[General] On particle radius

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Jan 9 13:27:39 PST 2017 

Sorry, a little error below:

The period of the motion in the electron will not be reduced but will be 
_extended _following T' = T * sqrt(1/(1--v^2 /c^2 ))

Albrecht


Am 09.01.2017 um 21:31 schrieb Albrecht Giese:
>
> 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 atphys 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo 
> <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.
> www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d1bdc30c/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/d1bdc30c/attachment.png>

More information about the General mailing list