[General] Electron Size in a Collision

[David Mathes]

Andrew
There is a fourth definition. That is the neutral point between attractive and repulsive forces.
David
 
      From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> 
 Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 8:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision
   
Dear John M.,

I haven't had time yet to read your works. I need to, before I comment on your story below. However, you have raised a topic that is generally ignored, or improperly treated - the size of an electron. Could you define what you mean by that? I use 3 possible definitions for different applications.
   
   - QM says that the bound electron size is that of the probability distribution of its orbit (in terms of the Bohr radius). I accept this as a time average that is used in screening (and in other) calculations.   

   - Compton wavelength gives a radius (~ 386 fm?) that I assume includes ~99% of its electrostatic potential in free space. This is important in looking at the EM (and in other?) interactions. This does not include the AC EM potential added by relativistic motion.   

   - Classical radius (~2.8fm) gives the energy density distribution (i.e., ~99% of its rest mass energy is within this radius?). This is critical in nuclear interactions involving electrons (and perhaps in the anomalous solution of the Dirac equations).   

Could you counter, or comment on, these definitions? They have a major impact on the discussion of the photonic-electron concept. If you have already covered this topic in one of your papers, could you 'point' it out to us.

Thx,

Andrew
________________________________

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:41 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:



Vivian and All, We all agree that collision experiments indicate that the size of an electron is smaller than the resolution of the collision experiment.  Since some experiments have been done at about 50 GeV, this means that the electron appears to be smaller than about 10-18 m. We have different models of an electron and they have different explanations for how an electron can appear to be a point particle.  In a previous post you say, “I prefer the answers given by John W, Richard G, myself and others that the radius of an electron decreases with its energy, giving it a point like property as it travels at sufficiently high velocity.”  I will address this point.  You seem to be saying that a fundamental particle changes its radius in X, Y and Z dimensions as it propagates.  As I recall, the radius decreases with 1/γ in one model and 1/γ2 in another model.  Also as I recall the decrease in radius is accompanied by an increase in the electron’s Compton frequency in some models.  Perhaps I do not understand this concept correctly, but the change in radius and frequency appears to violate the covariance of physical laws.  All frames of reference should have the same physical laws.  Here is the problem.  In order for the laws of physics to be the same in all frames of reference, Lorentz transformations have to hold between different frames of reference. The changes you propose do not correspond to Lorentz transformations.  Suppose that we designate the Z axis as the direction of propagation between two frames of reference. Then the expectation is that an observer in frame A would perceive that an electron in frame B retains its original radius in the X and Y dimensions while the Z axis dimension decreases by r = ro/γ.  Also, the rate of time in frame B appears to slows down by 1/γ as seen from frame A.  The Compton frequency can be considered a clock beat.  Therefore the observer in frame A should perceive that the electron’s Compton frequency in frame B has slowed down rather than speed up.  If the changes you propose take place, then an observer in frame B would perceive that an electron has different properties than the properties observed in frame A.  This would be a violation of the basic assumption of invariance in spacial relativity.Perhaps, the most important point is that the changes that you propose do not even achieve the goal of making the electron appear to be a point particle in a collision.  Here is the reasoning.  Suppose that we have two electrons accelerated to 50 GeV and propagating in opposite directions in an accelerator.  I am in the acceleration frame of reference and the electrons will collide in front of me.  If the collision is head-on, both electrons momentarily are stopped in my frame of reference at the moment of closest approach.  Therefore at that moment neither electron is moving relative to me.  They might have been small when they were moving, but when they have stopped in the collision, in your model they should have their original radius equal which you believe to be ½ the reduced Compton wavelength.  Since the scattering is taking place in my frame of reference, the scattering should indicate this full size.Contrast that to my model.  I say that the electron appears to be the same size and have the same Compton frequency when viewed as a “stationary” electron in any frame of reference.  This means that Lorentz transformations hold between frames. An electron in frame B retains the same radius in the X and Y dimensions but appears to shrink in the Z direction.  Also the Compton frequency appears slower when observed from frame A.  However, the important point is not the size during propagation, but the size during collision.  In my model, the size of each electron physically decreases when the two electrons collide and momentarily are stopped in my frame of reference.  The kinetic energy carried by each electron has been converted to the internal energy of the waves that make up the two electrons.  At the moment of collision, the wave amplitude increases and wave frequency increases.  The Compton wavelength decreases, therefore the radius decreases when the colliding electrons are momentarily stopped.  If the collision is at 50 GeV then γ = 100,000 and the radius decreases by this factor.  The calculations are done in the “foundation” paper, in section 4.5, titled Point Particle Test. This section of the paper concludes that the reason that electrons appear to be point particles is that “It is a classic case of the experiment distorting the property being measured and invalidating the measurement”. I also have other arguments supporting my electron size and characteristics, but this is enough for one post. John M.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>




_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at dmath777 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150410/3db917dd/attachment-0001.htm>