[General] Electron Size in a Collision

[Chip Akins]

Hi John M

 

While I am familiar with the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity, the question I am asking is more to the point of the actual laws of physics rather that any of the theories. I think we are at a point of a sort of stagnation in the advancement of physics because we need to reexamine the foundations we are building on. I think slight errors or misconceptions in the foundations present a roadblock to further accurate understanding.  I am not saying that there is nothing valid in the existing theories, on the contrary, I am saying the almost all of the concepts explored in our current theories, including relativity, QM, QED, etc. have significant value.  It is the tiny bit that still may be in error, or incomplete, in each of the theories which can produce roadblocks to further understanding. Especially if we refuse to reevaluate.  But given your work, it is clear you have no problem taking another look at this sort of thing.

 

Let us consider a “stationary” observer A, and a moving inertial frame approaching the stationary observer B, at a relativistic velocity.  Each has a clock which outputs a 1mS pulse every second according to their respective clocks.

My impression, based on observation of the universe, and ignoring gravitational effects, is that A will see two effects when he receives the pulse train from B.  Observer A will see the effect of the slowing of the clock due to B’s relativistic velocity, and A will also see the effect of the blue shift of the pulses. However, (if it were possible for A to actually be stationary in the preferred rest frame in space) I believe that B would see the effect of the blue shift of the pulse train from the clock on A, and that B would additionally perceive the clock on stationary A to be faster than his own clock. This is simply the consequence of space being a medium and having a structure, including your proposed oscillating dipole structure, which implies a preferred rest frame.

 

But back to the moving electron.  My suggestion is that if you are in a moving frame, since rotating your ruler 90 degrees cannot change the rate of time on your clock, that all the spatial dimensions in your frame must contract equally as time slows.

This means that the radius of an electron would contract as well, but if you are moving with the electron it would appear the same, because your ruler is also shorter.  In other words, in moving frame B, if you have a set of mirrors, facing each other, 1 m apart, aligned with your axis of motion, and you use your clock to measure the round trip of light between the mirrors, you get the same measurement as when the set of mirrors are rotated perpendicular to your path. Your clock does not change when you rotate your mirrors so the relativistic contraction must be in all spatial dimensions.

 

Now we get to the issue that de Broglie wrestled with.  Frequency.

According the above scenario, the frequency of the electron in B would decrease (let’s call this the retarded frequency) to match the clock in the moving frame B. So that the laws of physics would appear the same in the moving frame.  But that is not in agreement with the formula for the energy to frequency relationship E=hv from the observer “A” viewpoint, energy has increased so therefore frequency should have increased, (let’s call this the advanced frequency) of course the frequency will appear blue shifted to observer A in the above example, but the tiny electron clock (frequency) in B has slowed in the above scenario. So that at a velocity of 0.999999999947776 c, (I think this is the value for 50 GEV) the advanced frequency Ee0*y = hv = 1.208995069688253e+25 Hz instead of Compton’s 1.235589972903622e+20 Hz.  And the retarded frequency of relativity is Compton’s 1.235589972903622e+20 Hz times 1/y or 1.262769898254198e+15 Hz. 

The amount of blue shift that observer A would measure is easy to calculate. Frequency = Source Frequency times . So that A would measure a frequency for the electron in B to be 2.417987569190073e+25 Hz including the blue shift. Which is very close to twice the value we would expect from E=hv.

 

It can be argued that the measured frequency of a moving particle, especially a near relativistic particle, will always contain the blue shift term, due to the nature of our ability to measure the particle when it becomes incident on any detector or measurement mechanism.

 

When graphed, these relationships look like the chart below: The axis on the right is associated with the green line which indicates measured frequency in the above scenario.

 



 

So now arises an interesting notion.  If we assume, as many of our electron models have, that an electron is comprised of a circularly propagating, confined EM wave, and we assume that confined wave is traveling principally at the velocity c in its trajectory, then due to the measurement issues we described above, we will measure the frequency of that wave to be twice the value of its actual local frequency in the electron, precisely because it is moving at the limit c. So that even if the radius is Compton’s wavelength divided by it seems we would perceive from measurement that the frequency is Compton’s frequency, and the spin requires a double loop configuration.

 

And now the question.  In your opinion does that mean we will assume a spin ½ value for the wave even though its actual radius may not be   but rather? And/or does it imply that the Compton’s frequency is our external measurement, and the actual local frequency in the electron EM wave domain is half of Compton’s frequency?

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 9:09 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

 

Chip, 

 

You ask an interesting question which pertains to the implications of spacial relativity and is not specifically connected to my model of the universe.  However, I will attempt to answer the question by initially comparing gravitational time dilation to special relativity time dilation.   Suppose that an observer in gravity compares his/her rate of time to an observer in zero gravity but the same frame of reference.  In this case, both observers agree that the rate of time in gravity is slower than the rate of time in zero gravity.  However, if two observers are both in zero gravity and in different frames of reference, then there is no agreement about which one has the slower rate of time.  Each observer thinks that the other person is moving and has the slower rate of time.  

 

Still, it is not initially obvious how the paradox that you describe is resolved. You state the problem well: “Let’s say you are traveling with an electron at a relativistic velocity in the “z” direction.  You don’t know it, but traveling at a relativistic velocity, your time has slowed, relative to an observer.  You still measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, using your time reference, but your time is slower, and time does not slow in just one spatial direction. So with a slower time and the speed of light constant, does your distance (length, width, etc.) shrink in all directions, as viewed from an external observer?”. 

 

We will define a “moving” observer and a “stationary” observer.  We also agree that in the “moving” frame of reference all distances will be measured by a pulse of light reflecting off a mirror and the round trip time being measured with a local clock.  There is no dispute that the “moving” observer finds the speed of light constant, even when it is measured in the X, Y and Z directions.  This means that there is no apparent difference in distance measured with a ruler and distances measured using a pulse of light in the “moving” frame of reference.  However, how is this reconciled with the “stationary” observer who thinks that the Z axis distance has shrunk and the X and Y axis remain unchanged?  However, even this apparent agreement about the X and Y axis is a problem because they are using different clocks with different rates of time.  

 

This problem must be broken down into two different situations.  First, suppose that the “moving” observer has a laser, a mirror, a detector and a clock.  The pulsed laser and the detector are essentially superimposed and the mirror is perpendicular to the light path so that the beam is reflected back to the detector.  If the first measurement is in the Z direction, then the stationary observer sees that it takes a long time for the light pulse to propagate from the laser to the mirror because once the pulse of light is launched, the mirror appears to be moving away at nearly the speed of light.  The round trip time is greatly increased according to the “stationary” observer.  The round trip time is exactly what the “moving” observer requires to keep the laws of physics the same.  

 

Next the “moving” observer measures the round trip distance to the mirror “perpendicular to the Z direction.  This is tricky because the “moving” observer thinks that the beam propagates from the laser to the mirror and back again along the same path.  However, the “stationary” observer sees the light path very differently.  The “stationary” observer sees the laser and mirror moving rapidly in the Z direction.  The laser beam must take what the ‘stationary” observer considers to be an elongated diagonal path to strike the moving mirror.  Also the reflected beam takes a different path to reach the point in space there the detector will be at a later time.  These elongated paths account for the different rates of time giving the same speed of light and the same distance.   

 

Diagrams would help, but you can probably understand what I am saying.  Getting back to electrons and their size in different frames of reference, their size must follow the rules of special relativity in order to maintain the same laws of physics in all frames of reference.

 

John M.   

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:15 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

 

Hi John M

 

Trying to understand your electron model in the relativistic sense.

 

Analyzing this has raised a question.

 

Let’s say you are traveling with an electron at a relativistic velocity in the “z” direction.  You don’t know it, but traveling at a relativistic velocity, your time has slowed, relative to an observer.  You still measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, using your time reference, but your time is slower, and time does not slow in just one spatial direction. So with a slower time and the speed of light constant, does your distance (length, width, etc.) shrink in all directions, as viewed from an external observer? It seems required since your time is slower and you measure the same speed of light in all directions using that time reference.

 

Of course the acceleration of a particle imparting energy, increasing its frequency on the one hand, and the same velocity slowing its time on the other hand is what led de Broglie, in part, to his harmony of phases.

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:48 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

 

Andrew,

 

I appreciate you enumerating the different definitions of electron radius.  However, I find all of the definitions as being “hollow” in the sense that one unknown (the electron structure) is defined using other unknowns such as the electron’s “electrostatic potential” or its “rest mass energy”.  While “rest mass” can be quantified; it does not imply any specific internal structure. I realize that these terms are all that are available to you, but I am proposing that it is possible to define the properties of an electron using the properties of spacetime.  

 

I am going to attempt to explain this concept with an example.  Suppose that one person is attempting to describe gravitational waves by waving their arms, drawing sine waves and talking vaguely about curved spacetime. Compare that to an explanation which starts with the impedance of spacetime and proceeds with a quantifiable description of wave amplitude, frequency, energy density, polarization of spacetime and quadrupole emission patterns.  The second case is more tangible because the explanation is given referencing a known fundamental medium – spacetime.  

 

The “foundation” paper starts by describing the quantum mechanical properties of the “spacetime field”.  Then it proceeds to show how particles, fields and forces are all just different manifestations of 4 dimensional spacetime field.  This is not arm waving. The impedance of spacetime is defined and the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime are examined.  This leads to predictions about the wave structure of spacetime and equations are developed for wave amplitude and properties.

 

This might seem far removed from the radius of an electron, but surprisingly this emerges.  The radius is found to be equal to the electron’s reduced Compton wavelength λc = ħ/mc ≈ 3.86x10‑13 m. Furthermore, this number is supported because it is central in all the calculations of the forces that an electron can produce.  Equations 12 to 23 in the “foundation” paper depend on the radius of the electron being equal to its reduced Compton wavelength λc. You will see that the magnitude of the electron’s gravitational force and electrostatic force are fundamentally tied to the electron’s mathematical radius being:  λc = ħ/mc ≈ 3.86x10‑13 m.  I encourage you to read the paper.

 

John M.  

 

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
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.

1.	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.
2.	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.
3.	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 <mailto: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 <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12135 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150411/bbc28019/attachment-0009.png>