[General] On particle radius

Mon Jan 9 10:10:02 PST 2017

Hi All

For those of you who hold the hard line that nothing can move faster than c
(a common interpretation of SR) the following is a bit of speculation.

If the energy within the electron is all circulating at c, and the electron
is an extended particle, then the field lines might look something like the
following illustration

At any rate, the field lines would spiral outward from the center, moving at
c at all points.

This structure would not exhibit a specific frequency, or a finite set of
frequencies, but would contain any frequency one might choose. So unless we
can conceive of some mechanism which would only make certain frequencies
visible, or some boundary conditions which would constrain the energy to a
specific radius. Then this approach is not useful in discovering the
electron’s mysteries.

In fact, if a “photon”, or an EM wave if you prefer, can have a spin of
hbar, and has a momentum of p=E/c, then the radius of action of this wave is
r = hbar/momentum. Such a wave then must have a transverse displacement
velocity of at least 3.489 times c in order for the wave to exist in this
form. Also, the internal wavefront must be moving at the sqrt(2) c. So I
think it must be that some things simply move faster than c as John Stewart
Bell suggested. A more Lorentzian form of relativity.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 4:10 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

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 <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

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/20170109/a7f78aac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 734242 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170109/a7f78aac/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 72254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170109/a7f78aac/attachment-0001.png>