[General] Wilczek's electron

[Albrecht Giese]

Dear Andrew,

again my comments in the text.

Am 16.04.2016 um 12:31 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> You mentioned an article that seems to counter, rather than support, 
> your model of the binary electron. You state: "On the other hand there 
> was a kind of indication for two constituents described by the article 
> of Frank Wilczek about the electron in Nature in summer 2013." 
> (attached)."
>
> Some statements from the article:
>
> "The electron is effectively a spinning ball of charge, and elementary 
> electromagnetism tells us that this generates
> a magnetic dipole field."
>
> "An electric dipole, should it exist, would generate broadly similar 
> corrections. But no such field has been detected."
>
> "So far there is only an upper bound for the electric dipole moment. 
> This is an extraordinary 17 orders of magnitude smaller than one might 
> expect — naively, given the electron’s effective size."[.... estimated 
> to be roughly 2.4 × 10^–12 metres].
According to my model there cannot be an (electrical) dipole moment in 
the electron. So these statements do not weaken my model.
>
> Despite the lack of measured dipole, he states:
> "So a non-zero electric dipole moment for electrons is a theoretical 
> possibility."
> This seems to be the only support for your model from that angle.
Why? I do not see this as a support of the model.
>
> On the other hand, you are not expecting your twin particles to be 
> attracted by electrostatic forces (you suggest something like strong 
> nuclear forces). Therefore, an electric dipole would not be expected; 
> some other form of dipole would be. But, if no electric dipole, what 
> causes the EM fields?
In my model, the elementary electrical charge is split into two 
portions, one at each sub-particle. There is of course no attraction 
between both, but a repulsion. But the force of this repulsion is only 
1/1000 of the binding force in the particle. It causes the electron to 
be by 1/1000 larger than without an electrical charge and so it causes a 
corresponding increase of its magnetic field. This explains quite 
precisely the Landé factor.

The EM field emitted by the electron in case of an acceleration is 
caused by the following process. If an electron is accelerated then its 
shape is relativistically distorted. As a consequence, one sub-charge is 
subject to a changing electrical field of the other sub-charge. This 
causes an EM radiation. - This, by the way, is the only cause of 
radiation in physics, the situation that one charge is subject to a 
changing field. There is no other cause of radiation in physics. Or do 
you know one?
>
> While I find most of Wilczek's statements to be 'correct' and useful, 
> I consider some to be just wrong. Nevertheless, it is a useful 
> reference. It is not as authoritative as his “Origins of Mass,” 
> arXiv:1206.7114v2 22 Aug 2012.  However, it took me many hours of work 
> to derive real benefit from this latter paper.But now I have a new 
> 'tool'.
My reference to the paper of Wilczek refers to the following statement 
at the end of his paper:

"By combining fragmentation with superconductivity, we can get 
half-electrons that are their own antiparticles. Such ‘Majorana modes’ 
have now been observed experimentally and promise to have exotic 
properties."

This fact that half-electrons can be seen is in my understanding one 
important point of his saying. "The enigmatic electron". I see it in 
quite good agreement with my model but in strong conflict with all other 
electron models discussed here.
>
> I did not find his "enigmatic electron" to be as useful. I have 
> attached a preprint to a paper that I will submit this week that 
> references both of Wilczek's papers. I hope that it will be published 
> and might open the way for new thinking in the photon to lepton 
> transition.
My feeling for electron-positron creation or photon creation is that 
photons and leptons are built in a similar way, by similar 
sub-particles. But as you write:"there are still pieces of the puzzle 
missing"   Do considerations about symmetry and symmetry breaking really 
help us to understand physical processes? I doubt that.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
Best regards
Albrecht
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160417/804a734d/attachment.htm>