[General] Electron Size in a Collision

Wed Apr 15 11:48:46 PDT 2015

Hi John M

First, I agree that we need to start from a better foundation, and that our current foundation is inadequate to sufficiently explain even some fairly simple experiments and observations of nature. If we don’t really know what a photon is, how do we build an electron from one? But we do know quite a bit about the behavior of EM fields and EM waves, and therefore assume to know something of the photon, but not near everything.

We are viewing the subatomic particle construction of the sensed universe in a “top-down” approach out of necessity, as a starting place. Each time we can assemble accurately, some pieces of the puzzle, it brings us closer to being able to build a “bottom-up” model, which would then start with foundations which are better defined and better understood.

You may be correct in your approach, however I find that using gravitational waves, with the assumption that they exist and that they travel at the speed of light, as having the same problem. That is it seems to be building on a still undefined and unknown foundation. We are not starting with anything proven or really understood, so it would be easy to make some huge errors if any of our starting assumptions are false. I think that sums up part of the current state of physics. If gravity waves travel faster than c for example, it completely changes the “stiffness” of space, impedance of space, and the whole foundation.

I think, for example that John Williamson and Martin van der Mark have contributed significantly to the understanding of the phenomenon of charge by using some of the knowns about a photon to create an electron model. Fitting pieces together to illustrate a cause. We can say the same about the work of each member of this group, for that is our individual and collective quest.

Still reading, rereading, and running math on your work. Lots of stuff to sort through.  Thank you!!!

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:17 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Hello Everyone,

I have several things to talk about, but I will start by referencing John D’s comment about seismic wavelet.  You are absolutely correct to say “When a wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When a wave moves through the ocean, the ocean waves. When a wave moves through space...”.  The implication is that everyone in the group is talking about waves associated with photons, but there is no fundamental understanding about exactly what an electromagnetic wave is.  It is easy to talk about Maxwell’s equations and electric field strength, but I will attempt to prove that a deeper level of understanding is possible. Before I start, I will make one more related comment.  My objection to describing an electron as a confined photon (double loop or single loop) is that you do not know what a photon is in terms of something more basic.  Suppose that I told you that a photon was an unbound electron that can propagates at the speed of light.  Would that help your understanding of either a photon or electron? This illustrates my perception of the discussion.  I think that it is possible to describe both photons and electrons in terms of the properties of spacetime.  I am going to start with a simple step.  

Gravitational waves propagate in the medium of spacetime.  They propagate at the speed of light when observed from any frame of reference. If it was possible to do a Michelson-Morley experiment using gravitational waves, it would be impossible to detect any motion of the earth relative to spacetime, which is the propagation medium for the gravitational wave.  Therefore, there is a similarity between gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves in that 1) both appear to propagate at the speed of light from all frames of reference,  2) both transfer energy at the speed of light, 3) both are transverse waves, and 4) both have polarization properties.  

Gravitational waves absolutely propagate in the medium of spacetime. Photons are usually modeled as propagating through the empty void of spacetime.  However, this explanation has many unknowns: 1) Why do photons only propagate at the speed of light? 2) Why do photons have wave properties? 3) Two entangled photons have the ability to communicate instantly over large distances.  How do they keep track of each other and how do they communicate? 4) Why is there no amplitude term in the equation E = ħω? 

I claim that all of these questions have reasonable answers and the key to unlocking these answers comes from the simple equation: 

Zs = c3/G    where Zs is the impedance of spacetime

This equation was first identified by D. G. Blair and published in the book: The Detection of Gravitational Waves.  I independently discovered this equation about 2003.  My reasoning is described on pages 4-16 to 4-18 of my book available at:

http://onlyspacetime.com/

Blair only mentioned that c3/G was the impedance of spacetime. He did not use this impedance of spacetime in equations published in any of his books.  I use c3/G everywhere because it is the key to unlocking the properties of waves propagating in spacetime.  For example, I can derive E = ħω from equations of “dipole waves propagating in spacetime” which incorporate c3/G. Everyone else in the group claims to derive the correct energy of an electron by merely saying that E = ħω and they choose to define ω as the Compton frequency of their trapped photon – end of story.  This is going in circles (no pun intended).  It is possible to describe both photons and electrons in terms of the distortion of spacetime they produce.  It is possible to unlock the electrostatic and gravitational forces produced by electrons using c3/G.  This analysis unites the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation.  This is not complete unification of forces, but it is an important step. It also supports my other contentions. 

I derive what I propose is a new constant of nature with units of meter/coulomb.  I show that all the electric and magnetic equations that I have tested give reasonable answers when the unit of Coulomb is converted to a property of spacetime.  In particular, the impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω converts to the impedance of spacetime c3/G using this constant.  Also the Coulomb force constant 1/4πεo converts to Planck force c4/G. This implies that photons are not energy packets propagating through spacetime, photons are quantized waves propagating IN the medium of spacetime.  

Electrons can appear to be confined photons because there is definitely a wave propagating at the speed of light and confined to a volume with a radius related to the electron’s Compton wavelength (either λc/2 or λc).  Therefore, I can see how scientists not involved in the nuanced differences between confined photons and electrons can claim that an electron is a “charged photon”.  

I would like someone to comment on the basic contention that spacetime has impedance of c3/G.  Once there is agreement on this point, I can go step by step and prove that spacetime has energy density and eventually reach a conclusion about the structure of both photons and electrons.  

On a different subject, John W. on Monday criticized one of my earlier emails in which I summarized some of the things that I recalled from reading a large amount of earlier emails.  Since I am new to the group, I read a lot of emails quickly attempting to get up to speed.  In particular, I did not attempt to associate a particular idea with a particular person.  Therefore when I summarized what I recalled, I said “As I recall, the radius decreases with 1/γ in one model and 1/γ2 in another model. 

John W. answered,  “No it is not quite just as simple as this. Wondering where you "recall" this from. In Martin and my old model the apparent size scales exactly with inverse momentum” 

I went back and checked and I was correct.  Richard said: “The small size of the electron in very high energy electron scattering experiments can be partly explained by the charged photon model of the electron, whose radius reduces as 1/(gamma^2) combined with the energy quantum model of the charged photon, whose radius is proportional to 1/gamma.”

I could go on rebut other points, but I would rather move forward and see if I can elevate the discussion to a higher level.

John M.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:24 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

David:

Interesting stuff. I love all those hyperlinks. Including the link to the wavelet Wikipedia article, which gives this depiction of a seismic wave. 

When a wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When a wave moves through the ocean, the ocean waves. When a wave moves through space...

As for that cave, to me if feels more like  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_Center_of_the_Earth> Journey to the Centre of the Earth, only every now and then we see a sign that  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation> somebody has gone before. 

Regards 

John D

From:  <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> David Mathes 

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:25 PM

To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 

Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

Chip

There was a sidebar between Andrew and I, part out of the speculative nature of what I suggested. So the circulation is fine. Andrew and I decided to bring it into the mainstream since we were able to focus, clarify and agree on a few points.

I am a bit humbled by the fine minds here with the attention to detail and depth of knowledge. As luck would have it, despite various attempts at some of the finer universities, I'm still not easily impaired by an education. Experience has taught me otherwise. So before I was humiliated for wasting anyone's time, I thought it best to quietly ask a question to the author only, someone I didn't know. 

As you are aware, Chip, my curiosity often exceeds what I know. While I can provide references from various sources like AIP, APS, and other journals, I have found that wiki - no matter how wrong it might be - is a useful starting place for my kids who want to know a bit more (and Alissa will be studying physics next year.) So all references are to wiki. Other references can be provided as well. 

While the practitioners of mainstream physics have two feet solidly - within boundary conditions known and unknown, of course - there is a need to go one step further without losing one's balance. One can have a foot in the mainstream and foot on the fringe. Some adventurous folks would say that staying within sight of mainstream physics is ok too as long as one understands that any new or improved theory at least can explain current theories as a smaller box within the conjectured larger box. And some cast their fate well beyond that to the heavenly language of pure mathematics to the point where they no longer see the sanity of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet> wavelets but madness of <http://www.stringwiki.org/wiki/String_Theory_Wiki>  string theory. (paging  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hatter> The Mad Hatter)

To that end I have explored elementary particles at the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model> Standard Model and  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry> SUSY level. My interest lies not in the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry> symmetry of physics but the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetry> asymmetries and even the  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics> unexplained almost symmetries.  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation> CPT violations are a sign the Standard Model is like a pair of nice jeans, good enough to but not a complete outfit for all occasions. SUSY needs to be kept on the score card. Perhaps the theory will pan out.  

Such is the nature of physics that even with a good  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> quantum gravity theory  the modelers of photons and electrons are in this no man's land in between the known and the knowable where theories and experiments of the past haunt us similar to the adventure game where we have entered a colossal pirate's cave with "...a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." As we explore these passages we find new clues that are variants on the theme phrase such as "little maze of twisting passages, all different" or twisty little maze of passage, all different." 

Even a thorough thrashing using tools like multidimensional  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method> Monte Carlo methods of analysis does not yield an answer to a simple question of "What are photons."

So when my friend, Andrew popped off with 3 possibilities on  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boundary_conditions> boundary determination, I suggested a fourth cause privately I wasn't sure myself and did not want to make enemies with someone I didn't know if I was misunderstanding what was said.

Over the past couple of days, the mainstream focused on determining that there are multiple boundaries types and in some cases, no man's land where the boundary is time-dependent, my ramblings led us in the direction of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole>  virtual dipole moment created by moving a particle or even just a  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum> quanta. Knowing the limitations and limits is usually helpful. 

As noted by the attachments, the focus of our brief sidebar was to address issues pertaining to the dipole created by a moving particle. While we didn't dig the issues of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference> reference frames  certainly acceleration and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>  jerk/jolt movements create issues beyond the use and abuse of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle> Einstein's equivalence  We ignored the deeper discussion of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation> energy-momentum in 4D and 5D ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density> energy density) theories. We sidestepped the issues of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality> particle-wave. 

Perhaps it was a minor point to determine the types of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential> zero point potential here there is a balance of two forces but this goes to a wide-ranging series of topics if one does not know what forces or boundaries there are, one may have a challenging time creating or removing additional boundary conditions.  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect> Aharonov-Bohm for example.

Sometimes we are simply faced with Witt's end where "Passages lead off in *all* directions from here."

So feel free to comment on any aspect of the ramblings. 

Best

David

ref:  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure

  _____  

From: Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Electron Size in a Collision

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> 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 < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 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 < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
To: David Mathes < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 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> 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> 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> http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/yue.pdf 

Molecular superposition

 <http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample01.pdf> 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> http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ecc/samples/sample04.pdf

  _____  

From: Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
To: David Mathes < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 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 < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:john at macken.com> 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  <mailto:dmath777 at yahoo.com> dmath777 at yahoo.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dmath777%40yahoo.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  <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.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/20150415/3a941cb4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150415/3a941cb4/attachment-0001.jpeg>