<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1182623752;
mso-list-template-ids:1791497050;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1193419061;
mso-list-template-ids:1468318908;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>All:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’ve just come back from a weekend away, and I’m afraid I can’t address all
the points in all the emails I’ve got. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But as regards the electron size, can I say that an electromagnetic wave is
a field variation that doesn’t have any edge, and when we wind it round with a
twist to create an electron, what we have is a standing field. That doesn’t have
any edge either. The electron isn’t some tiny thing at the centre of this field,
it <EM>is</EM> this field. Talking about the size of the electron whilst
referring to the Compton wavelength or dividing this by 4<FONT
face=Calibri><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">π </FONT></FONT>is IMHO a mistake.
It’s something like saying hurricane Katrina was 5km across because that’s the
size of the eye of the storm. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John D</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=chipakins@gmail.com
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 10, 2015 8:14 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Electron Size in a
Collision</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John M<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Trying to understand your electron
model in the relativistic sense.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Analyzing this has raised a
question.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Let’s say you are traveling with
an electron at a relativistic velocity in the “z” direction. You don’t
know it, but traveling at a relativistic velocity, your time has slowed,
relative to an observer. You still measure the speed of light to be the
same in all directions, using your time reference, but your time is slower, and
time does not slow in just one spatial direction. So with a slower time and the
speed of light constant, does your distance (length, width, etc.) shrink in all
directions, as viewed from an external observer? It seems required since your
time is slower and you measure the same speed of light in all directions using
that time reference.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Of course the acceleration of a
particle imparting energy, increasing its frequency on the one hand, and the
same velocity slowing its time on the other hand is what led de Broglie, in
part, to his harmony of phases.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>John Macken<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 10, 2015 1:48
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Electron Size in a
Collision<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Andrew,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">I appreciate you enumerating
the different definitions of electron radius. However, I find all of the
definitions as being “hollow” in the sense that one unknown (the electron
structure) is defined using other unknowns such as the electron’s “electrostatic
potential” or its “rest mass energy”. While “rest mass” can be quantified;
it does not imply any specific internal structure. I realize that these terms
are all that are available to you, but I am proposing that it is possible to
define the properties of an electron using the properties of spacetime.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">I am going to attempt to
explain this concept with an example. Suppose that one person is
attempting to describe gravitational waves by waving their arms, drawing sine
waves and talking vaguely about curved spacetime. Compare that to an explanation
which starts with the impedance of spacetime and proceeds with a quantifiable
description of wave amplitude, frequency, energy density, polarization of
spacetime and quadrupole emission patterns. The second case is more
tangible because the explanation is given referencing a known fundamental medium
– spacetime. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The “foundation” paper starts
by describing the quantum mechanical properties of the “spacetime field”.
Then it proceeds to show how particles, fields and forces are all just different
manifestations of 4 dimensional spacetime field. This is not arm waving.
The impedance of spacetime is defined and the quantum mechanical properties of
spacetime are examined. This leads to predictions about the wave structure
of spacetime and equations are developed for wave amplitude and
properties.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">This might seem far removed
from the radius of an electron, but surprisingly this emerges. The radius
is found to be equal to the electron’s reduced Compton wavelength</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>
<I><S>λ</S></I><SUB>c</SUB> = ħ/mc ≈ 3.86x10<SUP>‑13</SUP> m. Furthermore, this
number is supported because it is central in all the calculations of the forces
that an electron can produce. Equations 12 to 23 in the “foundation” paper
depend on the radius of the electron being equal to its reduced Compton
wavelength <I><S>λ</S></I><SUB>c</SUB>. You will see that the magnitude of the
electron’s gravitational force and electrostatic force are fundamentally tied to
the electron’s mathematical radius being: <I><S>λ</S></I><SUB>c</SUB> = ħ/mc ≈
3.86x10<SUP>‑13</SUP> m. I encourage you to read the
paper.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>John M.
</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'> General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Andrew Meulenberg<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 09, 2015
8:33 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
Meulenberg<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Electron Size in a
Collision<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">Dear John
M.,<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I haven't had time yet to read your works. I need to, before
I comment on your story below. However, you have raised a topic that is
generally ignored, or improperly treated - the size of an electron. Could you
define what you mean by that? I use 3 possible definitions for different
applications.<o:p></o:p></P>
<OL type=1>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3">QM
says that the bound electron size is that of the probability distribution of
its orbit (in terms of the Bohr radius). I accept this as a time average that
is used in screening (and in other) calculations.<o:p></o:p>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3">Compton
wavelength gives a radius (~ 386 fm?) that I assume includes ~99% of its
electrostatic potential in free space. This is important in looking at the EM
(and in other?) interactions. This does not include the AC EM potential added
by relativistic motion.<o:p></o:p>
<LI class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3">Classical
radius (~2.8fm) gives the energy density distribution (i.e., ~99% of its rest
mass energy is within this radius?). This is critical in nuclear interactions
involving electrons (and perhaps in the anomalous solution of the Dirac
equations).<o:p></o:p></LI></OL>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">Could you counter, or comment on,
these definitions? They have a major impact on the discussion of the
photonic-electron concept. If you have already covered this topic in one of your
papers, could you 'point' it out to us.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">Thx,<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Andrew<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">________________________________<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:41 PM, John Macken <<A
href="mailto:john@macken.com" target=_blank>john@macken.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 6pt; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Vivian and
All,</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>We all agree that collision
experiments indicate that the size of an electron is smaller than the
resolution of the collision experiment. Since some experiments have been
done at about 50 GeV, this means that the electron appears to be smaller than
about 10<SUP>-18</SUP> m. We have different models of an electron and they
have different explanations for how an electron can appear to be a point
particle. In a previous post you say, “</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: #a50021">I prefer the answers given by John W, Richard G, myself
and others that the radius of an electron decreases with its energy, giving it
a point like property as it travels at sufficiently high
velocity.</SPAN>” I will address this point. You seem to be saying
that a fundamental particle <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>changes its radius in X, Y and Z
dimensions as it propagates. As I recall, the radius decreases with 1/γ
in one model and 1/γ<SUP>2</SUP> in another model. Also as I recall the
decrease in radius is accompanied by an increase in the electron’s Compton
frequency in some models. Perhaps I do not understand this concept
correctly, but the change in radius and frequency appears to violate the
covariance of physical laws. All frames of reference should have the
same physical laws. Here is the problem. In order for the laws of
physics to be the same in all frames of reference, Lorentz transformations
have to hold between different frames of reference. The changes you propose do
not correspond to Lorentz transformations. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Suppose that we designate the Z axis
as the direction of propagation between two frames of reference. Then the
expectation is that an observer in frame A would perceive that an electron in
frame B retains its original radius in the X and Y dimensions while the Z axis
dimension decreases by r = r<SUB>o</SUB>/γ. Also, the rate of time in
frame B appears to slows down by 1/γ as seen from frame A. The Compton
frequency can be considered a clock beat. Therefore the observer in
frame A should perceive that the electron’s Compton frequency in frame B has
slowed down rather than speed up. If the changes you propose take place,
then an observer in frame B would perceive that an electron has different
properties than the properties observed in frame A. This would be a
violation of the basic assumption of invariance in spacial
relativity.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Perhaps, the most important point is
that the changes that you propose do not even achieve the goal of making the
electron appear to be a point particle in a collision. Here is the
reasoning. Suppose that we have two electrons accelerated to 50 GeV and
propagating in opposite directions in an accelerator. I am in the
acceleration frame of reference and the electrons will collide in front of
me. If the collision is head-on, both electrons momentarily are stopped
in my frame of reference at the moment of closest approach. Therefore at
that moment neither electron is moving relative to me. They might have
been small when they were moving, but when they have stopped in the collision,
in your model they should have their original radius equal which you believe
to be ½ the reduced Compton wavelength. Since the scattering is taking
place in my frame of reference, the scattering should indicate this full
size.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Contrast that to my model. I
say that the electron appears to be the same size and have the same Compton
frequency when viewed as a “stationary” electron in any frame of
reference. This means that Lorentz transformations hold between frames.
An electron in frame B retains the same radius in the X and Y dimensions but
appears to shrink in the Z direction. Also the Compton frequency appears
slower when observed from frame A. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>However, the important point is not
the size during propagation, but the size during collision. In my model,
the size of each electron physically decreases when the two electrons collide
and momentarily are stopped in my frame of reference. The kinetic energy
carried by each electron has been converted to the internal energy of the
waves that make up the two electrons. At the moment of collision, the
wave amplitude increases and wave frequency increases. The Compton
wavelength decreases, therefore <B>the radius decreases</B> when the colliding
electrons are momentarily stopped. If the collision is at 50 GeV then γ
= 100,000 and the radius decreases by this factor. The calculations are
done in the “foundation” paper, in section 4.5, titled Point Particle Test.
This section of the paper concludes that the reason that electrons appear to
be point particles is that “It is a classic case of the experiment distorting
the property being measured and invalidating the measurement”.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>I also have other arguments
supporting my electron size and characteristics, but this is enough for one
post.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>John
M.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <A
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">mules333@gmail.com</A><BR><a href="<A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><o:p></o:p></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at johnduffield@btconnect.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>