[General] On particle radius

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Jan 10 13:53:33 PST 2017


Richard,

you have written in a preceding mail:

" ... All electron modelers need to keep in mind the experimentally 
determined maximum size of the electron of about 10^-18 m as measured in 
high energy electron-electron scattering experiments (at about 30GeV)...."

We have to be aware that the result of the scattering experiments is not 
the size of the complete electron but the size of the object which gives 
cause to scattering. In these electron-electron experiments it is the 
size of the electric charge. Several of us have a model which says that 
in the electron there are one or two sub-objects orbiting. According to 
these models, the complete electron has to be much bigger than this 
charge. So, there is no conflict between the experimental result of 
10^-18 m and the calculated value of 4*10^-13 m.

Albrecht



Am 09.01.2017 um 19:14 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Grahame,
>
>    Thanks for your persistence. If you stand next to or walk, run, or 
> fly past an ongoing photon double-slit experiment with the photons 
> supplied by a laser, your speed with respect to the experimental 
> apparatus will not affect the fact that photons are being detected at 
> the screen behind the slits, with the photon detection locations 
> spatially distributed statistically according to the well-known 
> double-slit wave interference pattern. Your speed relative to the 
> double-slit experimental apparatus will however (according to the 
> predictions of special relativity) affect the amount of time the 
> experiment has been running (as measured by your wristwatch) due to 
> relativistic time dilation. Your speed relative to the apparatus will 
> also affect your measured distance (using your own meter sticks) 
> between the double slits and the screen, as you go by the experiment 
> at different speeds, due to relativistic length contraction of the 
> double-slit apparatus as viewed by you traveling at different speeds 
> (or at speed zero with respect to the apparatus.)
>     The same will be true if electrons are used rather than photons 
>  in a double-slit experiment (whose slits may however have to be 
> adjusted in size and separation because electrons are going through 
> the slits instead of photons and the electrons' de Broglie wavelength 
> and the photons' wavelength may be different. But the double-slit 
> statistical wave pattern of electrons detected at the electron 
> detection screen behind the slits will be the same for electrons (as 
> predicted by their de Broglie wavelength for their speed relative to 
> the slits) as for photons at a photon detection screen (using the 
> photon wavelength for the interference pattern predictions). Whether 
> you are standing beside the apparatus, moving with  the electrons, or 
> have some other velocity relative to the apparatus and electrons, the 
> double-slit statistical pattern of electrons detected at the screen 
> will still be produced.
>
>     According to my electron model the oncoming spin-1/2 charged 
> photons generate the de Broglie wavelength quantum matter waves that 
> (in some informational sense at least) would go through the double 
> slits, so the predicted results at the screen using my electron model 
> would be the same as the predicted results using the standard electron 
> description.
>
>     The same question that you are asking about the moving electron's 
> transverse radius versus slit aperture size for various observer 
> velocities can also be asked about the photon’s transverse radius 
> versus slit aperture size, as measured by different observers 
> traveling at different speeds relative to the double-slit photon or 
> electron apparatus. You cannot expect a more precise answer to the 
> electron question than to the photon question if the electron is 
> composed of a variety of photon.  The answer to the photon question 
> and to the electron question would be basically the same. That answer 
> would be: use the predictions of quantum wave interference and 
> diffraction produced by the electron or photon waves to predict what 
> pattern of electrons or photons can be detected at the screen or 
> elsewhere in the double-slit experiment.
>
>       Richard
>
>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell 
>> <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Just realised that my reply only went to Richard.
>> Since his response went to all, some may find my reply of interest.
>> Best regards,
>> Grahame
>> ===========
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:*Dr Grahame Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>> *To:*Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:*Monday, January 09, 2017 1:30 PM
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] On particle radius
>>
>> Hi Richard and all,
>> Thanks for your detailed response, most of which seems to be a re-run 
>> of your reasoning that you've presented before rather than relating 
>> to my specific question (more on that below).  As with Chip's 
>> comments, I'll study this with interest in the light of my own 
>> findings and understanding.
>> With regard to my 'aperture' question/thought-experiment: I agree 
>> completely that of course there's a probabilistic element to passage 
>> of the electron through the gap - that's a good point that you make.  
>> Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to reduce the significance of my 
>> argument.
>> In your final para you observe: "I think one would find a higher 
>> probability of finding  fast-moving (v=0.9c) electrons on the other 
>> side of a small enough aperture as compared to the probability of 
>> finding  slow-moving (v=0.1c)  electrons on the other side of the 
>> same small aperture"; on this we are agreed (if we accept the premise 
>> of reduced particle size with speed - which I don't, but we'll run 
>> with that here).  If, in accordance with SR principles, we now shift 
>> to the perspective of the electron's rest-frame, what we get is 
>> static electrons having a higher probability of passing through a 
>> fast-moving orifice than they do of passing through that orifice when 
>> it's moving more slowly.  How do you explain that, if it's not by 
>> virtue of that orifice increasing in size with increasing speed? 
>> Probabilities don't simply change without circumstances changing, and 
>> this appears to be the only credible explanation for such variation.
>> So I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why that aperture 
>> increases in size with increasing speed, which appears to be a 
>> necessary condition for satisfaction of SR reciprocity of reference 
>> frames (without which SR breaks down).  [If you have an alternative 
>> explanation for probability of passage of static electrons through an 
>> orifice varying in this way with speed of motion of that orifice, 
>> then of course that would be of interest.]
>> Best regards,
>> Grahame
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:*Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;Dr Grahame 
>>> Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>>> *Sent:*Monday, January 09, 2017 6:26 AM
>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] On particle radius
>>>
>>> Hi Grahame and all,
>>>
>>>    Thanks for your question about how I justify the reduced 
>>> transverse radius of the helical trajectory of the charged photon 
>>> model with velocity as R=Ro/gamma^2, where Ro=hbar/2mc (See below 
>>> for the aperture question.) All electron modelers need to keep in 
>>> mind the experimentally determined maximum size of the electron of 
>>> about 10^-18 m as measured in high energy electron-electron 
>>> scattering experiments (at about 30GeV). The R=Ro/gamma^2 result 
>>> above for the trajectory radius of the spin 1/2 charged  photon, 
>>> when added to the actual radius R1=L/4pi =  Ro/gamma of my detailed 
>>> spin 1/2 charged photon model (described briefly in this forum in 
>>> the past), gives a total transverse helical radius Rtotal = 
>>> Ro/gamma^2 + Ro/gamma = Ro ( 1/gamma^2 + 1/gamma)  where Ro=hbar/2mc 
>>> . This total transverse radius Rtotal of the charged photon electron 
>>> model is dominated by the spin 1/2 photon's radius in high electron 
>>> energy scattering  to give Rtotal -> Ro/gamma , consistent with 
>>> these experimental results.
>>>    On the theoretical side, the R=Ro/gamma^2 result is derived from 
>>> setting the circulating charged photon's energy E=hf equal to 
>>> electron's total energy formula E=gamma mc^2 and solving for the 
>>> photon's wavelength L=h/(gamma mc). This result of decreasing 
>>> charged photon wavelength L with increasing electron velocity is 
>>> used together with the increasing double-looping frequency f=2 gamma 
>>> mc^2  with increasing electron velocity of the helically 
>>> double-looping photon . The result is a quantitative geometrical 
>>> helical model for the trajectory of the spin 1/2 charged photon. The 
>>> helical radius R=Ro/gamma^2 of the trajectory emerges naturally from 
>>> both the increasing double-looping frequency and the decreasing 
>>> wavelength of the spin 1/2 charged photon with increasing electron 
>>> speed. I showed that this result is also the case for Vivian’s 
>>> helically-circulating-photon particle model when it is corrected to 
>>> include the decreasing wavelength of the circulating photon 
>>> associated with the particle’s increasing speed, which he had left 
>>> out of his derivation. The de Broglie wavelength L-compton = 
>>> h/(gamma mv) falls out easily from this spin 1/2 charged photon 
>>> wavelength L=h/(gamma mc) result. I don’t think John and Martin used 
>>> this reduced photon-wavelength relationship L=h/gamma mc in their 
>>> 1997 electron-modeling article. You also don’t use it in your 
>>> particle model.
>>>
>>>    Your circulating-photon-like object particle model maintains a 
>>> constant transverse radius as the speed (and energy) of the moving 
>>> particle increases. The frequency of helical rotation of your 
>>> photon-like object  therefore actually decreases as 1/gamma with 
>>> increasing particle speed. But based on energy considerations the 
>>> circulating photon frequency of a helically-moving-photon model 
>>> should INCREASE with the particle’s energy in proportion to gamma 
>>> due to E=gamma mc^2 for the total energy of a moving particle with 
>>> mass. De Broglie’s own derivation of the de Broglie wavelength 
>>> incorporated both an increasing frequency (due to increasing 
>>> electron energy) with electron speed, and also a seemingly 
>>> contradictory decreasing frequency with increasing electron speed 
>>> (due to the relativistic time dilation effect.) He rationalized both 
>>> of these frequencies using his “harmony of phases” argument. But 
>>> your particle model doesn’t contain the increasing frequency with 
>>> photon energy or particle energy at all (as far as I know). We have 
>>> previously discussed the problem of your particle model’s spin at 
>>> relativistic energies. If your particle is composed of a spin 1 hbar 
>>> circulating photon (or even a spin 1/2 hbar circulating photon) , 
>>> either of these spins will add to the orbital spin of your electron 
>>> model that (due to its constant radius with increasing particle 
>>> speed) remains a constant 1/2 hbar with increasing speed of your 
>>> electron model. This gives your electron model a total spin of 1 1/2 
>>> hbar or 1 hbar (depending the spin 1 or spin 1/2  of the photon 
>>> model you use) at highly relativistic velocities, which contradicts 
>>> the experimental spin 1/2 for an electron at all velocities. With my 
>>> model (and Vivian’s corrected model) the orbital contribution of 
>>> spin 1/2  hbar (which is correct for a slowly moving electron) 
>>> decreases rapidly to zero (as 1/gamma^2) at relativistic particle 
>>> velocities, and the spin 1/2 of the helically circulating photon 
>>> becomes the spin 1/2 of the electron model itself at relativistic 
>>> energies.
>>>    As for the question of whether a fast-moving (with v=0.9c) 
>>> electron can go through an aperture with a radial size that might 
>>> block a slower moving electron (with v=0.1c) , I think that one has 
>>> to appeal to the photon-like quantum wave nature of the electron to 
>>> answer the question. My charged-photon electron model is proposed to 
>>> generate de Broglie wavelength quantum waves in its longitudinal 
>>> direction of motion that would interact with an aperture or slit (or 
>>> 2 slits) and predict (by quantum wave diffraction and interference 
>>> effects) the probability of detecting electrons at a screen on the 
>>> other side of the aperture, whether for slow moving electrons or for 
>>> fast moving electrons. Moving electrons are not like wooden pegs 
>>> that one tries to fit through various hole sizes relative to the 
>>> size of the electron peg. But In general I think one would find a 
>>> higher probability of finding  fast-moving (v=0.9c) electrons on the 
>>> other side of a small enough aperture as compared to the probability 
>>> of finding  slow-moving (v=0.1c)  electrons on the other side of the 
>>> same small aperture. There should be no contradiction in this 
>>> result, whether an observer is in the inertial frame of the moving 
>>> electron, or stands next to the aperture that individual electrons 
>>> are passing (or not passing) through.
>>>
>>>      Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a 
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



---
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/20170110/9be45252/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list