[General] Wilczek's electron
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Apr 21 13:25:55 PDT 2016
Dear Andrew,
also my comments again below.
Am 18.04.2016 um 00:41 schrieb 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?
Why should we? There are two charges of the same sign, that will not
build a quadrupole.
>
>>
>> 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?
I think that you refer to a state change (an H atom will not decay.) The
bind between the proton and the electron is in present physics
understood to be an electrical one. So, I expect that the radiation is
primarily caused by the change of the electrical bind between those both.
>
>>
>> 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.
Occam's razor is a good guide line. But it has to be supposed that there
is a real choice. If we do not have another choice than to assume that
the electron has two separate charges, then Occam should not apply for
this question.
>
>>
>> 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?
Yes, of course. I shall do my best.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
Best regards
Albrecht
>>
>> 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>
>
>
>
---
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/20160421/36af9c9a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list