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 1 May 2010 02:41 On Apr 30, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 3:36 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > On Apr 30, 7:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 1:32 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: [brevity snip] > > > > a,b,c, are charges with field energy only, like this, > > > > > a > > > > + > > > > > - - > > > > b c > > > > > Charge is -1. > > > > For 'spin' bc spins twice, as 'a' revolves once around > > > > bc, providing the 1/2 spin. > > > > I don't know where you got the impression that spin=1/2 means that > > > something is going around once while other things are going around > > > twice. That isn't at all what the spin quantum number means. > > > Ok, details, take two Angular Momentums. AM1 and AM2, > > then, > > AM1/AM2 = 1/2 which is a unitless scalar, > > that's what you wanted, right Paul? > > No. That's not what spin 1/2 means. At all. You opine, yet offer no alternatives, that's ok. I've provided deep logic using a composite electron, I'm opened minded about electrons having structure, so I'll be interested in considering the idea. > > Look, we often (mostly) do gravitational calculations > > by using point particles, even for Sun and Earth, but > > Newton meant that as an idealism (simplification). > > However we do know they aren't actually points right? > > Yes. > > > Same sort of thing goes for electrons in QM, just a > > simplification, ok, that still enables electron > > substructure. > > But we have evidence of the structure and nonzero radius of the Sun > and the Earth. We don't have to presume it or assume. We have > experimental proof that the Sun has a nonzero radius and we have > experimental proof that it has internal structure. We don't have any > evidence whatsoever, let alone proof, that the electron has a nonzero > radius or internal structure. To say that it does is just wild > speculation without the support of any evidence. Such wild > speculations in science are ok, provided that you take them as Big IFs > -- such as, IF the electron had structure, then we might expect to see > so-and-so experimental results from high energy scattering between > electrons. And then you go look for those experimental results. Until > then, it's just a big IF. Well Paul, it's been explained to you, I can mention more, but you have a 'preferred conception' opposing curiousity, which is your choice. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: PD on 1 May 2010 10:42 On May 1, 1:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Apr 30, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 30, 3:36 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > On Apr 30, 7:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 30, 1:32 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > [brevity snip] > > > > > > > > a,b,c, are charges with field energy only, like this, > > > > > > a > > > > > + > > > > > > - - > > > > > b c > > > > > > Charge is -1. > > > > > For 'spin' bc spins twice, as 'a' revolves once around > > > > > bc, providing the 1/2 spin. > > > > > I don't know where you got the impression that spin=1/2 means that > > > > something is going around once while other things are going around > > > > twice. That isn't at all what the spin quantum number means. > > > > Ok, details, take two Angular Momentums. AM1 and AM2, > > > then, > > > AM1/AM2 = 1/2 which is a unitless scalar, > > > that's what you wanted, right Paul? > > > No. That's not what spin 1/2 means. At all. > > You opine, yet offer no alternatives, that's ok. > I've provided deep logic using a composite electron, > I'm opened minded about electrons having structure, > so I'll be interested in considering the idea. That's fine, Ken, but the least you could do is relate the picture to truly measurable quantities, not just what you think those quantities mean. Otherwise, it's just hobbyist diddling. > > > > > > Look, we often (mostly) do gravitational calculations > > > by using point particles, even for Sun and Earth, but > > > Newton meant that as an idealism (simplification). > > > However we do know they aren't actually points right? > > > Yes. > > > > Same sort of thing goes for electrons in QM, just a > > > simplification, ok, that still enables electron > > > substructure. > > > But we have evidence of the structure and nonzero radius of the Sun > > and the Earth. We don't have to presume it or assume. We have > > experimental proof that the Sun has a nonzero radius and we have > > experimental proof that it has internal structure. We don't have any > > evidence whatsoever, let alone proof, that the electron has a nonzero > > radius or internal structure. To say that it does is just wild > > speculation without the support of any evidence. Such wild > > speculations in science are ok, provided that you take them as Big IFs > > -- such as, IF the electron had structure, then we might expect to see > > so-and-so experimental results from high energy scattering between > > electrons. And then you go look for those experimental results. Until > > then, it's just a big IF. > > Well Paul, it's been explained to you, No, Ken, you drew a picture, and from this you extracted a number 1/2 which you thought might have something to do with spin. But it doesn't, as this is not what spin is about. > I can mention more, > but you have a 'preferred conception' opposing curiousity, > which is your choice. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker
From: John Park on 1 May 2010 14:12 "Ken S. Tucker" (dynamics(a)vianet.on.ca) writes: > a,b,c, are charges with field energy only, like this, > > a > + > > - - > b c > > Charge is -1. > For 'spin' bc spins twice, as 'a' revolves once around > bc, providing the 1/2 spin. > At this point in the calculation adjust the distances > between abc to find the electron mass, I use a computer. > > ((E = ab/r)) > > What that exercise provides is the expression of an electron > is a composite, now that's what we intended to do. > Why the 2 - and 1 + charges? What does charge have to do with angular momentum? What is the gyromagnetic ratio of this setup? And since you say you have a value for the separations of the three charges, what are they? [You do know there are experimental upper limits on the size of the electron, don't you?] --John Park
From: Ken S. Tucker on 1 May 2010 15:38 On May 1, 7:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 1:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 30, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 3:36 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 7:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 30, 1:32 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > [brevity snip] > > > > > > > a,b,c, are charges with field energy only, like this, > > > > > > > a > > > > > > + > > > > > > > - - > > > > > > b c > > > > > > > Charge is -1. > > > > > > For 'spin' bc spins twice, as 'a' revolves once around > > > > > > bc, providing the 1/2 spin. > > > > > > I don't know where you got the impression that spin=1/2 means that > > > > > something is going around once while other things are going around > > > > > twice. That isn't at all what the spin quantum number means. > > > > > Ok, details, take two Angular Momentums. AM1 and AM2, > > > > then, > > > > AM1/AM2 = 1/2 which is a unitless scalar, > > > > that's what you wanted, right Paul? > > > > No. That's not what spin 1/2 means. At all. > > > You opine, yet offer no alternatives, that's ok. > > I've provided deep logic using a composite electron, > > I'm opened minded about electrons having structure, > > so I'll be interested in considering the idea. > > That's fine, Ken, but the least you could do is relate the picture to > truly measurable quantities, not just what you think those quantities > mean. Otherwise, it's just hobbyist diddling. Well the notion an electron is a point particle creates infinities everybody whines about, so I encourage those who wish to is find a structure within particles, that eliminates the infinities, I agree that is doable. Ken
From: Ken S. Tucker on 1 May 2010 16:12
On May 1, 11:12 am, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > "Ken S. Tucker" (dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca) writes: > > > a,b,c, are charges with field energy only, like this, > > > a > > + > > > - - > > b c > > > Charge is -1. > > For 'spin' bc spins twice, as 'a' revolves once around > > bc, providing the 1/2 spin. > > At this point in the calculation adjust the distances > > between abc to find the electron mass, I use a computer. ((E = ab/r ...etc 6 terms.)) > > What that exercise provides is the expression of an electron > > is a composite, now that's what we intended to do. > > Why the 2 - and 1 + charges? What does charge have to do with angular > momentum? Purcell in "E&M" was a bit ambiguous about that, he seemed uncertain as to store electrical energy in a field or assign it to the charges in the electrical configuration. I went for the latter, it worked ok. > What is the gyromagnetic ratio of this setup? I had no problem with that. > And since you say you have a value for the separations of the three charges, > what are they? [You do know there are experimental upper limits on the size of > the electron, don't you?] About 5 years ago we sim'd this on a computer, it was interesting, but we couldn't see any technological application, so we agreed to stop funding the study. IIRC the electron was about 10^-17 meters. Anyway, do you know of a math that predicts particle lifetimes? I find that complicated. Regards Ken S. Tucker |