Electron’s puzzles.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: instructor's solutions manual for Linear dynamic systems and signals by Zoran Gajic
Next: What does a gluon look like?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 25 Apr 2010 13:13 On Apr 22, 6:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 3:11 am, socratus <isra...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. > > (!!!) > > More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!) > > Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical > > thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron. > > / The book "What is the Electron?" > > Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm > > > All of them are problematical. > > So, why we call an electron a simple elementary > > particle if it looks not very simple ? > > It is simple because it appears not to be composite, as far as we can > tell. Careful, an electron can be decomposed by a positron into gamma-rays, (reportedly). On that basis I would call an electron composite. Regards Ken
From: BURT on 25 Apr 2010 16:45 On Apr 25, 10:13 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Apr 22, 6:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 am, socratus <isra...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. > > > (!!!) > > > More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!) > > > Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical > > > thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron. > > > / The book "What is the Electron?" > > > Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /http://redshift..vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm > > > > All of them are problematical. > > > So, why we call an electron a simple elementary > > > particle if it looks not very simple ? > > > It is simple because it appears not to be composite, as far as we can > > tell. > > Careful, an electron can be decomposed by a positron > into gamma-rays, (reportedly). > On that basis I would call an electron composite. > Regards > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Where does the positron come from? It interacts immedially with the atoms in the atmosphere. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ken S. Tucker on 25 Apr 2010 23:24 On Apr 25, 1:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 10:13 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 am, socratus <isra...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. > > > > (!!!) > > > > More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!) > > > > Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical > > > > thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron. > > > > / The book "What is the Electron?" > > > > Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm > > > > > All of them are problematical. > > > > So, why we call an electron a simple elementary > > > > particle if it looks not very simple ? > > > > It is simple because it appears not to be composite, as far as we can > > > tell. > > > Careful, an electron can be decomposed by a positron > > into gamma-rays, (reportedly). > > On that basis I would call an electron composite. > > Regards > > Ken > Where does the positron come from? It interacts immedially with the > atoms in the atmosphere. > Mitch Raemsch Well Dr. Draper is quite familiar with nuclear physics so lets see how he opines on electron composition. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: BURT on 25 Apr 2010 23:31 On Apr 25, 8:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Apr 25, 1:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 10:13 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 6:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 am, socratus <isra...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > More than ten different models of the electron are presented here.. > > > > > (!!!) > > > > > More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!) > > > > > Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical > > > > > thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron. > > > > > / The book "What is the Electron?" > > > > > Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm > > > > > > All of them are problematical. > > > > > So, why we call an electron a simple elementary > > > > > particle if it looks not very simple ? > > > > > It is simple because it appears not to be composite, as far as we can > > > > tell. > > > > Careful, an electron can be decomposed by a positron > > > into gamma-rays, (reportedly). > > > On that basis I would call an electron composite. > > > Regards > > > Ken > > Where does the positron come from? It interacts immedially with the > > atoms in the atmosphere. > > Mitch Raemsch > > Well Dr. Draper is quite familiar with nuclear physics > so lets see how he opines on electron composition. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Anti matter is a mistake of science. And its an embarrassing one. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 08:57
On Apr 25, 10:02 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Apr 23, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:28 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 6:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> ... > > > > It is simple because it appears not to be composite, as far as we can > > > > tell. > > > > Other than that, it is like a bunch of other simple particles, in that > > > > it obeys a whole slew of physical laws, including: > > > > * the electrostatic interaction > > > > * the weak interaction > > > > * the gravitational interaction > > > > ... > > > > Could you supply one reference (preferably online) which MEASURES the > > > gravitational effects on a single electron? This effect seems very > > > unlikely as the ratio of the EM to gravitational force on an electron > > > is at least 10**40. > > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977RScI...48....1W > > Thank you for the reference but I cannot access the details. > I still do not understand how the electric effects of the container > can be isolated away so that only the gravitational effects can be > exhibited. What is your take on this experiment? My take on the experiment is that it does what it says it does, which you can discover if you work a little harder to access the details. This may mean removing yourself from your chair and proceeding to a library where this journal is kept in the stacks. |