[General] On particle radius

Dr Grahame Blackwell grahame at starweave.com
Sun Jan 8 14:10:04 PST 2017


Hi Chip,

Many thanks indeed for your succinct and well-presented case ('succinct' is clearly a useful word in this discussion - as well as a good strategy!).
I need to go through this carefully and thoroughly and see how it relates to my own understanding of the situation.  As we're all agreed, we all have things to learn from each other and (here I DO agree with Vivian's metaphor) each have some aspect of the elephant (in the room?) to contribute.  I'm really looking forward to considering what you've said below and hopefully assimilating it into a fuller understanding on my own part of the issues that need to be taken into consideration.

I'll come back to you when I've processed it thoroughly (may take a few days) and have some thoughts to offer.

Thanks again,
Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chip Akins 
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius


  Hi Dr Graham Blackwell

   

  I like the way you clearly and succinctly write.

   

  Let me explain some of the reasons why I feel the radius of the electron decreases with velocity.

   

  In order to accelerate the electron at rest, we must apply energy (force through distance).

  The only way to apply energy to the electron, when we get down to the basis, is to add energy to its existing confined wave structure.  Planck's rule suggests that this confined wave structure with energy added has a wavelength which is (h c)/E. If this is the case and the momentum of this wave remains p=E/c, then in order to be a spin ½ hbar particle, it seems the electron must have a radius which is r = (h c)/(4 pi E). Where E is the new total energy with velocity throughout this paragraph.

   

  Then when we calculate the mass of this particle from its confined momentum (as Richard has pointed out) we get the expected relativistic (total) mass of the moving particle. m = E/(r w c) = E/c^2= E Eo Uo. Which is exactly equivalent to m = y m. [where w = c/r (angular frequency)].

   

  This is the only scenario I have found where all of the expected parameters are accommodated, and I have searched extensively for other possibilities.

   

  We also note that the scattering cross-section of an electron at relativistic velocities is very small, and agrees with these assumptions quite well.

   

  In order for the electron radius to remain the same size with velocity I think we have to ignore things which seem quite important, and these specific things appear to be required in order to tie several of the pieces of the puzzle together. It seems the picture is just not complete unless the radius of the electron is reduced with velocity.

   

  Thoughts?

   

  Chip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170108/248e3d7f/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list