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: maxwell on 2 May 2010 12:35 On May 1, 12:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > 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 The EM infinities only arise from the mathematical ASSUMPTION that the static Coulomb 'force' extends down to zero separation. What is the EXPERIMENTAL evidence for BELIEVING this?
From: glird on 2 May 2010 13:06 On May 1, 4:12 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: > > > [You do know there are experimental upper > > limits on the size of the electron, don't > > you?] > >< About 5 years ago we simulated this on a computer, it was interesting, but we couldn't see any technological application, so we agreed to stop funding the study. Who is "we"? > IIRC the electron was about 10^-19 cm. Although a point is a mathematical abstraction with zero volume, and a particle with zero volume can't physically exist, present theory says that an electron is a point-sized particle. We will ignore that nonsense in what follows. Inside an atom an electron is a wave system traveling at v = cFs, in which c is the speed of light in vacuo and Fs = 1/137.03605 is the Fine Structure constant. If there is only one electron present, as in an H atom, then the length of this wave is 2pir = 3.3 times 10^-8 cm, where r is the radius of the H atom. Although it is obvious that a wave is not a point, nor can it be at a point, there IS a place where it is at a maximum strength and another where its strength is a minimum. Even though there is no way to preciselydiscover where either such point is at a given instant t, it an be approximated. Given the probability that it is "here" at t = 0, then it will probably be "there" as t increases. (Schrodinger called this a "probability equation" and specified that because initial conditions are never fully known, its applicability rapidly decreases as t increases.)
From: John Park on 2 May 2010 13:30 glird (glird(a)aol.com) writes: > On May 1, 4:12=A0pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: >> >> > [You do know there are experimental upper >> > limits on the size of the electron, don't >> > you?] >> >>< About 5 years ago we simulated this on a computer, it was interesting, b= > ut we couldn't see any technological application, so we agreed to stop fund= > ing the study. > > Who is "we"? > >> IIRC the electron was about 10^-19 cm. That's not what Tucker wrote. --John Park
From: Ken S. Tucker on 2 May 2010 15:48 On May 2, 10:30 am, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > glird (gl...(a)aol.com) writes: > > On May 1, 4:12=A0pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: > > >> > [You do know there are experimental upper > >> > limits on the size of the electron, don't > >> > you?] > > >>< About 5 years ago we simulated this on a computer, it was interesting, b= > > ut we couldn't see any technological application, so we agreed to stop fund= > > ing the study. > > > Who is "we"? These types of studies are addictive, computer sims can keep me up all night for weeks, so I need a leash, and network with others for advice. Need to balance between a non-profit pure research vs profitable endeavour that is more fruitful. > >> IIRC the electron was about 10^-19 cm. > > That's not what Tucker wrote. LOL, I did a check on that too. The formula is fairly simple to start, using this schematic, a + - - b c Positive energy is stored by bc/r(bc) and negative energy by a(b+c)/r(ab or c), etc. This is an ok ref, goes into the details, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Three_or_more_point_charges Then however you choose, adjust the abc diagram to electron energy. Myself, I just move them on a computer screen. Should mention the idea is lifted from "Partons", here,s a bit of a ref, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parton_(particle_physics) Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: PD on 3 May 2010 10:00
On May 1, 2:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > 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 I really don't think everyone whines about it. It's just what happens when you try a certain calculational method (perturbative expansion) that used to work fine in other cases without renormalization. Secondly, just making the electron have structure so that it is not pointlike, so that you don't have to deal with renormalization, does not mean that you've done anything useful. You still have to demonstrate that you can get the same high-quality numerical answers that match experiment exquisitely, not by fitting but by prediction. What you are doing is avoiding the trouble of eggshells in cake batter by saying "Just skip the eggs". This doesn't mean you're going to end up with a tasty cake in so doing. PD |