which nothing can propagate. Also it's | analogous to the cut-off of a waveguide. OK, not an effective low energy radius then. HEP as not been able to measure the charge radius of electrons, etc. Yet... if there is one. As they go higher and higher in energy, it just keeps looking more point-like. I think they are at around 10^-19 meters now which is way below .02 fm. Still point-like and no *internal* structure of any kind so far. If they are close to any kind of "radius" now, then LHC might be able to show up one. But maybe not since it is a hadron collider. May have to wait until they built a larger e+e- linear collider which I believe the HEP folks are going to try to do. But I believe this would all be contingent on extra large dimensions and if they see quantum black holes at LHC. IOW, the GUT scale is much lower in the TeV range. If they don't, then a possible charge radius for electrons, etc. could be very very small. Even as small as the Planck length. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com > OK, not an effective low energy radius then. HEP as not been able to > measure the charge radius of electrons, etc. Yet... if there is one. > As they go higher and higher in energy, it just keeps looking more > point-like. I think they are at around 10^-19 meters now which is way This is the most idiotic scientific reasoning I've ever seen, akin to the biblical geocentrist arguments made up in order to fit the observations, or the wild inductions used to "prove" that a geometric continuum exists. You do not know what "size" in "particle size" means. It's not an upper energy cutoff; it's the one-time field's limit from its one-time mass-energy. Electrons have a minimum mass by their background energy; their size /then/ is their standard size, two classic electron radii wide. They are /never/ points, only hollow balls of different sizes. Transmutations happen when different particles of different sizes become the same size and tostick. -Aut | > OK, not an effective low energy radius then. HEP as not been able to | > measure the charge radius of electrons, etc. Yet... if there is one. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | balls of different sizes. Transmutations happen when different | particles of different sizes become the same size and tostick. Hey! I am just the messenger here. If you can find any data from experiments on electron, muon, or tau charge radius, pass them onto us here. Note the keyword *internal* that you snipped out. For me, leptons do have an *external* structure due to relativistic and quantum "vacuum" effects. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com most (if not all!!) of these particles are not spherical they are longish ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > most (if not all!!) of these particles are not spherical > > they are longish It looks like either a perspective illusion or a composite particle region. just lets try very simple logic; if we agree that a combination of two particles is longish and another condition - the bond is constant and fixed what is more reasonable to think that we have here two 'balls' side by side? so what is the point of connection is it one point? if yes why rather that point and not another one. or may be two longish shapes? that has 'poles' and the connection is only at the poles? moreover: how about the possibility that even that 'basic particle' is actually not 'basic but composed of sub particles ?? so if a conglomerating of sub- particles than again we are in the 'direction of' the longish shape ??!! have you hear ed about the 'string theory'? have you hear ed about the 'chain of orbitals' theory?? have you seen a protein molecule? (not to mention the Genome) have you seen the shape of a lightening (that might as well be a shape of a chain of orbitals or may be based on it ?) if not it is just material for new thinking. ATB Y.Porat ------------------- Y.Porat wrote: > > just lets try very simple logic; > if we agree that a combination of two particles is longish > and another condition - the bond is constant and fixed > > what is more reasonable to think > that we have here two 'balls' side by side? ..Dumb-bell.?!! > so what is the point of connection is it one point? > if yes why rather that point and not another one. > > or may be two longish shapes? that has 'poles' and the connection > is only at the poles? ..OBLONG, Dumb-bell.?!! > moreover: > how about the possibility that even that 'basic particle' is > actually not 'basic but composed of sub particles ?? > > so if a conglomerating of sub- particles than again we are in the > 'direction of' the longish shape ??!! ..albeit, HEAVY-weight OBlong, Dumb-bell.?!! > have you hear ed about the 'string theory'? ONE HEAVY-weight OBlong Dumb-bell Theory at a time.!! > have you hear ed about the 'chain of orbitals' theory?? CHAiNs are descretely CONTiNOUS strings of MOLAR particles.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > have you seen a protein molecule? (not to mention the Genome) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------- very nice now ltes go on: can you describe a Proton made of 3 Quarks as a 'sphere' ??? and the conclutions are ??!! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------------- > just lets try very simple logic; > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > or may be two longish shapes? that has 'poles' and the connection is have > only > at the poles? There are no points. "Points of connection" is a poor label for "regions of connection". Two balls of a given potential-length constant mesh everywhere available between their inner and outer charge domes. In their motions, they trace out an ellipse or ellipsoid or helicoid, but this isn't the shape of each sheer charge. If two balls are ever joined at a point, their potential is shorten out and there is no further impulse or interaction other than what carries over from their background. If a particle/charge is squashen, so are time and space squashen. In a relativistic particle/charge, the shorten leading kilter represents a cramming of parameters in other parameters; they aren't strictly still-lifes because they move unevenly with respect to their interactions. > moreover: > how about the possibility that even that 'basic particle' is actually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'direction of' > the longish shape ??!! Compositions come at different energies. For instance, the electron decays into a neutrino when it loses more mass than is possible with electric fields. But when it's not decaying, it doesn't have the decay's shape. > have you hear ed about the 'string theory'? > > have you hear ed about the 'chain of orbitals' theory?? > have you seen a protein molecule? (not to mention the Genome) > > have you seen the shape of a lightening (that might as well be a lightning > shape of > a chain of orbitals or may be based on it ?) > if not > it is just material for new thinking. A particle's mass ring comes in a loop, which can be clept a "string". Its charge is nonnegotiable; fields and energies and their motions are epifenomena of their charges. -Aut could you predict the known longish shapes from 'your ' theory or is it that first we found experimental data that showes longish shape and only then you come with your explanations iow if some day it will be found (experimantally) that *all particles are spheres* will you have explanations for that ??....... ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- please show us how do you make a sphere from 3 Quarks TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------- > could you predict the known longish shapes > from 'your ' theory or is it that first we found experimental > data that showes longish shape show > and only then you come with your explanations what longish shapes? > iow > if some day it will be found (experimantally) that *all particles are experimentally > spheres* > will you have explanations for that ??....... that?? I already explained. Particles are hollow balls. Charges are sferes. Masses are rings. Elements are tesselating discreta. I like the cuboctahedron. > please show us how do you make a sphere > from 3 Quarks AIP and others ran a story about finding calculations for the three protonic shapes depending on how the quarks were moving. There was a ball, a peanut, and a hoop. Anyway, anything round is just an average over time and space. A ball has three axes. A sfere is made by spinning a circle, a ball by spinning a coin. With three quarks, two of the same mass and one heavier, this should be easy. -Aut so in a certain moment it cant be a sphere right??!! now all the rest suggestions are just speculations that no one can prove right?? so may be try suggesting a longish shape with no junglairings ?? (how about a 'chain of orbitals ??) and there are other arguments for the longish shape!! a light element like say Hydrogen that is a Gas is really rotating in all directions but the net proton is a longish shape !!- 3 quarks in a (broken) line and much more than that !! yet please note a very important remark: all those 3 quarks are rotating as a unit *there is no mutual translation between them it is not a porridge of particles that 'boils'!! or else you can never get a stable structure of matter as we know it leading from the micro to the macro.! the same with heavier nuclei it is not a 'boiling porridge' any nucleid is on its fixed place relative to the other ones. and if you dont mind i have the exact 'map' of *all of them* (unbelievable eh ?? (:-) it will take time to be more than just believable. and may be i will not live to see that time ... just more than time to start making some switches in paradigmatic concepts ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- cant -> can't junglairings means what?? i -> I Try discrete boiling. Maybe you should play the interactive fiction game "A Thrashing Parity Bit of the Mind". > cant -> can't > junglairings means what?? > i -> I > > Try discrete boiling. -------------------- might be if you mean that each sub particle is rotating or whatever movement but there is no 'exchange of relative locations' of the sub particles. and that is the main innovation to remember. Maybe you should play the interactive fiction > game "A Thrashing Parity Bit of the Mind". no idea what you are talking about. i prefer simple direct explicit language. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.