[General] Wilczek's electron

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Albrecht,

I apologize for projecting my interpretations on your model. Thank you for
clarifying things.

comments below:
_ _ _

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

> 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.
>

Good. Should we expect to see a quadrupole moment?

>
> 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.
>

OK, from above

>
> 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. [agreed] 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?
>

You raise an interesting point. In an atomic decay of H, would your model
predict the radiation to come from the electron or the proton?

>
> 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.
>

Thank you for the clarification. If one can accept Quark triplets being
bound, then one should be able to accept hemi-electrons as being bound.
While I am fond of Occam's razor, I am not addicted to it. I'll have to
reconsider your model based on your explanations.

>
> 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.
>

 I think that it may help some people accept a process. Like you, I prefer
looking at the possible physical process first. However, I am hoping to get
this paper published as an introduction to a more physical model. Can I
recommend you as a reviewer?

Best regards,

Andrew

>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160418/fe089bb4/attachment.htm>