[General] Electron Size in a Collision

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Chip,

I had noticed that David had sent me email at my address, not the
conference website. I apparently had missed that before; but, assuming it
was an oversight on his part, I included it this time.

Andrew

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> A question regarding email circulation.
>
>
>
> It has come to my attention that I am not getting some of the comments
> from various participants.  Specifically I do not receive comments from
> David Mathes in this thread.  Is there a known reason this might be
> happening?
>
>
>
> David has been a continual inspiration to me over the years we have known
> each other and I would prefer not to miss his contributions of possible.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:50 PM
> *To:* David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion;
> Andrew Meulenberg
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample02.pdf>*
>
>
>
> *Photodissociation Dynamics Reinhard Schinke*
>
> *http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample03.pdf
> <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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/9ae270bb/attachment-0001.htm>