[General] On particle radius
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Jan 9 12:31:00 PST 2017
Hi Chip, hi All,
the problem of the limitation of the internal speed in the electron is
not complicated. It is the cause if relativistic dilation.
If an electron is a particle which is built by something which
permanently orbits at c, then in case of the motion of the electron,
this internal speed will continue to be c with respect to the external
frame. If now the electron moves into an axial direction with respect to
the orbit at speed v then the circular motion will turn into a helical
motion. If the motion on the helix is still c then the period T of this
motion will be reduced to some T' as given by Pythagoras: T' = T *
sqrt(1/(1--v^2 /c^2 )), which by the way is the Lorentz factor of SRT.
If the electron moves into an arbitrary direction with respect to the
orbit, then the calculation of more complicated but has the same result.
I can give it if there is a demand.
To the radius of the electron itself (and I must apologize that I did
not fully follow the preceding discussion:
If the elementary charge e_0 in the electron orbits at c then the
magnetic moment of the electron is classically µ = i*pi*R^2 where we
insert for the current i = e_0 * c/(2pi*R) . Then we get µ = c * e_0 *
R/2 . Now we can use the known value of the magnetic moment µ to
determine the radius R. The result of this is R = 3.86 * 10^-13 m.
This result is in conflict with main stream as the official physics says
that the electron is point-like (R<10^-18 m). But it is in agreement
with Erwin Schrödinger. In his famous paper in which Schrödinger
evaluated the Dirac function, his result for the "size of the electron"
was "roughly about" R = 4 * 10^-13 m. Schrödinger came to this result by
pure QM considerations. And then he makes a funny statement. He says in
his paper: "We know that the electron is point-like. So, there must be
an error in my calculation. But I cannot find this error". - I think
that not Schrödinger was in error but main stream is in error. And this
early result of Schrödinger confirms the classical calculation which I
have shown above.
Does this help the discussion?
Albrecht
Am 09.01.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi All
>
> For those of yoµu 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
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/20170109/d3b9a4d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/d3b9a4d7/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list