<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1253">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:106%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear John M (and everyone),<br>
<br>
I have been reading your articles and your long book (and am up to about page 100 - though have skipped forwards a quite a bit here and there). Have been enjoying many aspects of these, though I have some problems with the fundamental properties of space-time
you propose (will raise these later). I like the fact that you have taken such a radical standpoint and made a good attempt of exploring some of the consequences.<br>
<br>
I think to make proper progress there is a need to clarify and expand on a few points on earlier posts Will go through these as time and energy permits...<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF631822"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Macken [john@macken.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 09, 2015 6:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Electron Size in a Collision<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Vivian and All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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.
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF">Yes and no. I explained this earlier. When I carried out experiments at CERN some 30 years ago using 200GeV muons the size resolution
was, indeed, of this order - but <font color="0000FF">such experiments</font> do not imply that the lepton is therefore a point point particle, only that the size is not resolved.
</font></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF">T<font color="0000FF">h</font>is is
not the same thing.<font color="0000FF"> </font></font></span>T<font color="0000FF">h</font>is point is widely misunderstood by those not in the field to the extent that this belief has become "common knowledge". <font color="0000FF">
</font>I agree with what you <font color="0000FF">say </font></font></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="FF0000">“It
is a classic case of the experiment distorting the property being measured and invalidating the measurement”</font>. Your interpretation of the experi<font color="0000FF">ment</font></span></font> is differ<font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF">ent</font>,
but is still not the whole truth.</font> Just wondering if you have the earlier posts John?</font><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">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="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; 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><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">” I will address this point. You seem to be saying that a fundamental particle
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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/ã in one model and 1/ã<sup>2</sup> in another model.
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">No it is not quite just as simple as this. Wondering where you "recall" this from. In Martin and my old model the apparent size scales
exactly with inverse <font color="0000FF">momentum</font> - Have you had a look at this yet?</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Also as I recall the decrease in radius is accompanied by an increase in the electron’s Compton frequency in some models.
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Nope, the Compton frequency is a property of the particle, the de Broglie frequency, simply derived from this, changes in different
frames.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">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. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF">Indeed, what is needed is a proper theory which scales properly relativistically.
<font color="0000FF">Something like t<font color="0000FF">he M<font color="0000FF">axwell theory, or relativistic quantum mechanics, or QED. Mechanical models of th<font color="0000FF">e electron do not scale properly relativisti<font color="0000FF">cally -
though one can try to fix some aspects of this by introducing extra scaling factors.</font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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>/ã. Also, the rate of time in frame B appears to slows down by 1/ã as seen from frame A. The Compton
frequency can be considered a clock beat. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF">No.this is a big over-simplification. In the proper frame clock and frequency are in harmony. Relativistically the clock slows, but,
equally, relativistically the frequency increases. In any other frame they therefore diverge. This is the de Broglie "harmony of phases" which lies at the root of QM. Any proper model of the electron needs to ad<font color="0000FF">dress the simultaneous
slowing of clock rate and increasing of frequency observed in experiment.</font></font><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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.
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"><font color="0000FF">The electrons, and their inner elements, are moving relative to each other.</font><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Particles do not "stop" in a
<font color="0000FF">hi</font>gh-energy collision, any more than a fly "stops" a train when it squashes onto its windscreen. In any rotating model of the electron different parts continue to rotate - in th<font color="0000FF">e
</font>Dirac model or the WvdM model th<font color="0000FF">ese elements remain at lightspeed. Is this different in your case? Anyway,
<font color="0000FF">for the scattering distribution, the "size" of the electron per-se does not matter - only that th<font color="0000FF">e
<font color="0000FF">object has spherical symmetry and that the force law scales as an inverse square.</font></font></font></font>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; 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.
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Y<font color="0000FF">o</font>u seem to be imagining a sort of rigid electron which shr<font color="0000FF">inks only o<font color="0000FF">n
full<font color="0000FF">-</font>on collision. What about the cases you actually measure where the particles suffer a glancing blow?</font></font><br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">If the collision is at 50 GeV then ã = 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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">I also have other arguments supporting my electron size and characteristics, but this is enough for one post.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">John M.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:106%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>