Hold it! Common sense science is very anti Quatum. They completely reject the point particle theories and posit that the electron has a real and full extent in space with a specific volume and size.
I am not saying their model is spot on or that they are correct, I do say that they hate the idea or even the mathematical treatment of the electron as a point particle. Quite the opposite is the case for them.
They are currently dealing extensively with the Neutron and fully realize its significance in the grand scheme of atom building.
I like their thrust and follow their work closely. Right or wrong, they are rooting around in the right patch.
Richard Hull
The Nature of Charge
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The Nature of Charge
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: The Nature of Charge
What I meant by point particle is that as the energy of the electron is increased in collision experiments the size keeps getting smaller. This would imply a type of singularity at r=0 which the rotating ring of charge model lacks.
Re: The Nature of Charge
I think the issue of an electron's "size" is not trivial. The problem with banging particles together, to determine their size is this: It looks for something resembling a hard sphere construction. Which assumes that the particles cannot inter-penetrate, or essentially overlap. (Actually the scattering statistics DO provide information about the density/energy distribution within the collision sphere.)
While the old saw from elementary physics says "Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time", what we call an "object" determines if that is actually a true principle. Tunnelling processes stretch the mind in this regard.
Take a cloud of charge for example. From a long distance, it can be considered a point of charge. Up close, it can be considered a collection of smaller charges which have open space between them. Therefore one would expect two "clouds of charge" to be able to overlap the same physical space, without violating any common sense physical principles.
It has been pointed out, that the size of the electron appears to shrink as the collision energy increases. This appears to create a paradox. The "size" of the electron is estimated to be less than 0.01 Fermis - a Fermi is 1.0E-15 meters.. so electron "size" is < 1.0E-17 m, The paradox arises that the observed mass energy of the electron is 0.511 MEV, while the calculated self energy of the electron's charge is many times larger than this - something like 300MEV. The self energy is calculated from assembling small amounts of charge dQ from infinity to the apparent radius. Obviously the exact value would depend on whether one assumed any space between the charge elements. I have never heard how these two figures are reconciled, or if they can be. The easy answere is - That's not the way the electron is put together.
One explanation offered is that electrons are probably "soft". As they collides at higher and higher energies, they deform before deflecting. The standard coulomb's law explanation actually has that exact flavor. The particle appears harder and harder the closer one gets with the test charge.
I cannot vouch for or against the explanation. You can do the math for yourself. It was offered to illustrate the experimental challenges of particle physics.
From my perspective, I am inclined to attribute many of the mysteries, as artifacts of our primitive instrumentation level. When we can directly "measure" with a fineness that makes the planck constant action look large, say to 1E-40m, one would expect a lot more sense to emerge from the sub atomic structure.
Probably at that time, particle collisions to determine particle structure will be seen to make as much sense, as colliding vehicles together to see how big they are, and where the engine was placed!!
Till then, we play math games, using statistics to avoid saying we just don't know.
Dave Cooper
While the old saw from elementary physics says "Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time", what we call an "object" determines if that is actually a true principle. Tunnelling processes stretch the mind in this regard.
Take a cloud of charge for example. From a long distance, it can be considered a point of charge. Up close, it can be considered a collection of smaller charges which have open space between them. Therefore one would expect two "clouds of charge" to be able to overlap the same physical space, without violating any common sense physical principles.
It has been pointed out, that the size of the electron appears to shrink as the collision energy increases. This appears to create a paradox. The "size" of the electron is estimated to be less than 0.01 Fermis - a Fermi is 1.0E-15 meters.. so electron "size" is < 1.0E-17 m, The paradox arises that the observed mass energy of the electron is 0.511 MEV, while the calculated self energy of the electron's charge is many times larger than this - something like 300MEV. The self energy is calculated from assembling small amounts of charge dQ from infinity to the apparent radius. Obviously the exact value would depend on whether one assumed any space between the charge elements. I have never heard how these two figures are reconciled, or if they can be. The easy answere is - That's not the way the electron is put together.
One explanation offered is that electrons are probably "soft". As they collides at higher and higher energies, they deform before deflecting. The standard coulomb's law explanation actually has that exact flavor. The particle appears harder and harder the closer one gets with the test charge.
I cannot vouch for or against the explanation. You can do the math for yourself. It was offered to illustrate the experimental challenges of particle physics.
From my perspective, I am inclined to attribute many of the mysteries, as artifacts of our primitive instrumentation level. When we can directly "measure" with a fineness that makes the planck constant action look large, say to 1E-40m, one would expect a lot more sense to emerge from the sub atomic structure.
Probably at that time, particle collisions to determine particle structure will be seen to make as much sense, as colliding vehicles together to see how big they are, and where the engine was placed!!
Till then, we play math games, using statistics to avoid saying we just don't know.
Dave Cooper
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The Nature of Charge
Nice post Dave!
I see all the particle pronouncements of science as hardly whole cloth especially as it is all basically a mathimatical viel that makes the pros happy.
As the executive editor of ESJ, I have to read a lot of stuff that is pretty much out there....I mean way left of science, but worth a pass...... for you never know. Most of this stuff, I usually trash as not Journal worthy.
I just read a great piece today from a Russian fellow who addresses us as Prof. Kanarev. What his bonifdes are, I am unaware.
Regardless, he obviously is not convinced we are all on the right path. I do not know what his book is touting for I have not had time to delve into it. (There are always a lot of voices willing to tell us just how it REALLY is)
With this in mind, and realizing one can be crazy, but still be habile enough to smell something that stinks and say so, I will submit to the group his thoughts, many of which are sage, inspite of no solution offered. His english is a bit stilted, but his meaning shines through.
Richard Hull
I see all the particle pronouncements of science as hardly whole cloth especially as it is all basically a mathimatical viel that makes the pros happy.
As the executive editor of ESJ, I have to read a lot of stuff that is pretty much out there....I mean way left of science, but worth a pass...... for you never know. Most of this stuff, I usually trash as not Journal worthy.
I just read a great piece today from a Russian fellow who addresses us as Prof. Kanarev. What his bonifdes are, I am unaware.
Regardless, he obviously is not convinced we are all on the right path. I do not know what his book is touting for I have not had time to delve into it. (There are always a lot of voices willing to tell us just how it REALLY is)
With this in mind, and realizing one can be crazy, but still be habile enough to smell something that stinks and say so, I will submit to the group his thoughts, many of which are sage, inspite of no solution offered. His english is a bit stilted, but his meaning shines through.
Richard Hull
- Attachments
-
- KanarevAppeal-1.doc
- (27 KiB) Downloaded 307 times
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: The Nature of Charge
There is the classic e/m experimental apparatus that is good enough to demonstrate the ratio of cahrge to mass for an electron with a narrow low voltage beam of electrons in a very slight amount of mercury vapor. The beam ionizes the mercury atoms in its path making the path visible. Using a pair of Helmholtz coils one can produce a weak and reasonably uniform magnetic field that can be aligned to pass through the bulb with the electron beam. When all is in proper orientation, the magnetic field can increased until the beam circles and then the interplay between the magnetic field strength and beam energy or velocity can be explored. Nice Sr High School Physics demonstration.
Out of this comes the basic non-relativistic relation:
Radius of Path = (Mass x Velocity)/ (Charge x Magnetic field)
or R = mV/qB.
So with the tiniest of beam currents, one can essentially ignore the self magnetic field and measure the bending radius. Then boosting the beam current to the max, observe that, other than getting fatter, the beam circles essentially at the same radius of curvature.
Kind of proves conclusively that the bend comes from the external magnetic field.
Now if the beam current were a few kA, not mA, there would be some differences, but the basic properties and relation would still hold. I've done the mA experiment, but not the kA one.
Dave cooper
Out of this comes the basic non-relativistic relation:
Radius of Path = (Mass x Velocity)/ (Charge x Magnetic field)
or R = mV/qB.
So with the tiniest of beam currents, one can essentially ignore the self magnetic field and measure the bending radius. Then boosting the beam current to the max, observe that, other than getting fatter, the beam circles essentially at the same radius of curvature.
Kind of proves conclusively that the bend comes from the external magnetic field.
Now if the beam current were a few kA, not mA, there would be some differences, but the basic properties and relation would still hold. I've done the mA experiment, but not the kA one.
Dave cooper