Particle Structure

[elas]

swansont

 

I don't see any disagreement between what either of us have said. The classical electron radius is not a physical measurement of anything; the electron doesn't have a measurable radius, and its spin is intrinsic angular momentum, not physical rotation

 

The following two quotes taken from the caption of computer images created fron experimental results.

 

1) A plasma lamp, illustrating some of the more complex phenomena of a plasma, including filamentation. The colours are a result of the relaxation of electrons in excited states to lower energy states after they have recombined with ions. These processes emit light in a spectrum characteristic of the gas being excited.

 

2) The description begins with This is an example of quark-gluon plasma, created by the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider back in 2000 and continues with Around 1000 tracks of charged particles spray outwards

Credit: STAR collaboration / Brookhaven National Laboratory

 

Note how in both case the terms plasma and particle are interchangeable. I have taken the width of particles jets (produce from experiment) and shown how they relate to particle radii. In return I would like you to produce experimental proof that particles have radii of zero width.

 

You use the term classical electron radius[//I] some experts prefer the term classical radius[//I]; I take that to mean that some academics do not see the formula as being restrictive in usage.

[swansont]

swansont

 

I don't see any disagreement between what either of us have said. The classical electron radius is not a physical measurement of anything; the electron doesn't have a measurable radius, and its spin is intrinsic angular momentum, not physical rotation

 

The following two quotes taken from the caption of computer images created fron experimental results.

 

1) A plasma lamp, illustrating some of the more complex phenomena of a plasma, including filamentation. The colours are a result of the relaxation of electrons in excited states to lower energy states after they have recombined with ions. These processes emit light in a spectrum characteristic of the gas being excited.

 

2) The description begins with This is an example of quark-gluon plasma, created by the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider back in 2000 and continues with Around 1000 tracks of charged particles spray outwards

Credit: STAR collaboration / Brookhaven National Laboratory

 

Note how in both case the terms plasma and particle are interchangeable. I have taken the width of particles jets (produce from experiment) and shown how they relate to particle radii. In return I would like you to produce experimental proof that particles have radii of zero width.

 

You use the term classical electron radius[//I] some experts prefer the term classical radius[//I]; I take that to mean that some academics do not see the formula as being restrictive in usage.

 

Nothing to do with the classical electron radius, or measurement of an electron size. The classical electron radius is the prediction (not measurement) from a theory known to break down — doesn't work — at that scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

 

 

measurement (first on the list of a Google search)

 

from http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse/gabrielse/papers/2006/NewElectronMagneticMoment.pdf (pdf file)

 

The same comparison of theory and experiment probes

the internal structure of the electron [1,10]—limiting the

electron to constituents with a mass [formula] = 130 GeV/c² corresponding to an electron radius R < 1 x 10^-18 m.

 

Note that this is given as an upper limit; experimental uncertainty means you can never measure zero. Essentially, the errors add up to the equivalent of this radius. It is more than three orders of magnitude smaller than the classical radius.

[elas]

swansont

 

Re:http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabrielse...eticMoment.pdf

 

Odom et al are using a machine that compacts the particle on the longitudinal axis. Tsui et al use a machine that compacts the particle on the transverse axis. Particle jet experiments display a particle expanding from one steady state to another steady state.

I have shown that the particle jets are proportional to my radii. It may well be that my radii values are to high; but, I do not think so because;

1) The formula predicts radii for the proton and neutron that are close to the experimental results.

2) Energy = Linear force X mass (with a constant to convert to joules [an arbitrary value]). The CLF formula is a more logical interpretation than E = mc(squared), although both produce the same solution. The problem with c is that it has a different true value within each compaction and only appears to be the same to internal observers (because c is relative to each observer).

[BenTheMan]

That is precisely what Einstein did in order to write his paper on relativity. Rarely is anything truly original, we build on the work of our predecessors. It is referred to as “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Newton thought that the “universe is corpuscular in nature”. That is the root of the CLF model, I am standing on the shoulders of the greatest giant of all.

 

Well, sorry to break it to you, but you're no Einstein, and you're certainly no Newton. And you didn't actually refute the point. If you'd like, I can spend thirty minutes or so looking for people who say the electron is pointlike. You've proven nothing!

 

Then the argument BenTheMan used is also false. It seems that as two professionals you cannot agree on the value of a particular case.

 

The argument that I used SHOWED that taking an electron to have any structure leads to a contradiction, namely that the speed at the equator of such an object would be faster than the speed of light.

 

Again, you haven't refuted this point. You just got confused and told me I was wrong.

 

This is, I suggest, sufficient grounds to consider a revision of the Standard model so that it includes a classical scientific theory; that does not prove the mathematical theory to be wrong, (except in the case of quark charge) but it does provide us with an explanation of what particles are and why they have their particular properties.

 

elas---The standard model is based on a classical theory---classical FIELD theory. The lowest order results, the tree level results, are the classical approximation. But, doing tree-level calculations only gets you to within 15% of the correct answer, if you compare to experiment. This is why you must include quantum effects (i.e. loop diagrams in the perturbation expansion) to compare to experiment.

 

The best example is QED, which has been calculated to something like 9 or 12 loops, and compares with experiment to 13 decimal places. QED is, without a doubt, the most accurately tested theory that man has EVER conceived, which includes GR. So to suggest it needs to be changed is pretty crazy.

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

The best example is QED,

 

The cyclotron compacts an electron in two dimensions, leaving it free to expand in the third dimension. This action is explained in the CLF model (Fig.3) and the resulting transverse radius is found in a continuation of table 1.

 

If the experiment proves anything, it is that the limit of compaction is greater than zero radius.

[BenTheMan]

If the experiment proves anything, it is that the limit of compaction is greater than zero radius.

 

What is your prediction for the anomalous magnetic moment?

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

Once again the hard question, and this time not one I can provide a quick answer to. A glance at the first two articles that appear in a Google search make it clear that this is going to take some time.

The second item refers to The Physics of Creation by Harold Aspden, I think I could just about comprehend this one; so unless you object I will get a copy and get moving. (at a glance I think the Tsui sequence is involved).

I feel that up to now my work has been better received than Farsight's and would like to say that is largely due to the constructive criticism you have provided; I hope now that the time interval between replies begins to lengthen, you will continue to check for replies; if at longer intervals.

regards

John Martin

 

BenTheMan

 

After a restless night I am ready to answer your question, and the answer is: It is the job of QED to predict and for CLF to explain.

The current overview is given on:

 

http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/physics/index.html

 

The CLF overview is:

 

1) The magnetic flux and the muon are traveling at relativistic speed, subject to the effect of time dilation.

2) As a result an external observer observes a particle jet in slow motion.

3) Differences in structure cause the magnetic flux to travel faster than the muon. For every 30.0347895654255 circuits by the flux the muon completes 30 circuits. (flux rotations divided by particle rotations equals magnetic moment).

4) An external observer sees the muon axis rotate through 12 degrees for each complete circuit of the doughnut; this equates to 360 degrees rotation for each complete circuit of the magnetic flux by the muon.

 

The current overview uses the term spontaneous decay, which put simply means an act that cannot be explained. In fact it is the same act that is observed within an atom where an excited electron (an electron that has absorbed a photon) ejects the surplus matter (i.e. photon) and drops to a lower orbit. The muon is a composite of charged and uncharged particles. At a certain expansion point it ejects the uncharged particle and (because of its retrograde motion and change in mass) drops out of the magnetic flux.

[elas]

Preconception about neutron's electrical properties overturned

________________________________________

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0917151054.htm

For two generations of physicists, it has been a standard belief that the neutron, an electrically neutral elementary particle and a primary component of an atom, actually carries a positive charge at its center and an offsetting negative charge at its outer edge.

 

[...]

 

Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and

 

The field is divided into three section the inner and outer have one force superior to the other force (vacuum and elasticity of matter or vice versa). In the centre of the radius, the situation is reversed. The table below shows the all points within the field have the same total linear force (12 units) but the totals of force and anti-force acting on the radius are different. It is this difference that is observed as ‘electromagnetic charge.

 

 

There is sufficient data available to do a scaled graph of a neutron, which I will do next.

[elas]

30 Sep. 07

 

Continuing from the above; the mass and width of all 145 N Baryons listed by the Particle Data Group(1) are listed in order of increasing linear force and the results are shown in graph form below. The linear force graph illustrates how the concept of linear force allows the elasticity of matter to be demonstrated in graph form. The PDG do not use 54 of the N Baryons when calculating the average readings for the 22 N Baryons given in the PDG tables.

 

In contrast, the CLF model shows that the claim made for elementary particles is supported by the N Baryons; in that in both cases the PDG practice of discarding some experimental results and averaging the remainder is unnecessary; all experimental results are prevalent.

(1)W.-M. Yao et al.

[elas]

N and Delta Baryons

I have used the PDG data for N and Delta baryons to list all the baryons in the N and Delta tables (including those not used to find the average), and arranged them in order of increasing linear force.

The increase between baryons occurs in Jain and pseudo sequence fractions (as previously shown for elementary particles and atoms) the following graphs show the increase in linear force and the difference between actual and theoretical fractions; all unacceptable errors occur where the elasticity of matter is either relaxed or at its elastic limit.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is, I suggest; that the linear force model tells us more about the structure of matter than the Standard model tells us.

[Norman Albers]

I have shown how to account for an electron near-field. We seek the correct accounting of that total field of background and singularities.

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

Unfortunately I have not done mathematics to your level and have to content myself with the pursuit of simple explanations. To this end I have taken the data produced by experiments and shown that the structure of the elementary particle, composite particles and atoms can be explained using only vacuum force; where is the need for an electromagnetic force? We should also ask What do we mean by electromagnetic force

It seems to me, that for historical reasons, we have given names to observed phenomenon without giving definition or cause. In my proposal there is only one elementary particle and only one force. All we observe is different states and interactions of these two fundamentals.

It may well be that further development will force the introduction of a new force, but I greatly doubt that will be the case. It is more likely that it will be realized that the highly accurate Quantum theories are actually mathematical shortcuts to the relationship between vacuum force and particles of different volume, (but the same content).

 

I realize that I am asking for a fundamental change in our accepted understanding of Particle Physics, but it is thought by some that a fundamental change is needed if Quantum theory is to be regarded as anything more than a mathematical prediction theory.

 

There is also a philosophical point to be made. My proposal shows that space is everlasting; it has no beginning and no end. Elementary particles are and always will be; regardless of changes in state. It answers the question why are we here; it is because we cannot not be here. We are a product of the ever changing states of particles. Life is not only inevitable; it is also ours to shape and control.

[Norman Albers]

Elas, I agree if you are seeking a unified description. The question is, what are the forms that energy takes? Talking about varying speed-of-light, I too think we can speak of different states of the vacuum permittivity, yeah even phase changes. I would say, though, that light from outside a dense region is blue-shifted, no? Another question, how do you relate to angular momentum? It is fundamental.

[Farsight]

Elas, you can read my paper on http://www.relativityplus.info

[Fred56]

Is this thread going to cover any new stuff (preons,helons)?

[elas]

Sorry, I have not replied to any recent submissions, I will reply in detail soon. Meanwhile I would like to deal with the crux of swansont's argument. This seems to be that QT is right therefore Classic theory is wrong. I will not repeat the many quotation that I have submitted on other threads on numerous occasions, but briefly, these show that many highly regarded physicists, including one recent Nobel Prize winner; disagree with the view that QT is an acceptable final answer. By definition it is a mathematical prediction theory not a scientific theory.

My work indicates (I chose that word carefully) that QT is a collection of mathematical shortcuts that enable us to calculate the relationship between vacuum force, and different compactions of force field and matter. The science is in the explanation of force and matter.

It does not matter that I use the Classical Electron Radius as a base because the r value can be regarded as an arbitrary value. The key point is that by abandoning the point-like particle structure of QT and giving the particles (classical) volume; we can solve all the problems of particle structure interpretation by using Hall fractions. Everything else will follow on in time. Have to go back later.

[Farsight]

...The key point is that by abandoning the point-like particle structure of QT and giving the particles (classical) volume; we can solve all the problems...

I couldn't agree more, elas.

[swansont]

Sorry, I have not replied to any recent submissions, I will reply in detail soon. Meanwhile I would like to deal with the crux of swansont's argument. This seems to be that QT is right therefore Classic theory is wrong.

 

...

 

The key point is that by abandoning the point-like particle structure of QT and giving the particles (classical) volume; we can solve all the problems of particle structure interpretation by using Hall fractions.

 

No, that's not my argument at all. I noted, as did Ben, that the classical electron radius is not the physical size of the electron. All experimental data is consistent with the electron being a point — it does not have a charge distribution or structure. This is what is pointed out in the Gabrielese paper; if the electron had a size, and the charge were distributed over that volume, its behavior in a trap would be affected in a measurable way. What is observed, though, does not show this — the electron's actual size is arbitrarily small, with the value limited by the experimental precision.

 

This is an actual experimental result.

 

I can't comment on the rest, as I am not familiar enough with the Hall fraction work to make any sense out of your work. It seems reminiscent, though, of the hydrogen spectrum lines, fitting some mathematical formulae. It gave the pattern, but did not explain the details. That had to wait until atomic theory matured.

[elas]

Swansont

Sorry I misunderstood your argument. Rather than attempt a quick reply, which like the last one, might be cut short by the demands on my time; I am going to take my time, do some research and hopefully make a better case in reply. But, meanwhile:

 

Tsui et al received the 1998 Nobel prize for Physics base on Hall fractions and fractional charge.

I based the arbitrary values for radii of baryons on the experimental 'width' of baryons quoted by the PDG. How can a composite of three point-like particles have 'width'?

Why is it that using the formula F = mr where:

F = Linear force.

m = mass

r = radius

produces Hall fractional waves of the Jain and pseudo-scalar sequences for elementary particles, composite particles and atoms; if one of them (i.e. elementary particles) does not have radii?

Could it be that as in my explanation of the muon anomalous magnetic moment something is amiss in the way cyclotron experiments are currently interpreted?

[Mr Skeptic]

I've been wanting to calculate the classical electric force of the electron assuming that the electron is a smoothly distributed charge, where the charge density would be the e times the probability of finding the electron at a certain location. And then calculate the potential energy of a electron/positron pair given this model, to see if it would be equal to the rest energy of the particles. However, my math-jitsu skills are lacking for this. Does anyone know how to do it?

[elas]

Fred56

 

Is this thread going to cover any new stuff (preons,helons)?

 

This is where mathematical prediction takes you, into the land of ever smaller and weird particles some of which can, most unfortunately; be created in the lab. We make cars but, that does not make them part of the great natural scheme of life. They (preons, helons and cars) are not part of the knowledge required to understand creation; nature does not use them because, as Isaac Newton pointed out 'the work of creation is done with great simplicity'.

 

My reason for starting this thread, as with all my submissions; is to make the case for great simplicity. One elementary particle, one force, one law.

 

Tables for baryon structure are on:

http://69.5.17.59/Brynstrctr.pdf

 

Swansont

 

Re: experimental proof of point-like particles

 

Wikipedia describes the instrument used to conduct the experiment is as follows:

 

Penning traps use a strong homogeneous axial magnetic field to confine particles radially and a quadrupole electric field to confine the particles axially.

 

In doing so the instrument is mimicking the work done by every atom, in that it is spherically compacting an elementary particle to form the nuclear particle. To claim that all electrons (elementary particles) are compacted to the same degree is unproven and runs counter to the evidence provided by Hall fraction experiments.

 

Examination of the instrument used to produce Hall fractions tells a different story. Here we see how the ‘magnetic field’ gradually compacts elementary particles in one plane as the particles move through the ‘magnetic field’.

 

To say that a (Penning trap) machine designed to achieve maximum spherical compaction can also be used to justify the claim that all electrons (elementary particles) are ‘point-like’ objects is not acceptable, because the Hall experiments prove they are not. Constant Linear Force theory supports the Hall fraction interpretation.

 

Mr Skeptic

 

I've been wanting to calculate the classical electric force of the electron assuming that the electron is a smoothly distributed charge,

 

You are making a false assumption. In both the Standard model (SM) and my proposed Constant Linear Force model (CLF) the electric and magnetic forces are shown to be waves at right angle to each other (i.e. not smoothly distributed). SM does not explain why this is so. CLF explains it as follows:

 

Vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter) waves naturally form planes at right angle to each other (i.e. ‘north to south and equatorial’ or technically, ‘transverse and longitudinal’) the vacuum force is responsible for magnetic action while the matter is responsible for the electric force. The two actions combined cause particles to move towards points of equal density (gravitational action).

[elas]

Mesons

 

A similar table can be constructed for mesons but, rather than publish another table using experimental width I am going to try and harmonize the units of measurements (used for radii) in all tables.

 

For the time being I conclude with:

 

Provisional Summary

 

Using only experimental data found by Hall's resistance and particle collision; the work published to date should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Constant Linear Force theory explains the structure of the elementary particle, composite particles and atoms using only vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter). There is no requirement for other forces or entities but, the theories of the Standard model provide useful mathematical short cuts for measurements that cannot be done in the CLF model because such calculations would require the CLF model to do the work moving from particle to particle; clearly an impossible proposition. For the foreseeable future we should settle for QT predicts - CLF explains

 

More criticism is both desired and requested and will be replied to, but; it will be some time before I make any further progress with the CLF theory and model.

[Norman Albers]

Elas, I read Wikipedia on Hall fractional states so now I am an expert [bIG TEETH]. Seriously where would you direct me to read further, and are you using "quasi-particle" terminology?

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

and are you using "quasi-particle" terminology?

 

Yes I am, but I did not realize this until you pointed it out; such is the depth of my ignorance. But, I to have been wondering where to go next and you have provided an answer; I shall look into quasi particle systems.

 

I cannot direct you to further reading because as far as I am aware (and clearly that is not very far!) we are at the cutting edge of a new theory. I need to explain 0 charge particles in CLF terms and cannot find sufficient data. I also have a personal preference to expand on interpretation such as my explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and my interpretation of the Michelson and Morley experiment : I would also like to examine Fermi diagrams. But I have not decided in what order I should tackle these items. Then there is the serious business of publication, although I have submitted two papers to the Open Directory I still feel that I should combine all the work on charged particles into one paper and go for journal publication; it is just the tedium of such a repetitive task that puts me off doing so, perhaps a large dose of personal discipline is called for.

 

Any comment or advise on any of these problems would be greatly appreciated.

[Norman Albers]

Perhaps you meant to say "Feynman diagrams".