[General] Electron's Radius

Fri May 8 14:08:19 PDT 2015

Hi John,
 It's natural to look for weak points while constructively criticizing a
particular model. I find a weak point in your model in your reference to
the moment of inertia of a uniform disk (I=1/2 MR^2) and a hoop (I=MR^2) in
trying to explain why the spin of your electron should be 1/2 hbar instead
of 1 hbar. Moments of inertia are used in non-relativistic physics to
describe rotating rigid macroscopic bodies where mass and mass density are
well defined at particular locations in the rotating object. It is assumed
that the object with a moment of inertia I rotates as a rigid body with a
constant angular velocity w (omega) to produce a particular angular
momentum L=Iw, with the parts of the rigid object closer to the rotational
axis moving proportionally slower that the parts of the object further
away. My feeling is that comparing a single electron to a uniformly
rotating rigid disk makes too many unlikely assumptions about the inner
energy structure and energy density of an electron to make the comparison
quantitatively a valid one. Would your argument be weaker or not if you
were to withdraw the comparison of an electron to a uniformly rotating
rigid disk with its uniform energy density moving at speeds proportional to
the distance from its rotational axis?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:00 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Hi Chip and Everyone,
>
>
>
> Chip, you asked a simple question about the electron’s radius, but it is
> one that I have avoided until now because my answer conflicts with almost
> all the other members of the group.  To explain my answer I have to start
> at first principles and work forward.  Everything that I have done starts
> with the assumption that the universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime.  I
> have found that starting with that assumption it appears that all the
> mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) can be
> conceptually understood.  I am not saying that I have personally solved
> “all” the mysteries, but I have solved enough of them to have confidence
> that this is the missing assumption which is required to unite QM and GR.
>
>
>
> This assumption restricts a scientist to a very narrow path with very
> little “wiggle” room.  If this was a wrong assumption, it would quickly
> lead to a dead-end because it does not allow wild new assumptions to be
> adopted. (no point particles, extra dimensions, multiverse, messenger
> particles etc.). However, if this is the correct assumption, the narrow
> path leads to amazing answers which are all interconnected and can be
> quantitatively analyzed.  I have had the experience of discovering that
> following this narrow path, I develop answers to scientific questions that
> I was not attempting to answer. Think of this as a “bottom up” approach to
> theoretical physics.  It starts with a few assumptions extrapolated from
> the basic assumption and works forward.  If the basic assumption is wrong,
> this would be an impossible task and it would be necessary to move on to
> some different starting assumptions.  My experience has been that this
> basic assumption always gives correct answers.  The few times that I have
> attempted to jump ahead to explain some physical effect without basing it
> on the physical properties of spacetime, I have usually obtained wrong
> answers.  I then went back and worked forward from the starting assumption
> and then obtained reasonable answers which could be quantified.
>
>
>
> In order to develop a model of particles which can produce the
> gravitational curvature of spacetime required by GR, it is necessary to
> incorporate waves which modulate both the rate of time and proper volume.
> Such waves in spacetime are forbidden by GR on the macroscopic scale
> covered by GR.  If such waves existed on the macroscopic scale, it would be
> possible to violate the conservation of momentum and also it would be
> possible to extract virtually unlimited energy from the vacuum.  However,
> QM allows such waves provided that the displacement of space does not
> exceed ± Planck length and the displacement of the rate of time does
> exceed ± Planck time.  Gravitational waves do not modulate time and space
> but dipole waves in spacetime perfectly meets these requirements.
> Furthermore, they are the most fundamental (simplest) waveform.
>
>
>
> Chip, you previously asked about the possibility of longitudinal waves in
> spacetime.  Dipole waves in spacetime can be thought of as being
> longitudinal waves in spacetime, but this definition is a little tricky
> since they are modulating volume so they have both longitudinal and
> transverse qualities.
>
>
>
> Now we can move on to the model of an electron.  I will start with a
> question for proponents that argue that the radius must be ½ *λ*c because
> that is the radius that gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  That model implies
> that all the electron’s energy is concentrated in one or two point
> particles which are rotating at the speed of light in a single plane in a
> circle with radius ½ *λ*c.  Such a model has a moment of inertia like a
> rotating hoop which nicely gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  However, this
> model uses mysterious point particles.  What are they made of?  What keeps
> the infinite energy density pressure from dissipating? What restrains the
> particles so that they propagate in a circle?  What is charge?
>
>
>
> I claim that there are only dipole waves in spacetime which occupy finite
> volume.  There are no point particles. All the particle properties are the
> result of some dipole waves possessing quantized angular momentum
> (explained in the foundation paper). Therefore, my model of an electron is
> a dipole wave in spacetime with strain amplitude (strain slope) of *A*s =
> *Lp*/*λ*c ≈ 4.18x10-23 (dimensionless ratio). This can be mathematically
> represented as having a radius of *λ*c, but being a wave it is
> distributed over a volume.  In the book I show that the wave properties
> present near the circumference fade into a rotating rate of time gradient
> at the center of the electron model.  This rate of time gradient has
> similarities to a rotating gravitational field.  Calculations show that
> this has exactly the same energy density as the rotating dipole wave near
> the circumference.  This gives my model uniform energy density which would
> exhibit a moment of inertial closer to a rotating disk rather than a
> rotating hoop. A rotating disk has half the moment of inertia as a rotating
> hoop, therefore the model must have twice the radius (r = *λ*c) to
> achieve ½ ħ angular momentum.
>
>
>
> It would be nice to end here, but there are further complicating
> considerations.  The rotation is not in a nice stable single plane.  This
> is at the limit of causality and the rotation has QM uncertainty.  There is
> an expectation rotational axis, but all other rotations are possible with
> different probabilities except that the opposite rotation to the
> expectation direction has a probability of zero.  This is explained in the
> book.  This chaotic rotation lowers the angular momentum measured around
> the expectation axis.  I explain both in the foundation article and the
> book that the exact energy distribution and size needs to be worked out by
> others, but at this stage of development, arm waving arguments result in
> angular momentum being ½ ħ. While there is some flexibility in the energy
> distribution, the particle’s mathematical radius needs to be *λ*c for all
> my calculations.
>
>
>
> The proponents of the double loop model must require that the rotation be
> in a single plane with no QM chaotic motion.  If you allow for chaotic
> rotation (required to give probabilistic spin orientation), then this
> lowers the angular momentum to less than ½ ħ because the chaotic rotation
> has probabilistic rotational orientations which invalidate the ½ ħ
> objective.   My model clearly can result in net angular momentum of ½ ħ
> but I do not see much hope for the double loop model unless it adopts wave
> properties which then allow it to have a distributed volume with radius
> exceeding ½ *λ*c.
>
>
>
> My model gives an exact distortion of spacetime (curvature) at radius
> equal to *λ*c.  Scaling from this known effect at this radius allows me
> to calculate the correct curvature of spacetime at larger distances and
> allows me to calculate the gravitational force at large distances.  The
> electrostatic and gravitational properties that I calculate also require
> that the frequency of standing waves in the surrounding volume must be at
> the particle’s Compton frequency.
>
>
>
> I am sure that this will raise objections and questions.  I welcome these.
>
>
>
> 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/20150508/8517afef/attachment.htm>