[General] Electron Size in a Collision

Mon Apr 13 19:15:18 PDT 2015

Hello John W and all,
   I’ve been following the conversation and am very pleased to be associated with such smart and insightful and persistent people.
I’ve attached the powerpoint to my talk on the electron that I’m giving at the APS meeting tomorrow. I’ll let you know how it goes.
all the best,
     Richard
         
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:03 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear John M (and everyone),
> 
> I have been reading your articles and your long book (and am up to about page 100 - though have skipped forwards a quite a bit here and there). Have been enjoying many aspects of these, though I have some problems with the fundamental properties of space-time you propose (will raise these later). I like the fact that you have taken such a radical standpoint and made a good attempt of exploring some of the consequences.
> 
> I think to make proper progress there is a need to clarify and expand on a few points on earlier posts  Will go through these as time and energy permits...
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 6:11 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles
> Subject: [General] Electron Size in a Collision
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. I explained this earlier. When I carried out experiments at CERN some 30 years ago using 200GeV muons the size resolution was, indeed, of this order - but such experiments do not imply that the lepton is therefore a point point particle, only that the size is not resolved. This is not the same thing.  This point is widely misunderstood by those not in the field to the extent that this belief has become "common knowledge".  I agree with what you say “It is a classic case of the experiment distorting the property being measured and invalidating the measurement”.  Your interpretation of the experiment is different, but is still not the whole truth.  Just wondering if you have the earlier posts John?
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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 - Have you had a look at this yet?
> 
> Also as I recall the decrease in radius is accompanied by an increase in the electron’s Compton frequency in some models.  
> 
> Nope, the Compton frequency is a property of the particle, the de Broglie frequency, simply derived from this, changes in different frames.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Indeed, what is needed is a proper theory which scales properly relativistically. Something like the Maxwell theory, or relativistic quantum mechanics, or QED. Mechanical models of the electron do not scale properly relativistically - though one can try to fix some aspects of this by introducing extra scaling factors.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> No.this is a big over-simplification. In the proper frame clock and frequency are in harmony. Relativistically the clock slows, but, equally, relativistically the frequency increases.  In any other frame they therefore diverge. This is the de Broglie "harmony of phases" which lies at the root of QM. Any proper model of the electron needs to address the simultaneous slowing of clock rate and increasing of frequency observed in experiment.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> The electrons, and their inner elements, are moving relative to each other.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Particles do not "stop" in a high-energy collision, any more than a fly "stops" a train when it squashes onto its windscreen. In any rotating model of the electron different parts continue to rotate - in the Dirac model or the WvdM model these elements remain at lightspeed. Is this different in your case? Anyway, for the scattering distribution, the "size" of the electron per-se does not matter - only that the object has spherical symmetry and that the force law scales as an inverse square.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> You seem to be imagining a sort of rigid electron which shrinks only on full-on collision. What about the cases you actually measure where the particles suffer a glancing blow?
> 
> 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20150413/38723105/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Gauthier Baltimore APS presentation POWERPOINT Apr 13.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 1163444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150413/38723105/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150413/38723105/attachment-0003.htm>