[General] Electron Size in a Collision

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear David,

I have attached the draft of a paper of mine that AJP rejected in 9 minutes
back in Dec. 2012. It describes the change in mass as the electron-positron
pair approach and annihilate. This is an example of how the Coulomb
potential energy and mass are equivalent.

For self-attractive, equal-mass, charges, The work done to accelerate the
leptons comes from their charge (their mass) and goes into bound EM
radiation (the relativistic mass increase). The figure on p 12 shows how
the decrease in potential-dependent mass as they approach exactly balances
the increase in relativistic mass so that the 'DC' charge and mass of the
leptons is 'gradually' (not quantum mechanically) converted into AC EM
fields (ultimately photons).

Based on this paper, I would extrapolate the results to 3 cases (I would
need to think them thru further):

1.  In the quark model a highly relativistic lepton triplet has been pushed
close enough together to convert almost of their energy into EM field
(perhaps with the highest energy density in the present universe). The
potential-dependent mass and charge is reduced to some resonant-state level
with the net fractional charge.

2.  In the case of a very-energetic electron incident on a nucleus, the
electron does little work and therefore does not lose potential-dependent
mass and charge. Such an electron is 'pancaked' in the direction of motion
and has a much higher central energy density than when at rest. (Its
average size decreases.) As it speeds up (incrementally, because it is
already close to c) on its approach, its relativistic EM mass increases
further. This effect would be unnoticeable because the increase is such a
small percentage of its initial energy.

3.  In the case of a very-energetic electron colliding with another such,
the electrons do work on each other; therefore, in slowing down, they gain
potential-dependent mass and charge (they can create more lepton pairs?).
As they slow down in doing this work, their relativistic-EM mass decreases
and their 'core' begins to expand back toward its rest size.

Details still need to be worked out. Nevertheless, I think that all of the
forces (strong, weak, EM, and gravitation) can be explained in this process.

Andrew

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:20 PM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Andrew
>
> At the photon and electron level, the L-J potential is a mathematical
> physics approach to at least satisfy one element of a Monte Carlo analysis
> to discern the limit, and if possible, eliminate the balance of forces
> argument. After all, the photon is considered it's own anti-particle.
>
>
> The dynamic dipole as a rotating dipole is based on the idea that a moving
> charge creates a virtual particle  which may include the particle wake
> itself. There may be other modes beyond rotating dipole...this depends on
> the structure of the photon and electron as well as it's wake.
>
> The rotating dipole may be totally real where there are two quanta, but I
> was speaking of a single quanta. The concept of electronic holes has
> produced major advances in electronics. So one has to ask if every
> elementary particle has a hole counterpart, and at least under what
> circumstances it might or might not. So when a single particle is moving
> quickly perhaps in relativistic velocities or changes velocity quickly
> during acceleration, or perhaps even during jerk, then frame dragging may
> induce a virtual particle condition akin to a dipole traversing the path.
>
> As I barely grasped the fractional charge explanation I certainly would
> like to hear more on that since I believe SPIE is interested in "charged
> photon" theory (Gauthier 2015) and how this might apply to constructing
> charge particles which includes both lepton and quark families, and perhaps
> even Higgs.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> David
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *To:* David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:48 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for your musings. They have raised issues that I have not
> addressed, but need to.
>
> While I do not believe that the L-J potential can pertain to the structure
> of the electron, it might be applicable, in some form, to the quarks. On
> the other hand, the question of balance between the repulsive and
> attractive forces within the electron could be addressed in a similar
> manner. However, I cannot do it w/o resorting to 4-D.
>
> On my initial reading of your comments, I rejected the rotating-dipole
> concept. I realize now that was a mistake. The source photon certainly has
> dipoles built in, and the resultant lepton pair is a dipole; therefore it
> should be expected that, in the conversion from oscillating dipoles to
> vortex motion, the dipole nature should be dynamic. Nevertheless, just as
> the standing-wave charge-dipole oscillations of a photon are in time,
> rather than space, so their 'rectification' into the stable
> electron-positron pair probably separates them in time as well as in space.
>
> I believe that the fractional charge on the quarks are related to the
> proximity of the constituent electrons and positrons. If the quark is a
> lepton triplet, then they must be very close together and highly
> relativistic. As such, their individual DC charges are converted to bound
> AC fields (Gluons?). This goes way beyond the photon-to-electron concept of
> present concern; but, it all fits.
>
> Andrew
> ________________________________
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:01 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Andrew
>
> In the simplest form, let me explain my brain fart...based on Lenard-Jones
> potential...
>
> for an isolated particle, charged or not, there is a balance of positive
> potential and negative potential for charge.
>
> While LJ12 applies for neutral particles at the atom or molecular level,
> in principle this dipole may also apply and be useful at the elementary
> particle level, at least as a starting point. This conjecture may apply
> to elementary particles such as electrons and quarks as well as complex
> particles such as protons and neutrons.
>
> The rest of the email are musings.
>
> David
>
>
> P.S. The boson family is problematic. The photon and the eight gluons
> present a challenge with modeling.
>
> I think there is great confusion on the radius of the electron and other
> elementary particles. Today's discussion Sunday/Monday April 12/13) was
> making process on identifying the various radii. So I'm pretty sure this
> issue will resolve itself shortly. So, my email of last week is a bit
> outdated, but my concern was that when we get into topological models of
> electrons with one loop or two, there is the need to identify what types of
> radii there may per particle per measurement. If various theories propose a
> quanta within a radius making these loops, then we need to determine if the
> loops are truly circular orbital instead of elliptical, and also if we are
> looking at a sub elementary quanta that exhibits classical, relativistic or
> quantum behavior, and perhaps even address transluminal/superluminal issues.
>
> I was addressing the single elementary particle level in The Standard
> Model where some authors suggest that each of the individual elementary
> particles have a balance of forces, attractive, the other repulsive. Near
> and far field forces need to be distinguished as well. Furthermore, we need
> to understand the role of measurement in determining these forces, and what
> boundary conditions may be applied to discern the right answer(s).
>
>
>
> One could easily use the neutron. However, protons, electrons and even
> massless particles like photons are often defined by a balance of forces
> where the net field goes to zero.
>
> Net field = 0 =  f(ext) + (-f(int))
>
> So it seems to me that any loop model will need to be evaluated as a
> rotating dipole.
>
> In the proposed neutron model, we know that during decay a neutron can
> produce a proton, electron and some remnants of both mass and energy.
>
> When one gets to the point of a neutron decay, the current topological
> models of electron seem to ignore the challenge of a quark with 1/3 the
> charge.  When any attempt to apply what is learned from the electron is
> made  to a proton, there is a need for quark model. However, given that a
> proton is comprised of  3 quarks and their attendant gluons, making the
> leap from electron to proton requires models for both known quarks (6 plus
> variants) and gluons (8 known). While the antiparticle is expected to be
> simple, the gluons become an issue.
>
> In the case of the electron, there may be a need to exclude other charged
> particles especially from the quark family. To my knowledge quark internals
> or topology has not been detailed or even investigated. Even speculation is
> rather thin on what the quark structure looks like.
>
>
>
> So when we speak of photon - electron modeling, we probably should be
> addressing photon/electron/quark modeling, and in doing so, also take on
> neutrinos and gluons. While this completes the picture for most charged
> particles, the remaining boson and Higgs particles will have to wait since
> uncharged particles may prove even more challenging since they cannot be
> measured in a Penning Trap as charged particles and ions can.
>
> Mesoscopic physics gives us a system level view of a variety of forces
> beyond just charge. Such a view will complicate the discussion intended by
> SPIE. However, any internals of an Elementary Particle will need to address
> externals as well beyond photon and electron to the proton and neutron.
>
> The physics of the photon needs a bit deeper explanation as well. Is the
> dipole modeling sufficient or do we need to model using cross polarized
> photons and hidden variables from quarks such as spacetime impedance? Note
> that there are a number of different impedances to choose from.
>
> How does one create 1/3 charge?
>
> DM
>
> References
>
> 2009 Penning Trap , 78 pages
>   Penning traps as a versatile tool for precise experiments in
> fundamental physics
>   K. Blaum, Yu.N. Novikov and G. Werth
>  http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1095.pdf
>
> In Above paper ref [6]1986 Penning Trap,  77 pages
> Geonium theory: Physics of a Single Electron or Ion in a Penning Trap
> Brown, Gabrielse
> http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/papers/1986/Review.pdf
>
>
>   On the Radius of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and the Atomic Nucleus
> Sha YinYue
> http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/yue.pdf
>
>  Molecular superposition
> http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample01.pdf
>
> Atoms in Molecules Richard F. W. Bader
> http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample02.pdf
>
> Photodissociation Dynamics Reinhard Schinke
> http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample03.pdf
>
>
> Combined Quantum Mechanical and Molecular Mechanical Potentials
> Patricia Amara and Martin J. Field
> http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample04.pdf
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *To:* David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg <
> mules333 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 7:11 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision
>
> Dear David,
>
> Are you referring to the point outside a neutron where the net field goes
> to zero? Or are you talking about the point between two like charges where
> there is no net force on a 3rd charge? Could you be more specific? I think
> that I may be missing something.
>
> Andrew
> ______________________
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>    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/20150415/68f90318/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mass and the Coulomb potential e_p only 12ee.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 489730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/68f90318/attachment-0001.pdf>