 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2006The Nature of the Electron (was Re: The densities of a subatomic particle)
Rejected by spr; presented for possible discussion here. "Cl.Massé" <postmaster@expeditemediagroup.com> wrote in message news:4422ec17$0$31455$626a54ce@news.free.fr... > "Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le message de > news: 4414078D.8060105@univie.ac.at > > > This is not quite true. Only the bare electrons figuring in the QED > > Lagrangian are pointlike. The physical electrons (obtained by > > renormalization) are slightly extended, which shows in a nontrivial > > form factor that gives rise to the Lamb Shift and the anomalous magnetic > > moment. See the entry ''Are electrons pointlike/structureless?'' > > in my theoretical physics FAQ at > > http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt > > Yes, but in a way more understandable by a beginner: > > The "physical electron" is made of the "bare electron" surrounded by a cloud > of further virtual electron-positron pairs, which is rather "caused" by the > electron than "part" of it. This cloud screens a discontinuity of charge > density which would else give rise to infinities. It seems to me if this cloud is always there, then it for sure should be considered as "part" of the electron. Especially if it gives rise to things like the Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment. And there are those that believe the cloud also gives rise to the complete magnetic moment, spin, etc. due to zitterbewegung. Do we really know which is "causing" what here? Or does it all go hand in hand together? IOW, the properties of an electron observed from a distance do include the cloud. And if it were possible to be "at" the "bare electron", we would see no charge, no mass, and no energy. IMHO, it is the cloud that "drives" the so-called infinite self-energy of elementary particles. Well, at least it is easier to imagine a mechanism in this kind of picture rather than requiring a point-like particle to have so many properties that are hard to justify physically. Here is an interesting take on this subject that I ran across recently; "The Nature of the Electron" http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 The part the author leaves out of this Hubius Helix descripton is what constrains the motion. It could only be due to the cloud of virtual fermonic pairs of the quantum "vacuum". > This situation isn't easily described in the framework of first quantization > (wave function of space and time) since a variable number of particles is > involved (and not at all with the Sch. equation), but better in second > quantization (field of operators). Yes. 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 > Rejected by spr; presented for possible discussion here. > > > "Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le >> message de news: 4414078D.8060105@univie.ac.at > > > This is not quite true. Only the bare electrons figuring in the QED > > > Lagrangian are pointlike. The physical electrons (obtained by [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > requiring a point-like particle to have so many properties that are hard > to justify physically. .......... To begin with, kindly refer to the following link. (That is not my web site) http://www.mariner.connectfree.co.uk/html/e_m_potential_energy.htm I am reproducing an extract from that site: " Consider just the electron. It is surrounded by an electrostatic field. The electrostatic field strength Xe is given by... Xe = -q / (4.pi.e0.r^2) ........ (1) This is a vector directed inwards towards the centre of the electron. The electrostatic field energy density over space W(r) at any point in this field (as per standard relations) is ... W(r) = e0.Xe^2 / 2 = (e0/2).[q^2 / (16 pi^2 e0^2 r^4)] = (q^2/32 pi^2 e0).(1 / r^4) ..... (2) Where does the electrostatic field energy come from? It can come only from the creation energy of the particle. An electron is created with 8.2 X 10^(-14) Joules of energy and a portion of this goes into the electrostatic field. However, from E=m.c^2 the rest mass of the electron is based on its whole creation energy, so it is equivalent to say that the electric field contains a portion of the creation energy, or that some portion of the rest mass." In the above expressions, W(r) is the energy density in the electrostatic field of the electron (or positron) at radius r from the center of the charge particle. The permittivity of vacuum or empty space is represented by e0 and q is the charge of the electron. Now let us consider a very small spherical volume of space of radius r0 around the center of the electron (or positron). Further let us assume that the actual charge particle or the core (electron or positron) is physically contained within this small volume of radius r0 and its electrostatic field is spread over the entire space external to this volume of radius r0. We agree to call r0 the nominal radius of the electron (or positron). For the time being let us not bother about the actual structure of the core of the charge particle within this nominal radius r0. We simply agree that the total rest mass energy content of the electron (or positron) is physically located or distributed in two regions - the core region within radius r0 and the electrostatic field region outside or external to radius r0. Let us assume that Ef is the portion of the total rest mass energy of the electron which is actually distributed in its electrostatic field. Then integrating the field energy density W(r) over the entire field region we get: Ef = Integral from r0 to infinity of [W(r).4 pi r^2 dr] .... (3) Substituting from equation (2) in to equation (3) and carrying out the indicated integration we get Ef = q^2 / (8 pi e0 r0) .... (4) If we assume that about 65% of the total rest mass energy of the electron (or positron) is located within its electrostatic field (that is Ef = 0.65 X 8.2 X 10^(-14)Joules), using equation (4) we can work out the magnitude of the core radius r0 as, Ef = 0.65 X 8.2 X 10^(-14) = q^2 / (8 pi e0 r0) r0 = (q^2 / (8 pi e0)) /5.33X 10^(-14) .... (5) With electron charge q = 1.6 X 10^(-19) and permittivity e0 = 8.854 X 10^(-12) we get, r0 = 2.158 X 10^(-15) m = 2.158 fm That is the electron consists of a central core of about 2.1 fm radius with surrounding electrostatic field with radially decaying magnitude of the type, f(r) = -q / (4.pi.e0.r^2) .... (6) But we know from the electromagnetic interactions that the field influence propagates at the speed of light c. This suggests that the electrostatic field (6) could be of the form of a wave field like f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)) where i stands for iota. Thus we can imagine the electron structure as consisting of a central core of about 2.1 fm radius containing a standing wave electrostatic field and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying amplitude given by f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)). Here K represents the wave number of the radial wave field and could be of the order of 10^15 m^-1. As you can see this picture of the electron is drastically different from the conventional point mass and point charge notion generally taken for granted. In this core-field picture of electron (or positron), the mass energy is characteristically distributed in space and its charge property is represented by the interaction characteristic of its wave field. When two opposite charges interact, their electrostatic wave fields get superposed thereby reducing the amplitude of the resultant wave field and reducing the combined field energy of the interacting charges. This reduction in the combined field energy amounts to a net release of a portion of their field (mass) energy (called negative interaction energy) which could either get transferred to the kinetic energy of the interacting charges or gets used up in creation of a photon or some other transient elementary particle. If the released interaction energy is given out or gets extracted from the system then the interacting charge particles are said to get bound together and the amount of interaction energy extracted from the system is termed as their binding energy. When two similar charges interact, their electrostatic wave fields get superposed thereby increasing the amplitude of the resultant wave field and increasing the combined field energy of the interacting charges leading to a positive interaction energy. If a pair oppositely charged particles gets bound into a stable system with finite binding energy it will no longer be able to interact electrostatically with any other charge particle even though their combined field (mass) energy is still containing a large fraction of their original field energy. This is because the new charge particle will interact with positive interaction energy with similar charge particle and with negative interaction energy with opposite charge particle. Now consider a large body of mass m consisting of N pairs of oppositely charged particles bound together with an average binding energy of Eb per charged particle. If Ef is the field (mass) energy of a single free charge particle then (Ef-Eb) will be the remaining or residual field energy per charged particle of the neutral body of mass m. Generally Eb is a very small fraction of Ef for all inert or uncharged matter particles. The most crucial point I wish to highlight is that for any body of mass m consisting of N pairs of oppositely charged particles, 2N.(Ef-Eb) will be the residual field energy distributed in an infinitely large field region of this body with radially decaying intensity. Origin of this residual field energy is the residual field (mass) energy of the interacting charge particles. As remarked earlier, the form of this residual field energy is not suitable for supporting any electrostatic interaction with any external charge particle. However it is this residual field energy surrounding all neutral or inert matter particles which supports gravitational interaction among similar matter particles. The detailed mechanism of such a gravitational interaction among neutral matter particles could be facilitated by a slightly flexible orientation of orbital electrons around relatively massive nucleus. GSS GSS: >Now let us consider a very small spherical volume of space of radius r0 >around the center of the electron (or positron). Further let us assume [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >volume of radius r0. We agree to call r0 the nominal radius of the >electron (or positron). This fails to agree with experiment. See below. [...] >Thus we can imagine the electron structure as consisting of a central >core of about 2.1 fm radius containing a standing wave electrostatic That is called the classical electron radius (2.8179.. fm). The experimentally measured upper limit on the electron radius is < 0.05 fm. >field and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying >amplitude given by f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)). Here K represents the wave number [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and its charge property is represented by the interaction >characteristic of its wave field. That also disagrees with experiment. The mass and charge distriution are known to be the same to quite good precision via the absence of an electron electric dipole moment. > GSS: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The experimentally measured upper limit on the electron radius > is < 0.05 fm. Generally the experiments are planned and conducted either to verify or to contradict the conclusions of certain theoretical models. In the present case electron is modeled as a *solid* particle. No wonder the collusion experiments yield zero size of *solid* particle. Only when we start considering the core of electron to be consisting of a *standing wave* field, we may be able to plan appropriate experiments to demarcate the core boundary. > >field and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying > >amplitude given by f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)). Here K represents the wave number [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are known to be the same to quite good precision via the absence of > an electron electric dipole moment. Again the charge is being visualized as consisting of *grains*. What I am conveying is that the charge property is represented by the interaction characteristic of its wave field. GSS > > GSS: > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > GSS Electron is not a charge in its normal stage. Read about it: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen GSS: >> GSS: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Generally the experiments are planned and conducted either to verify or >to contradict the conclusions of certain theoretical models. So what? The data are valid regardless and the data say that the charge radius of the electron is < 0.05 fm and the coupling gets _stronger_ (\alpha =~ 1/128). So, yes, it did verify a theoretical model, and totally invalidated your model. In fact, your model was known to be invalid for most of the last century. >In the present case electron is modeled as a *solid* particle. Don't be silly. It's a straight forward scattering experiment which has no notion whatsoever of solid. In fact, such experiments are diffraction experiments, since angular distributions are difraction patterns. >No wonder the collusion experiments yield zero size of *solid* >particle. You aren't paying attention and you obviously failed to check your facts. Experiments don't yield ``zero size.'' I told you what the experiments did yield. Study quantum mechanics and some quantum field theory so that you don't try explaining modern physics in hopelessly classical terms. >Only when we >start considering the core of electron to be consisting of a *standing >wave* field, we may be able to plan appropriate experiments to >demarcate the core boundary. Don't be ridiculous. Electrons, just like other fermions are modeled as dirac wave fields. How many references would you like? But, rather than waste time with references, it's much simpler to just look at the lagrangian which describes the electron: L = \psibar(p/ - m)\psi - j.A - (1/4)F_uv F^uv Note that the above is a wave equation and it's solutions are spinors - i.e., the dirac wave fields. [...] >> That also disagrees with experiment. The mass and charge distriution >> are known to be the same to quite good precision via the absence of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >am conveying is that the charge property is represented by the >interaction characteristic of its wave field. The least you could do is figure out what you are arguing against before disputing it. You've succeeded only in invalidating your misconceptions. You'll have to do a lot better than that. > GSS: > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > theory so that you don't try explaining modern physics in hopelessly > classical terms. Before proceeding further in these discussions you may kindly work out the interaction energy between an electron and a positron when separated by a distance of the order of 0.05 fm. Do you think that practically it is possible for this charge pair to come so close? > >Only when we > >start considering the core of electron to be consisting of a *standing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Note that the above is a wave equation and it's solutions are > spinors - i.e., the dirac wave fields. Kindly let me know the solution of this wave equation for the case of an electron which is at rest say in ICRS and is far removed from all other charges and fields. How do you mentally visualize the electron at rest to be like? > [...] GSS GSS: >> You aren't paying attention and you obviously failed to check your >> facts. Experiments don't yield ``zero size.'' I told you what the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the interaction energy between an electron and a positron when >separated by a distance of the order of 0.05 fm. Work it out for yourself. Obviously, to resolve a distance of 0.05 fm, the wavelength has to be of the same order, so the energy required from only considerations of the wavelength required is on the order of 4 GeV. The actual energies used were on the order of 140-180 GeV for bhabba scattering (if I recall correctly). If you want a real calculation, either see the literature or buy a lot of computational power and spend a few years performing the calculations, checking the results and estimating the error bars in the calculations due to the numerical algorithms you choose. >Do you think that practically it is possible for this charge >pair to come so close? I believe I just explained the relationship between a differential scattering cross section and a diffraction pattern. Since cross sections are what one measures in scattering experiments, you can either choose to invent new rules to fit your personal philosophical idea of what an electron should be or you can apply the physics to the electron the same way it applies to everything else and accept what the data tells you. >> >Only when we >> >start considering the core of electron to be consisting of a *standing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >an electron which is at rest say in ICRS and is far removed from all >other charges and fields. I have no idea what ``ICRS'' means. Spell out your acronyms. It isn't that much extra effort. If you want techniques to apply that equation to electron scattering or whatever, the literature is repleat with articles on how to do that and evey textbook on particle physics (other than lower level introductory textbooks) or field theory addresses that in detail. The (qed) lagrangian above has been tested and found to e in agreement with the experimental data to parts in 10^13. Since that makes it the most successful physical theory in history, and is rather straight forward to derive from first principles using nothing but special relativity and the quantum operators for energy and momentum to replace E and p in E^2 = p^2 + m^2, you will never match the precision and simplicity of the derivation by patching classical concepts together. >How do you mentally visualize the electron at rest to be like? That is a non-sequitur - I don't visualize the electron at rest, at least not in any classical meaning of the term. The only velocity eigenvalues of the dirac hamiltonian are +/-c, so the only meaning for an electron ``at rest'' is one whose average position over its zitterbewgung doesn't change in some frame. Electrons are not little classical balls of charge. > GSS: ..... >>Before proceeding further in these discussions you may kindly work out >>the interaction energy between an electron and a positron when [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > years performing the calculations, checking the results and estimating the > error bars in the calculations due to the numerical algorithms you choose. Let me repeat, my question is about the interaction energy between an *electron* and a *positron*. >>Do you think that practically it is possible for this charge >>pair to come so close? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electron should be or you can apply the physics to the electron the same > way it applies to everything else and accept what the data tells you. Why are you considering scattering in this case? >>>>Only when we >>>>start considering the core of electron to be consisting of a *standing >>>>wave* field, we may be able to plan appropriate experiments to >>>>demarcate the core boundary. >>> Don't be ridiculous. Electrons, just like other fermions are >>> modeled as dirac wave fields. How many references would you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> Note that the above is a wave equation and it's solutions are >>> spinors - i.e., the dirac wave fields. >>Kindly let me know the solution of this wave equation for the case of >>an electron which is at rest say in ICRS and is far removed from all >>other charges and fields. > I have no idea what ``ICRS'' means. Spell out your acronyms. It isn't > that much extra effort. If you want techniques to apply that equation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to replace E and p in E^2 = p^2 + m^2, you will never match the precision > and simplicity of the derivation by patching classical concepts together. Just consider some reference frame in which the electron and the observer (both) are at rest and far removed from all other charges and fields. Isn't it an extremely simple case? What will be the Dirac wave field for the electron in this case? > >How do you mentally visualize the electron at rest to be like? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > zitterbewgung doesn't change in some frame. Electrons are not little > classical balls of charge. Does it mean that you cannot visualize the electron at rest but you can visualize the electron when it is in motion? Or does it mean that you just cannot visualize the electron in any way? If you really cannot visualize the electron in any way then it simply implies that you just don't have sufficient information about the electron with you. In that case let us not discuss any further. GSS GSS: >> GSS: >..... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Let me repeat, my question is about the interaction energy between an >*electron* and a *positron*. Your point being what? >>>Do you think that practically it is possible for this charge >>>pair to come so close? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why are you considering scattering in this case? Because scattering measurements are the only experimental means by which one can attain data at such small distances. [...] >> rather straight forward to derive from first principles using nothing >> but special relativity and the quantum operators for energy and momentum [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >observer (both) are at rest and far removed from all other charges and >fields. Isn't it an extremely simple case? No, it is not, but if you insist on a simplistic answer, then your answer is that the solutions are plane waves. >What will be the Dirac wave field for the electron in this case? In order to describe a physical electron, you must construct an appropriate superposition, which necessarily requires both electrons and positrons (which is exactly why dirac was able to predict the existence of the positron and anti-matter in general). For the details, see any textbook on field theory. I'm only willing to fill in the gaps, not post an exegesis beginning with the derivation of the dirac equation. >> >How do you mentally visualize the electron at rest to be like? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >visualize the electron when it is in motion? >Or does it mean that you just cannot visualize the electron in any way? It means neither of those. I meant what I said. Your question is a non-sequitur, since manifestly quantum mechanical entities like particles have no classical description, except as a limiting case which is completely irrelevant to any point here. >If you really cannot visualize the electron in any way then it simply >implies that you just don't have sufficient information about the >electron with you. While I could provide such a simple minded description for purely pedagogical purposes to someone who is not going to misconstrue the pedagogy for a literal description, I suspect the only reason you are asking the non-sequitur above is because you are counting on doing just that. You've already demonstrated your propensity to misconstrue such simple-minded pedagogical descriptions of particle physics throught this thread. >In that case let us not discuss any further. Until you understand modern physics well enough to know what it is you are arguing against, that would seem prudent. I take the position that I shouldn't have to explain a theory to someone if they know enough to argue that the theory is wrong. The fact that qed is in agreement with the data to a level which is unprecedented in science, carries a lot more weight for its veracity than a philosophical preference based on concepts which have failed to get anywhere close to agreement with experiment. The electron is not a little ball of charge. That idea has been inconsistent with experiment for a century and cannot even explain the electron magnetic moment. (Before you claim otherwise, you should calculate the magnetic moment as a rotating all of charge for comparison.) $$ 'The Nature of the Electron' $$ I take the position that I shouldn't $$ have to explain a theory to someone $$ if they know enough to argue that the $$ theory is wrong. -- Bilge (GR-Coup rebel). $$ $$ Vu = 10*("e")*Volt. ```Brian A M Stuckless. Ph.T (Tivity). $$ My poor FLUFFY. B A STUCKLESS iNSPECTiON and SUPERViSiON. > ...................................................................................................................... > manifestly quantum mechanical entities like particles have no classical description, > ...................................................................................................................... The fact that no one has yet produced a classical model of real electrons and other particles that today's particle physicists will take seriously enough to set about disproving its predictions is no proof that it cannot be done. All that is needed is the right sort of wave function and equations that define the structure of an isolated particle (charge, current, mass and spin angular momentum densities) and also its interaction potentials as functions of this wave function. The logical starting point is surely the most particle-like wave function we can find - one that in the rest frame of the particle is static, time independent, with nothing periodic , nothing oscillatory about it, no zitterwebegung. There is only one kind of wave function that satisfies this requirement, a soliton. This much has long been recognised but there is, to my knowledge, no consensus on the best wave equation to use in defining one or how best to go about deducing from one the structure of a model particle. Back in the early days of quantum mechanics Schrodinger went some way towards this when he proposed that the wave function, psi, should be interpreted as giving in |psi|^2 the distribution of charge density, as if the electron dissolved itself into a cloud. This made quite good sense for a bound system (one of negative energy) such as the hydrogen atom in its ground state. But his wave equation was designed only to model the state of an electron moving in an external field. It included no internal field, no self potential. For an isolated electron in a state of uniform motion, and thus one of positive energy, the Schrodinger equation is that it then defines only a set of possible plane waves. For any one of these |psi|^2 can tell us only the magnitude of the electron's momentum, nothing more. The wave function could deliver useful predictions of the scattering cross-sections for a beam of monoenergetic electrons, an ensemble, but tell us nothing about a single electron. So, understandably, he went with the Born interpretation of as a probability distribution. We can, with little effort, produce a soliton of the sort we need staying with the time independent Schrodinger equation and revising the time dependent Schrodinger equation. One candidate for a suitable Schrodinger soliton equation (valid only for an isolated particle in uniform motion (momentum p, inertial mass M, M^2 = m^2 + (p/c)^2) is: (K del^2 - ^2 D^2) (log (psi)), where D(psi) = psi.dot (the partial time derivative), K = (1/3)(p/Mc)^2. This has the simple solution: psi = exp (-u), where u = (x-X)^2 + (y -Y)^2 + (z-Z)^2 and the position of the centroid of the soliton (and the particle) is defined by the coordinates, X(t), Y(t), Z(t). Solitons such as the above, like all solitons in macroscopic fluids, have no singularities and all particles constructed from them with density potentials that are simple functions of |psi|^2 have no infinities and require no renormalization. Dirac wrote of this procedure, "This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity because it turns out to be small, not neglecting it because it is infinitely large and you do not want it! Of course the inference is that the basic equations are wrong and radical changes need to be made." He was clearly saying that we should look for something better than the Dirac wave equation, one with no singularities, no infinities. But, sadly, the successes of QED persuaded almost everyone to ignore his words. Phil Gardner Phil Gardner wrote: > > On Monday, April 3, Bilge wrote: > > > ...................................................................................................................... > > manifestly quantum mechanical entities like particles have no classical description, > > ...................................................................................................................... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Schrodinger soliton equation (valid only for an isolated particle in > uniform motion (momentum p, inertial mass M, M^2 = m^2 + (p/c)^2) is: $$ You doN'T have an ANGULAR momentum pA term ..in THERE (GR). $$ $$ Try Hamiltonian ENTHALPY E = m*c^2 + pL*c + pA*fA $$ = m*c^2 + h*fL + nA*hbar*fA. $$ Brian A M Stuckless. > (K del^2 - ^2 D^2) (log (psi)), where D(psi) = psi.dot (the partial > time derivative), K = (1/3)(p/Mc)^2. This has the simple solution: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But, sadly, the successes of QED persuaded almost everyone to > ignore his words. > > Phil Gardner $$ Re: The Nature of the Electron. Phil Gardner: Don't reformat what I write. While most people reformat text in order to reduce the line width to 80 characters, for some reason, you find it necessary to reformat lines to e longer than 80 characters in order to add that stupid marquis frame, which then needs to be reformatted back to the way it was. >> manifestly quantum mechanical entities like particles have no >> classical description, >The fact that no one has yet produced a classical model of real >electrons and other particles that today's particle physicists will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >particle (charge, current, mass and spin angular momentum densities) >and also its interaction potentials as functions of this wave function. In other words, you think that the description of the electron in terms of a wavefunction (with spin, even) is a _classical_ description? Here on planet earth, we call that a quantum mechanical description. >The logical starting point is surely the most particle-like wave >function we can find - one that in the rest frame of the particle is >static, time independent, with nothing periodic , nothing oscillatory >about it, no zitterwebegung. That is like saying you don't ike the solution for the equation x - 5 = 0, so you are going to start with x = 6 because you think that will be a better solution to x - 5 = 0. [...] >We can, with little effort, produce a soliton of the sort we need >staying with the time independent Schrodinger equation and revising the >time dependent Schrodinger equation. The schroedinger equation is non-relativistic, so it isn't even relevent to the question. Note that you have inserted the c^2 ad hoc, so you are now implicitly building in some relativity. >One candidate for a suitable >Schrodinger soliton equation (valid only for an isolated particle in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >position of the centroid of the soliton (and the particle) is defined >by the coordinates, X(t), Y(t), Z(t). OK, so what does that get you? What you have written is a gaussian wave packet. It's a superposition of forward and backward waves. The centroid of the gaussian is the expected (most probable) value for the position. It's an average position, not a position. Now, let's look at zitterbewegung. The eigenvalues for the velocity can only be +/-c. The probability for motion in each direction is, P(+c) = |a|^2, P(-c) = 1 - |a|^2 The velocity is then, v = c (P(+c) - P(-c)) = c (|a|^2 - (1 - |a|^2)) = 2|a|^2 - 1. or v/c = 2|a|^2 - 1 What is the difference? >Solitons such as the above, like all solitons in macroscopic fluids, >have no singularities Naturally - it doesn't address the question. You've simply shuffled the issue off to be addressed elsewhere - like the fuzziness of spacetime. I don't really see the difference. >and all particles constructed from them with density potentials that >are simple functions of |psi|^2 have no infinities and require no >renormalization. Nonsense. You simply aren't aware that what you have done is the same thing - mainly because you've ignored the width of the gaussian you wrote down (seeing as you didn't bother to even include it). Your function `u' should be, u = [(x-x')/a]^2 + [(x-x')/b]^2 + [(x-x')/c]^2 Take the limit as a,b,c -> 0. Oviously, you cannot take that limit and have a finite momentum, so what is the difference between imposing a cut-off by requiring the width of the gaussian to be finite and requiring the momentum to be finite? >Dirac wrote of this procedure, "This is just not sensible mathematics. >Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity because it turns >out to be small, not neglecting it because it is infinitely large and >you do not want it! See the chapter on renormalization in ``Quantum Fields and Strings.'' It was written by david gross, who won the 2004 nobel prize. You can read their quotes back and forth between them and tell me which quotes win. I'm not really interested in a discussion by proxy with a dead physicist. If you can discuss renormalization, fine. Use your own words, etc. If not, build a puppet theatre. >Of course the inference is that the basic equations are wrong >and radical changes need to be made." He was clearly saying that we >should look for something better than the Dirac wave equation, one with >no singularities, no infinities. I am especially not interested in a dicussion in which a dead physicist clarifies his inferences by proxy from beyond the grave. If you are competent enough to have an opinion, you have no reason to appeal to an authority other than yourself. >But, sadly, the successes of QED persuaded almost everyone to ignore >his words. Feel free to return to the classical physics which failed precisely because they were not renormalizable if you think renormalization is so awful. Before you do, you ought to fisrt look into all of the that old physics in which renormalizion was taken for granted and simply was not referred to as such, but which doesn't seem to cause such angst. I guess the word ``renormalization'' was a bad choice, since no one seems to have a prolem understanding why huge, macroscopic cutoffs are physically reasonable (take a dielectric, for example). > GSS: > >Bilge wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > zitterbewegung doesn't change in some frame. Electrons are not little > classical balls of charge. Couldn't be said much better! Interesting thread. Fine points and references. Forgive me including sci.physics.electromag with Fredi's hint to and the needs in http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265 Ole > > GSS: > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > wave* field, we may be able to plan appropriate experiments to > demarcate the core boundary. Have you ever even read a particle physics book? If so, which ones? > > >field and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying > > >amplitude given by f(r).e^(iK(r-ct)). Here K represents the wave number [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > am conveying is that the charge property is represented by the > interaction characteristic of its wave field. Did you even bother to study the paper "The Nature of the Electron" that this thread is about? Here is the link again. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 I think the author is saying that the Hubius Helix is the minimal topology for the Dirac electron. I tend to agree with that hypothesis. In fact IMHO, possibly for all fermions except maybe for neutrinos. A massless point-like entity in a circular-like double loop motion at c. It is a string from our perspective that has a "current" flow of the point-like entity. Reverse the flow and that represents the anti-particle. However, this topology is also free to "spin" however it wants to. Thus making it cloud-like. A single point-like entity makes a "field" due to relativistic effects. That is the simplistic version. I believe in reality we have to consider why and what is making the circular-like motion in the first place. That could only come from quantum "vacuum" effects, IMHO. 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 ...... > Did you even bother to study the paper "The Nature of the Electron" that > this thread is about? Here is the link again. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > FrediFizzx I am sorry, I cannot agree with this nonsense. GSS > ...... > > Did you even bother to study the paper "The Nature of the Electron" that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > GSS OK, it is your loss. ;-) But please don't add any of your uneducated nonsense to this thread which is in fact about the paper on the eprint server titled "The Nature of the Electron". 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 > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message ...... > > I am sorry, I cannot agree with this nonsense. > OK, it is your loss. ;-) But please don't add any of your uneducated > nonsense to this thread which is in fact about the paper on the eprint > server titled "The Nature of the Electron". Agreed. I will not add any nonsense (By the way, how is an educated nonsense different from an uneducated nonsense?) to this thread provided you do not expect others to accept your nonsense (whether educated or uneducated)!! GSS > > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > ...... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > provided you do not expect others to accept your nonsense (whether > educated or uneducated)!! I suggest you start with what we knew back in 1939 with Victor Weisskopf's paper "On the Self-Energy and the Electromagnetic Field of the Electron," Phys. Rev. 56, 72 (1939). It's one of the classics. When you learn enough to understand it, then you will hopefully have the answer to your question. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v56/i1/p72_1 And BTW, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says in that article. But it is an excellent starting point. 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 > > > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > ...... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > article. But it is an excellent starting point. > FrediFizzx Very lucid article, thanks! Harald > 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 The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's useless to think about it as a real thing. mmmmmmmmmm-hmmmmmmmmmm Get shocked with 220 once. They are real. John | mmmmmmmmmm-hmmmmmmmmmm | | Get shocked with 220 once. | They are real. | | John Get shocked with 26,000 V a few times, you'll discover what an electric field is, not an electron. Androcles. Ri..i..i..g..h..t Currents don't have electrons. OK Lalalala. G'bye Dorothy, have fun in Oz. John This is one of the most important questions. http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen > The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's > useless to think about it as a real thing. Really? Then what is it that gets flung from the gun at the back of the cathode-ray tube to the phosphor screen of the monitor you're looking at? What is it that causes skin damage when exposed to a beta source? What is it that gets smashed head-on at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center? What is it that, when removed from sodium and given to chlorine, allows table salt to dissolve in a pot of spaghetti and water? What is it that travels from ground to cloud in a lightning strike? PD | > The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's | > useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | cathode-ray tube to the phosphor screen of the monitor you're looking | at? Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by "electrons", but that is a mathematical construct. | What is it that causes skin damage when exposed to a beta source? Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by photons, but that is a mathematical construct. | What is it that gets smashed head-on at Stanford Linear Accelerator | Center? The target. You can smash it head on with a photon, too, and melt it. | What is it that, when removed from sodium and given to chlorine, allows | table salt to dissolve in a pot of spaghetti and water? Ions. | What is it that travels from ground to cloud in a lightning strike? Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by charges, but that is a mathematical construct. Androcles | PD > | > The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's > | > useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by "electrons", > but that is a mathematical construct. We model electrons with mathematical constructs, but I believe "electrons" refers to the thing modeled, not to the model itself. 1/2 point. > | What is it that causes skin damage when exposed to a beta source? > > Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by photons, > but that is a mathematical construct. Beta, not gamma. 0 points. > | What is it that gets smashed head-on at Stanford Linear Accelerator > | Center? > > The target. You can smash it head on with a photon, too, and melt it. Not in the past ten years. Not a fixed target machine like it was in the 60s. 0 points. > | What is it that, when removed from sodium and given to chlorine, allows > | table salt to dissolve in a pot of spaghetti and water? > > Ions. What's *left* after the removal from sodium and giving to chlorine, is the ions. 0 points. > | What is it that travels from ground to cloud in a lightning strike? > > Nobody actually knows. Such phenomena are modelled by charges, Charge is a property, not a thing. 0 points. > but that is a mathematical construct. > Androcles 1/2 point out of 5 possible, 10% correct answers. Fine work on your part, Androcles, you're improving! PD >>The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's >>useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > table salt to dissolve in a pot of spaghetti and water? > What is it that travels from ground to cloud in a lightning strike? Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), but still there's no test that will indicate the existence of electrons (or of anything for that matter) outside of models. If there were, then it could be said e.g. that no correct theory of nature could be developed without containing electrons (and clearly that isn't the case). >Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate >natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), but still there's no test that >will indicate the existence of electrons (or of anything for that >matter) outside of models. This is mathematical (not even) worse then nonsense. Step in front of a speeding car. Now it has proved its existence. No need for models. >>Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate >>natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), but still there's no test that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No need for models. I see. So step 1 in the Panteltje method for proving the existence of cars is to locate a speeding car. | >>Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate | >>natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), but still there's no test that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | I see. So step 1 in the Panteltje method for proving the existence of | cars is to locate a speeding car. No, no. Locating a car isn't a requirement in proving to you that cars exist. Jan said step in front of a speeding car, locating one first would ruin the impact of the proof and fail to drive the point home. Androcles. Electrons look like gas filaments: http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/calibration/electrical-discharge-in-multiple-spa rks-from-prongs-pins-of-UK-electric-mains-plug-3-prong-fuse-carrier-in-base-AJHD .jpg > >>Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate > >>natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), but still there's no test that > >>will indicate the existence of electrons (or of anything for that > >>matter) outside of models. An electron exists, but is it an individual particle or a part of a field, that is the question. http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen > > > On a sunny day (Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:15:57 -0400) it happened jem > <xxx@xxx.xxx> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > An electron exists, but is it an individual particle or a part of a field, > that is the question. Obviously, it is both an individual "particle" and part of a field. There is no such thing as a "bare" electron. The "field" is a very big part of what Hu is missing in, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 But to be fair, he is only considering the "localized" field aspect of electrons. A "particle" by QFT definition has to be a "localized" field. But you cannot separate it from the quantum "vacuum" field. 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 jem a écrit : >>> The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's >>> useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Models containing electrons may produce results that closely approximate > natural phenomena (e.g. those listed), Models are confirmed or or disproved precisely by comparison with natural phenomena that they are supposed to model, and in the case of electron behavior, the models that have been confirmed, mostly during the past 100 years, not only "closely approximately" the observed behavior of electron in natural phenomena, they "exactly" account for them, up to and including proof of relativistic mass increase as the speed of light is neared in circular accelerators. > but still there's no test that > will indicate the existence of electrons (or of anything for that > matter) outside of models. Do you really believe that your own body does not really exist ? What do you think it is made of ? > If there were, then it could be said e.g. that no correct theory of > nature could be developed without containing electrons (and clearly > that isn't the case). You are right about this. And there actually are no confirmed theory of nature that does not involve electrons. André Michaud > jem a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of electron behavior, the models that have been confirmed, mostly > during the past 100 years, Yes, and the electron is a defined entity in those models, but when the predictions of the models acceptably match their corresponding real-world measurements, the existence of the model's entities isn't confirmed - all that's confirmed are the predictions. The claim that electrons exist in nature would require that electrons be included in every viable model of nature that's ever produced. It should be obvious that there isn't a legitimate basis for such a requirement. not only "closely approximately" the > observed behavior of electron in natural phenomena, they "exactly" > account for them, Nonsense. Measurements don't correspond "exactly" with predictions. up to and including proof of relativistic mass > increase as the speed of light is neared in circular accelerators. > >> but still there's no test that will indicate the existence of >> electrons (or of anything for that matter) outside of models. > > Do you really believe that your own body does not really exist ? Like I said, things have a logical existence in formal and informal models that are built to describe experienced phenomena. > What do you think it is made of ? Like every other thing, it's made of what it's been defined to be made of. >> If there were, then it could be said e.g. that no correct theory of >> nature could be developed without containing electrons (and clearly >> that isn't the case). > > You are right about this. Yes, but you clearly don't understand why it's right. And there actually are no confirmed theory > of nature that does not involve electrons. And in Ptolemy's day there were no confirmed models of nature that didn't involve epicycles. jem a écrit : >> jem a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yes, and the electron is a defined entity in those models, Of course, but the real physically existing electron is not a defined entity. It is a physically existing entity that the models considered are attempts to account for in our thinking schemes. > but when the predictions of the models acceptably match their > corresponding real-world measurements, the existence of the model's > entities isn't confirmed - all that's confirmed are the predictions. That simply confirms that the model acceptably matches the corresponding real-world measurement. Yes. The model is not the physical reality, only a description that the author of the model has cooked up. > The claim that electrons exist in nature would require that electrons be > included in every viable model of nature that's ever produced. Well, it requires that electrons be included in verified and validated models of nature, which is precisely the case. Only those models have been retained as valid. The models that do not properly account for natural phenomenon are rejected de facto, and whether or not they included electrons has no bearing at all on the question. > It should be obvious that there isn't a legitimate basis for such a > requirement. But there is. Electron physical behavior has been correctly modelled for decades, in fact fully confirmed ever since the first cyclotron failed to accelerate them beyond a fraction of the speed of light, because they were not structured to take relativistic mass increase into account. The method was then corrected to take this characteristic into account, and ever since, we can accelerate electrons to any possible velocity up to practically the speed of light. Nothing more can be learned in that direction. Electron description is now complete, on the behavior angle. > not only "closely approximately" the > >> observed behavior of electron in natural phenomena, they "exactly" >> account for them, > > Nonsense. Measurements don't correspond "exactly" with predictions. You are wrong. You need to study high energy accelerators to understand how precise the measurements are. > up to and including proof of relativistic mass > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Like I said, things have a logical existence in formal and informal > models that are built to describe experienced phenomena. What about outside models. Models are only descriptions that we cook up to be able to think about what physically exists. Again, do you really think that your own body does not exist outside whatever formal or informal model that you may have built about it ? >> What do you think it is made of ? > > Like every other thing, it's made of what it's been defined to be made of. Same question. What do you think it is made up of in physical reality outside whatever formal or informal model that you may have built about it? >>> If there were, then it could be said e.g. that no correct theory of >>> nature could be developed without containing electrons (and clearly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And there actually are no confirmed theory You are simply wrong. There are confirmed models of the behavior of electrons. They are used 24-7 in high energy accelerators, in all electric and electronic circuitry. The proof of these models is that all of our electric and electronic equipment work exactly as the models define that they should work. >> of nature that does not involve electrons. > > And in Ptolemy's day there were no confirmed models of nature that > didn't involve epicycles. Even if ptolemy did not know that electrons Even if Ptolemy knew nothing about radioactive fission, that couldn't prevent U235, for example, to already exist and and decay in the Earth even as he was living. Couldn't prevent Saturn's satellites to exist and having been in orbit for billions of years even while Ptolemy knew nothing about them. In other words, we know more today than in Ptolemy's time, and more models have been verified and confirmed. André Michaud > jem a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > You are wrong. You need to study high energy accelerators to understand > how precise the measurements are. >> up to and including proof of relativistic mass >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > In other words, we know more today than in Ptolemy's time, and > more models have been verified and confirmed. Your thinking is myopic. In order to realize how senseless it is to confer real-world existence upon the heuristic entities of physical models (e.g. electrons, atoms, trees, stars, etc.), all you need do is recognize that at some point, a better model of natural phenomena may be invented which contains none of the entities of today's models. jem a écrit : [snip] > Your thinking is myopic. In order to realize how senseless it is to > confer real-world existence upon the heuristic entities of physical > models (e.g. electrons, atoms, trees, stars, etc.), all you need do is > recognize that at some point, a better model of natural phenomena may be > invented which contains none of the entities of today's models. I was just curious to see how someone who does not believe in more than self-induced existence dealt with the idea that the universe could have existed before he self created himself. Obviously, the idea is meaningless to you. Thanks for your time. André Michaud > jem a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Obviously, the idea is meaningless to you. Thanks for your time. You're not likely to satisfy your curiosity about what someone thinks with such an inability to understand what they've said. jem: >> In other words, we know more today than in Ptolemy's time, and >> more models have been verified and confirmed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >recognize that at some point, a better model of natural phenomena may be >invented which contains none of the entities of today's models. You are engaging in mental masturbation and playing a mindless game of ``what if.'' What you are saying is equivalent to saying that someday we might have a better theory about rocks, without pausing to realize your statement is a non-sequitur. We have the best theory about rocks we are ever going to have, since a theory about the make up of the rock is not about rocks, but something at a completely different level. There will be no theory that replaces the standard model. Any new theory will be about something underlying the standard model which reduces to the standard model in the low energy limit. > jem: > >srp wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > game of ``what if.'' What you are saying is equivalent to saying > that someday we might have a better theory about rocks, That's your interpretation of what I said, is it? Try again. It's only a one-sentence remark. No reading between the lines required. without > pausing to realize your statement is a non-sequitur. We have the > best theory about rocks we are ever going to have, since a theory [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > underlying the standard model which reduces to the standard model > in the low energy limit. Talk about myopic thinking. E.g. how do you suppose you could demonstrate the impossibility of another theory replacing the standard model? Hint: it's not something that can be demonstrated from within any physical theory. jem: >Talk about myopic thinking. E.g. how do you suppose you could >demonstrate the impossibility of another theory replacing the standard >model? By the simple fact that the standard model explains the experimental data and any theory which would replace it will have to explain the same data, thereby guaranteeing that any alternative must reduce to the standard model as a limiting case. If the alternative cannot explain the same data, it will never be considered an alternative. That is how science has been done for ceturies and why newtonian mechanics is still an important part of a physics curriculum. Relativity could never have een accepted as a theory had it been unable to encompass newtonian mechanics while simultaneously explaining new phenomena. >Hint: it's not something that can be demonstrated from within >any physical theory. The only difference between a moron who doubts everything in science and a moron who believes anything in science is that the latter is more likely to accept the idea that science really can predict that jumping from the 15th floor of a building will most likely be fatal while the former will try to impress everyone at cocktail parties by saying ``what if'' until asked to put up or shut up. At that point, either the former will suddenly become a believer until the next cocktail party or else delete himself from the gene pool by demonstrating the courage of his convictions. What takes intelligence is to know the difference between a real question and mental masturbation under the mistaken assumption that babbling ``what if'' all the time is somehow an intellectual accom- plishment. > jem: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > By the simple fact that the standard model explains the experimental > data Aristotle could have made the same claim for his theory in his day. Even if the SM "explained" existing experimental data *exactly* (which it obviously doesn't), do you think all possible experiments have been performed? and any theory which would replace it will have to explain the > same data, But you said *no* theory will replace it. Remember? And theories don't "explain" the experimental data. thereby guaranteeing that any alternative must reduce to > the standard model as a limiting case. Nonsense. All that's required of a viable model is that it acceptably reproduce the results of experiments. A model needn't bear any other relationship to any of its predecessors. If the alternative cannot > explain the same data, it will never be considered an alternative. *Every* model reproduces the experimental data to some specified precision - that's what it means to be a model. > That is how science has been done for ceturies and why newtonian > mechanics is still an important part of a physics curriculum. Relativity > could never have een accepted as a theory had it been unable to > encompass newtonian mechanics while simultaneously explaining new > phenomena. Relativity doesn't "encompass [N]ewtonian mechanics" - the combination is inconsistent. Neither does Relativity (or any other theory) need to reproduce the results of any earlier theory - it has only to acceptably match the experimental results. > > >Hint: it's not something that can be demonstrated from within [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > babbling ``what if'' all the time is somehow an intellectual accom- > plishment. Typical Bilge bilge. You have no idea what the point of my remark was; your "criticism" is directed at your caricature of what was said. Nothing new there of course; you've spent the last several months arguing the wrong side of a trivial issue concerning the relationship between SR and LET because of your inability to comprehend what's been said to you. At any rate, the record shows there isn't any chance of getting through to you, so I'll pass on another attempt. Go pester somebody else. jem, mental masturbator: >> jem: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Aristotle could have made the same claim for his theory in his day. So, what's your point? >Even if the SM "explained" existing experimental data *exactly* (which >it obviously doesn't), Oh, really? Precisely which data are not explained by the standard model at the limits of precision in the data and the calculations? >do you think all possible experiments have been performed? All of the ones relevant to any questions in this thread. > and any theory which would replace it will have to explain the >> same data, > >But you said *no* theory will replace it. Remember? Are you stoned or just stupid? Include the rest of the context instead of snipping in mid sentence. >And theories don't "explain" the experimental data. Sure they do. That is the point of a theory. > thereby guaranteeing that any alternative must reduce to >> the standard model as a limiting case. > >Nonsense. All that's required of a viable model is that it acceptably >reproduce the results of experiments. A model needn't bear any other >relationship to any of its predecessors. Get off the crackpipe. Every theory ever accepted as science has explained more than its predecessors and explained its predecessors as a limiting case. If you have difficulty with that concept, that's too bad. > If the alternative cannot >> explain the same data, it will never be considered an alternative. > >*Every* model reproduces the experimental data to some specified >precision - that's what it means to be a model. You are just mentally masturbating. >> That is how science has been done for ceturies and why newtonian >> mechanics is still an important part of a physics curriculum. Relativity [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >At any rate, the record shows there isn't any chance of getting through >to you, so I'll pass on another attempt. Go pester somebody else. > jem, mental masturbator: > >> jem: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Oh, really? Precisely which data are not explained by the standard > model at the limits of precision in the data and the calculations? He used the term "exactly" which can never be accomplished in nature. > >do you think all possible experiments have been performed? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sure they do. That is the point of a theory. Experiments just agree with the predictions of the theory if the theory is valid. Fritz Rorhlich made a good point on this in his text "The classical electron". Pete Pmb: >> jem, mental masturbator: >> >> jem: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >He used the term "exactly" which can never be accomplished in nature. Then, why don't you help him mentally masturbate? >> >do you think all possible experiments have been performed? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >valid. Fritz Rorhlich made a good point on this in his text "The classical >electron". Good for fritz. If it weren't for quotes, you wouldn't have an opinion. > Pmb: > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Then, why don't you help him mentally masturbate? You never give up insulting people do you? > >> >do you think all possible experiments have been performed? > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Good for fritz. If it weren't for quotes, you wouldn't have an opinion. I was telling you where you can learn the physics. This claim of quotes/opinion is just one more uncalled for insult. Shame on you Pete Pmb, Saint AnkleBiter of the Whine Cellar: >> Pmb: >> >He used the term "exactly" which can never be accomplished in nature. >> >> Then, why don't you help him mentally masturbate? > >You never give up insulting people do you? You've made an erroneous assumption in your attempt to pose a rhetorical question which resulted in a logical fallacy. [...] >> Good for fritz. If it weren't for quotes, you wouldn't have an opinion. > >I was telling you where you can learn the physics. I'm sure you were. But just like the question you posed above, this statement, too, contains a logical fallacy. In this case, you are like a machinist who considers himself to be an expert on shop safety based on his vast experience at losing at least one finger or toe to every machine and power tool in the shop at least once. Thanks, but the path to knowledge is evidently not the one you traveled. >This claim of quotes/opinion is just one more uncalled for insult. I beg to differ. Your pretense of being victimized for what you portray as earnest attempts to offer sage advice, is an insult to the intelligence of everyone you expect to fall for it. You deserve being abused for that alone. Either grow up and stop deluding yourself of your own sainthood or else stop whining about being treated like an idiot. You qualify by the delusion alone. >Shame on you Oh gee, I'm devastated. Get me a hanky. >> The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's >> useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cathode-ray tube to the phosphor screen of the monitor you're looking > at? For the purposes of clarity allow me. The hypothesis is that what is flung are electrons. It's a good hypothesis and the CR gun was designed with that in mind, especially when (IINM) one considers that there's cesium in the mix, which ionizes readily. There is also the classical Millikan oil experiment, which shows some sort of indivisible charge; no one has ever observed an oil drop with 1/2 this charge, and we have far more accurate experiments now, presumably having to do with shooting electrons (or negative particles or ions in a beam in an evacuated space) while suspending the experiment in a uniform magnetic field, bending the beam. A charged particle of 1/2 the standard charge but the same mass and energy would show up rather readily by bending less. Of course, what's flung to the screen is an electron with some energy, allowing it to impact a phosphor at the other end and cause it to change state; later on it will shift back and emit a few photons. Or something like that. All chemistry is predicated on electrons, ultimately, as well. We live on electronic bonding energy: burning oils, proteins, carbs, and sugars by shifting electronic bonds (of various flavors) around. Very real stuff, but the nucleus doesn't get involved except as a charge counterbalance to the electron "gas" surrounding it. > What is it that causes skin damage when exposed to a beta source? Energy. Yeah, yeah, I know, but electrons per se don't have it (unless they meet a nearby positron); they have to be accelerated, either by internal nuclear processes or bond formation energies somehow. Besides, one is surrounded by electrons bashing into the skin (or, more accurately, the outer molecules of the cells thereof) -- these electrons do little harm, of course, as they're attached to diatomic nitrogen, diatomic oxygen, monatomic argon, water, carbon dioxide, etc. (A bit like flinging an inflated beach ball versus a baseball versus a bullet into a crowd. The beach ball might crinkle one's origami or ruffle one's lace. The baseball might hurt one's head. The bullet...well...) > What is it that gets smashed head-on at Stanford Linear Accelerator > Center? I for one have no idea at this point; the possibilities for an arbitrary accelerator are electrons vs. positrons, electrons vs. stationary target, protons vs. antiprotons, protons vs. target, gold atoms vs. target. I would guess electrons vs. target, as SLAC is a straightline accelerator -- assuming it's still operational. > What is it that, when removed from sodium and given to chlorine, allows > table salt to dissolve in a pot of spaghetti and water? That question needs some clarification. Chlorine is a diatomic gas; sodium and chlorine in close proximity would have sodium burning, presumably (sodium is typically stored under oil as it will burn in air, water, and just about anything else :-) ). Of course the standard answer is "an electron", if one's referring to individual sodium and chlorine atoms and the ionic bond. > What is it that travels from ground to cloud in a lightning strike? Again, energy -- lots of it; in fact, the temperature of lightning bolts, if I'm not totally mistaken, is in the realm of millions of degrees (Celsius or Fahrenheit? Does it matter? :-) ). If I'm not mistaken, the Earth is generally electronegative, but would have to look. (It would be nice to harness that energy, but that's verging into habshi territory. :-) The good news: a lightning rod, courtesy of Ben Franklin, will dissipate enough charge to avoid damage, apparently. The bad news: I doubt such a rod would take a direct lightning bolt hit, but could be wrong. Of course the spire of such buildings as the Empire State Building is designed to take lightning bolt hits, but AFAIK it's a wee bit thicker.) > PD  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >>> The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's >>> useless to think about it as a real thing. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >field, bending the beam. A charged particle of 1/2 the standard charge >but the same mass and energy would show up rather readily by bending less. FYI: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/3932e939 e59b7561/d81938a7c1a040b8?lnk=st&q=winfield+hill+millikan&rnum=1#d81938a7c1a040b 8 follow the thread, and see how 'certain' all this is...... Winfield has posted about this in the past, mabe if he is still on usenet you could ask him about his non standard chage oil drop.. cannot find that original now. I ain't saying these fractional charges are real, just that there is a lot of data that does not fit. We always tend to think that if the apple falls 100 times [in the same way], its a 'law'. But it is all probability and guesswork really. Danger is to make a a 'truth' and use mathmatics and become blind. > The electron is just a mathematical construct (like a spinor). It's > useless to think about it as a real thing. Man, are we getting some thread drift or what! Did you read the paper this thread is about? http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 Electrons are as real as can be, baby! 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 Dear FrediFizzx: > Rejected by spr; presented for possible discussion here. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>positron pairs, which is rather "caused" by the electron >> than "part" of it. This is simply misguided. Electron-positron pairs have been created by "striking" *any* charged particle with a sufficiently energetic gamma photon. The "cloud of further virtual particles" surrounds *all* particles, and is "caused" by TBD. >> This cloud screens a discontinuity of charge >> density which would else give rise to infinities. > > It seems to me if this cloud is always there, then > it for sure should be considered as "part" of the > electron. Rather it is part of spacetime, or part of whatever charge is. Gamma photons for no apparent reason *do* sometimes make matter-antimatter pairs without interacting with either matter or a charged particle. David A. Smith > Dear FrediFizzx: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > energetic gamma photon. The "cloud of further virtual particles" > surrounds *all* particles, and is "caused" by TBD. To be determined? If virtual pairs are real, then the quantum vacuum has to be a polarizable medium. Thus if we are to allow this then it begs the question; are there "less than virtual" pairs? And where do they exist? > >> This cloud screens a discontinuity of charge > >> density which would else give rise to infinities. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > matter-antimatter pairs without interacting with either matter or > a charged particle. Hmm... That doesn't sound right. Do you have any reference for gamma photons making matter-antimatter pairs without an interaction with matter (or charged matter particle)? I thought only virtual gamma photons could do that. 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 Dear FrediFizzx: ... >> >> The "physical electron" is made of the "bare electron" >> >> surrounded by a cloud of further virtual electron- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > To be determined? Yes. > If virtual pairs are real, then the quantum vacuum > has to be a polarizable medium. What quantum vacuum? Every particle takes every possible path. This leaves nothing competely empty. > Thus if we are to allow this then it > begs the question; are there "less than virtual" > pairs? And where do they exist? Conservation laws are supreme. I don't think you'd get issuance of "a hydrogen atom only" (as an example of "less than virtual", with net zero charge) except at the Big Bang. Note that *this* Universe shows (apparently) a lack of antimatter. >> > It seems to me if this cloud is always there, then >> > it for sure should be considered as "part" of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >antimatter pairs without an interaction with > matter (or charged matter particle)? "spontaneous pair creation" ... interacts with either a changing E field, or a static E field over a certain threshold value. So "virtual photons" responsible for the field are enough? > I thought only virtual gamma > photons could do that. David A. Smith |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message