Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / December 2006

This has been an ongoing debate that might last forever.  ;-)  IMHO, it
will only be resolvable by realizing that quantum objects such as an
electron are both point-like and extended objects due to quantum
"vacuum" and relativistic effects.  Does not an electron have a "static"
field that extends to infinity?  Effectively, the "static" field
probably is lost in the noise of the quantum "vacuum" at much shorter
ranges.  See Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum:  An Intro. to Quantum
Electrodynamics" sect. 11.5 "How Big is an Electron" for more info.

Now about the mass...  An electron by itself has no mass.  It gains its
mass by interaction with the Higgs field as do all elementary fermions.
And IMHO, that in turn allows for its extended "localized" quantum
field.  A rough heuristic can be obtained by expanding the Compton
wavelength equation in cgs units.

m_e = [e*sqrt(hbar*c)/w_C^2][(2pi/lambda_C)^3*1/sqrt(alpha)]

Where m_e is mass of the electron, e is electron charge, sqrt(hbar*c) is
quantum vacuum charge, w_C is electron Compton frequency, lambda_C is
electron compton wavelength and alpha is the fine structure constant.
The second bracketed term is 1/volume so we can see that we have an
interaction between the electron and charge of the "vacuum" in a certain
volume of space.  Consistent with the Higgs field concept.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

You have in your mind that mass occupies volume. However, it turns out
these are independent parameters to a large extent.
In the macroscopic world, a substance that has mass also has volume and
vice versa. But every instance of such substances are composites, made
up of smaller objects. And in fact, the volume has more to do with the
range of the interaction that binds the smaller objects together. The
*volume* occupied by a composite object is determined by the
interaction, not so much the mass involved.
There is no *fundamental* object that we're aware of that has volume,
even though it may have mass.

PD

VERGON

It often happens that the truth is much simpler than had been supposed.

The answer to your question (and much more) lies in the pages of my
thesis that can be found on line in the General Science Journal at
http://www.wbabin.net

Go to LIST OF AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon. The title of the
monograph
is On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.

The electron extends to a huge diameter --- but its density diminishes
as the fourth power of the radius. The density is greater, of course,
at the center. And the center is considered the point. At the outer
region, the density is so rare that there is no discernable surface --
and therefore no volume. I  have established a so-called "effective"
radius which is the radius at the center. See what you think of it.

Note that in calculating the movement of astronomical bodies, the mass
is considered as all at the center. That doesn't mean that the bodies
are mass points.

Disregard Fred's "quantum vacuum charge" gibberish.  It's not even
charge at all, and he doesn't grasp how to represent units with causes.

The "point-like"ness of the el?ctr?n is a confused blather of a pop
(like a Catholic Pap) scientist who means that its /substructure/ is
point-like, in that it has no substructure.  But this is not what size
is.  Size is the same as distance; the el?ctr?n has a inner and
outter size; the former is your familiar size that depends on its mass
which is by standard the classic radius of over a femtometre.  But
scientist pros are too dumb to admit that.

-Aut