[General] Electron Size in a Collision

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John M.,

Comments below.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:18 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> 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 had enumerated what is presently being used, but without defining a
better option. I was subconsciously 'complaining' about how people casually
use things without understanding the implications. I have seen
theoreticians use whichever radius fits their goals, rather than reasoning,
or explaining, why they chose a particular option.

I agree with you that the electron  is not properly defined (internally AND
externally. Having read thru (not yet studied) your "foundation", I see
where you are going and approve (for what its worth). As in Viv's list of
electron properties (and explanations), I think that  there are strong
points and weak points in your paper. I'm trying to figure out how to tie
all of the strong points of each member of the group together and then
address the weak points as a group. If we can come up with *all* strong
points, I believe that  physics will have to 'notice'.

>
>
> 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.
>

I fully agree that the 'impedance' of spacetime is an inexcusably ignored
parameter. I have been in touch with a couple others who have been
exploring this area and I personally think it is fundamentally related to
(if not caused by) the nature of light (and Maxwell's non-photonic EM
radiation that fills the universe).

>
>
> 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 *λ*c = 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 *λ*c. 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: * λ*c =
> ħ/mc ≈ 3.86x10‑13 m.  I encourage you to read the paper.
>

 I agree with you that gravitation is the 'residue' of EM forces and I
liked your description. I still have to find time to read your book, which
I have downloaded.

Thank you,

Andrew

>
>
> 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> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150412/9d7d213d/attachment-0001.htm>