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 3 May 2010 15:24 On May 3, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. There are very good researchers theorizing particle substructure, we researched and demo'd why that's reasonable, yes did fitting, there's a lot of "fitting" in physics, to adjust from the concept, and posted the initial procedure. > 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 I'll ask again, do you have a math to determine particle lifetimes? Ken
From: PD on 3 May 2010 15:38 On May 3, 2:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On May 3, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > There are very good researchers theorizing particle substructure, Yes, indeed, but there's a fundamental difference between what you're doing and what they're doing, along the lines of what I've already indicated. > we researched and demo'd why that's reasonable, yes did fitting, > there's a lot of "fitting" in physics, to adjust from the concept, > and posted the initial procedure. > > > 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 > > I'll ask again, do you have a math to determine particle lifetimes? Well, yes, Ken, they're called coupling constants. There's a pretty clear relationship between the lifetime of the particle and the following: - the coupling strength of the interaction by which the interaction proceeds - the charge of the particle for that interaction type - the phase space (basically, amount of head-room above threshold invariant mass) - the number of available decay channels and branching ratios of each. There's a nice handy formula for doing this calculation. You can find it in most elementary particle physics books. Perkins, for example. > Ken
From: BURT on 3 May 2010 15:45 On May 3, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The electron is an infinitely small fundamental point of energy. It's infinitely dense point energy that is called mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ken S. Tucker on 3 May 2010 23:13 On May 3, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 2:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > There are very good researchers theorizing particle substructure, > > Yes, indeed, but there's a fundamental difference between what you're > doing and what they're doing, along the lines of what I've already > indicated. > > > we researched and demo'd why that's reasonable, yes did fitting, > > there's a lot of "fitting" in physics, to adjust from the concept, > > and posted the initial procedure. > > > > 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 > > > I'll ask again, do you have a math to determine particle lifetimes? > > Well, yes, Ken, they're called coupling constants. There's a pretty > clear relationship between the lifetime of the particle and the > following: > - the coupling strength of the interaction by which the interaction > proceeds > - the charge of the particle for that interaction type > - the phase space (basically, amount of head-room above threshold > invariant mass) > - the number of available decay channels and branching ratios of each. > > There's a nice handy formula for doing this calculation. You can find > it in most elementary particle physics books. Perkins, for example. What's the name of the book? Hmmm, what about this ref, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson "(quantum number S) is a vector quantity that represents the "intrinsic" angular momentum of a particle." Do you agree with that ref? Ken
From: PD on 4 May 2010 09:59
On May 3, 10:13 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On May 3, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 2:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.. > > > > There are very good researchers theorizing particle substructure, > > > Yes, indeed, but there's a fundamental difference between what you're > > doing and what they're doing, along the lines of what I've already > > indicated. > > > > we researched and demo'd why that's reasonable, yes did fitting, > > > there's a lot of "fitting" in physics, to adjust from the concept, > > > and posted the initial procedure. > > > > > 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 > > > > I'll ask again, do you have a math to determine particle lifetimes? > > > Well, yes, Ken, they're called coupling constants. There's a pretty > > clear relationship between the lifetime of the particle and the > > following: > > - the coupling strength of the interaction by which the interaction > > proceeds > > - the charge of the particle for that interaction type > > - the phase space (basically, amount of head-room above threshold > > invariant mass) > > - the number of available decay channels and branching ratios of each. > > > There's a nice handy formula for doing this calculation. You can find > > it in most elementary particle physics books. Perkins, for example. > > What's the name of the book? Introduction to High Energy Physics. > > Hmmm, what about this ref, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson > > "(quantum number S) is a vector quantity that represents the > "intrinsic" angular momentum of a particle." > Do you agree with that ref? No, not quite, especially if you focus on the angular momentum and brush by the "intrinsic". This word is critical. Quantum mechanical spin does not have anything to do with orbits or rotation about an axis as far as we can tell. There's a reason why people shouldn't try to learn a subject by reading short articles on the freeweb. > Ken |