[General] On particle radius

Wed Jan 11 14:17:15 PST 2017

Wolf:
You have underscored a n important point. Observed results of interaction between different sets of interactants determine what are the apparent sizes; or any other characteristics we look for. Rutherford's alpha-scattering determined negligible size (later determined ~femto-meter) of Gold nuclei since the alpha-particles cannot "see" all the electrons around the Gold nuclei that has average atomic diameter of ~1A.

Any set of interactants "see" each other through their "uniquely colored goggles", determined by the particular force of interaction at play in any specific experimental design; and the measured data represent corresponding "colored data". This data set is then given different "colored" interpretations by different human brains! But, I must underscore that humans are not the observers in any experiments. They are mere interpreters of the measurable data. Functional observers are the interactants themselves, constrained in our specific apparatus. This is profoundly important point to appreciate. "Human observer's" influence in quantum experiments has been highly over-rated. Humans are not that important in our cosmic evolution; even though we may think otherwise! Example: Out of our collective stupidity, we are already jeopardizing our very long-term sustainability in the biosphere. This is because we are not adopting "Evolution Process Congruent Thinking".

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:39 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

Jumping in here I think we must all be careful to the fact that we do not measure "see" particles but rather interpret interactions between our measuring instruments and interpret such measurements into models of possible causes.

As long as we assume pint particles the interaction and cause are at the same place, but in almost all cases some internal structure of finite size must actually be conceived hence a difference between interaction location and particle size must be considered.

I do not necessarily agree with Albrecht's electron model , mainly because I see unresolved complexities in dual rotating charge at the speed of light

But whatever model is used to replace point particles the distinction between actual and interaction size must be considered.

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 1/10/2017 1:53 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

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 at richgauthier 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 at phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>

<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<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 Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>

<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>

Click here to unsubscribe

</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170111/596edef4/attachment.htm>