[General] Wilczek's electron

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>