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: PD on 26 Apr 2010 08:58 On Apr 25, 10:24 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 We have no evidence of any substructure in the electron at all, down to an extraordinarily small scale.
From: maxwell on 26 Apr 2010 11:03 On Apr 26, 5:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Your smug reply illustrates your pathetic sense of superiority. Once again, you fail to exhibit insight or civility. What a disagreeable person you must be.
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 12:29 On Apr 26, 10:03 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Apr 26, 5:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Your smug reply illustrates your pathetic sense of superiority. > Once again, you fail to exhibit insight or civility. What a > disagreeable person you must be. No, it's not superiority. It's a resistance to spoonfeeding. This newsgroup is not an alternate vehicle for getting information that is otherwise inconvenient to obtain. What you can get on the newsgroup is pointers to locations of that information, to streamline and expedite your search. You've been handed a treasure map. This is not the same thing as having the treasure dug up for you and delivered to your doorstep, but I don't believe that not having the latter constitutes incivility. You are expected to expend some effort as well in this exercise. PD
From: maxwell on 29 Apr 2010 10:55 On Apr 28, 1:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 1:58 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > ... > The existence of photons, W's, Z's, and gluons has been firmly > established. Nothing maybe about them. > ... You seem to have a persistent problem of distinguishing theory from experiment. The actual existence of all these 'particles' has been interpolated from THEORY as ONE possible explanation of EXPERIMENTAL results. This is not the same type of existence verification of such real particles as electrons, protons, etc.
From: PD on 29 Apr 2010 11:56
On Apr 29, 9:55 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Apr 28, 1:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 1:58 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > ... > > The existence of photons, W's, Z's, and gluons has been firmly > > established. Nothing maybe about them. > > ... > > You seem to have a persistent problem of distinguishing theory from > experiment. > The actual existence of all these 'particles' has been interpolated > from THEORY as ONE possible explanation of EXPERIMENTAL results. > This > is not the same type of existence verification of such real particles > as electrons, protons, etc. On the contrary, it is EXACTLY like what is done with existence verification of those real particles and particles like muons and pions. I.e. you determine - the mass of the particle by getting a peak in the reconstructed invariant mass from the particle or its products - the lifetime of the particle by decay vertex reconstruction and width of the reconstructed invariant mass - the charge, spin, and parity of the particle by examining the kinematics of the particle or its decay products, as well as the lifetime and branching ratios of those decays - the branching ratios of all the decay channels If you were under the impression that the evidence for those gauge bosons is somehow looser or weaker than it is for the likes of muons and pions, then I'm afraid you have about 25-30 years of catching up to do. PD |