Electron radii

[elas]

Previous submissions dealt with the Constant Linear Force model. This submission takes the CLF model explanation of field structure and uses it to solve the problems of electron radius as stated by Malcolm H. Mac Gregor in his book titled The Enigmatic Electron.

The diagrams show that the classical electron radius is not the correct radius for the tables used in the CLF model papers, which now need amending; when that is done we will have a classical interpretation of particle structure that meets the requirements laid down by Mac Gregor.

 

The question ‘what is the true radius of elementary particles?’ and in particular the electron radius has occupied the minds of physicists for several decades; currently there is a large majority who favor the view that the electron is a ‘point like particle’. This view is based on numerous elastic scattering experiments.

H.E. Puthoff, presents a summary of Vacuum Zero Point Energy from the Quantum physicist viewpoint in a paper titled The Energetic Vacuum: Implications For Energy Research1.

The Calphysics Institute summarises the Classical case as follows:

“In the 1960s British physicist Trevor Marshall and, separately, American Timothy Boyer were two of the principal investigators who essentially took up the abandoned approach and pushed it much farther by asking the question: which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy? For the contribution of other researchers, see the book "The Quantum Dice" by de la Pena and Cetto (below). This became the discipline known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED, earlier sometimes referred to as random electrodynamics). In the SED representation the zero-point field is taken to be a given, and is treated as an ensemble of ordinary electromagnetic plane waves having an energy 1/2 hf in each and every mode. There is no quantum physics involved”.

 

The aim of this paper is to describe the internal structure of an elementary particle using the balanced vacuum field structure of the CLF model. The electron is the chosen particle for this explanation because it is the elementary particle most commonly studied by experiment and its structure, as far as we understand it; is dealt with at length by Malcolm Mac Gregor3.

 

 

Charged elementary particle structure.

 

The ratios of the field structure proposed by Newton can be combined with the basic concept of string theory to explain the various classical and quantum electron radii by using the following analogy:

 

There are two ways a ball of string can be unwound:

 

1) The ball of string is placed in a basket and one end is pulled out.

2) One end of the ball of string is secured to a point and the ball is moved away from that point.

 

Nature employs both methods, one to create a vacuum force field and the other to create an anti-vacuum (matter) field; moreover, nature goes one stage further, it unravels the ball of string from both ends. In reality each ball of string is a point of vacuum force.

 

Fig.1 (Stage 1 expansion)

 

When there is no vacuum force remaining in the VCP, further expansion is made by drawing down from the force already extracted; but, as there is no vacuum force available for the creation of new radials, expansion causes the existing radials to expand in proportion to the increase in surface area. Mathematically this means that the linear expansion is determined by the inverse square law.

 

In reality, of course; 1:1 and Inverse Square creation take place at the same time maintaining a field balance across both the radius and the diameter. A diagram of the result is shown in Fig.2

 

 

 

Fig.2 (stage 1

plus stage 2

expansion)

 

Malcolm H. Mac Gregor in his book ‘The Enigmatic Electron’ writes:

 

With respect to the way we regard the electron, the factor of a million disparity between the radii RQMC and RE is crucial. If the electron has a radius that is comparable to RQMC, then we can quantitatively reproduce its basic properties in a classical context, which demonstrates that classical physics still apply in this domain.

 

The cause of the crucial disparity is that while Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 explain the field of composite bodies it cannot apply to the field of an elementary particle because within a fundamental particle there is only one string (vacuum force point) and that has to fill all the space created during stage 1 expansion (Fig. 1). This limits type1 expansion to a point like area that is neither a pure point nor a determinable volume of something; (its radius is limited to one half of the width of the string by the demand of an expansion that can only occur with a balanced field). This is the electric radius (RE) and is currently explained as follows:

 

Extracted from SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) website:

 

All we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental.

 

The amount of Stage 1 expansion that can be achieved before each string end has to expand to fill each hemisphere is the same for all elementary particles; it can therefore be proposed as the cause of the Planck radius.

 

In stage 2 expansion each end of the string has to expand volumetrically in order that each end will fill one hemisphere causing the expansion to occur on a logarithmic scale. The result is shown in Fig. 3. When the linear field is plotted on a logarithmic scale it shows how RE, RO and RH relate to a vacuum/anti-vacuum field structure.

 

RE arises from attempts to measure the radius of the VZP.

RO measures the distance along the radius to that point where stage 1 expansion ends and stage 2 expansion begins.

RH is that point in stage 2 expansion where force and anti-force change their relationship from superior and inferior to inferior and superior.

The two Compton radii, RQMC and RC (quantum and classical); mark that point where the particle begins to interact with adjacent particles.

 

 

Fig. 3

 

The two Compton radii are dealt with in Fig. 4A. It shows how band volume x vacuum force produces a wave. Fig. 4B is the same wave on a logarithmic scale. The logarithmic wave is offset; an arc is used to find the transverse radius and the dotted lines drop down to show the agreement with the scale used in Fig. 3. This shows that RQMC produces the correct Compton wavelength.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 4

 

The two Compton radii (RQMC and RC) together with the magnetic field radius (RH) and the classical electron radius (RO) are given in exact values but, the electric radius (RE) is given as ‘not greater than’ this is because scattering experiments are attempts to measure the radius of the Vacuum Zero Point and the result decreases with each improvement in the equipment used to conduct the experiment. In 1992 RH was given as <10-17 today it is given as <10-19.

 

It has been shown that using vacuum and anti-vacuum force on a logarithmic scale for the internal structure of the electron demonstrates that each of the classical and quantum radii for the electron is a measurement from the centre to a specific change of state point on the actual radius of the electron;

 

 

Fig.5

 

this means that in the words of Mac Gregor:

‘we can quantitatively reproduce its (i.e. electron) basic properties in a classical context, which demonstrates that classical physics still apply in this domain’.

 

References:

1http://www.ldolphin.org/energetic.html

2http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

3The Enigmatic Electron, Malcolm H. Mac Gregor, Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-1982-6

[swansont]

"In the SED representation the zero-point field is taken to be a given, and is treated as an ensemble of ordinary electromagnetic plane waves having an energy 1/2 hf in each and every mode. There is no quantum physics involved”.

 

The zero-point energy of 1/2 hf is a result of quantum physics.

[elas]

swansont

The zero-point energy of 1/2 hf is a result of quantum physics.

 

My case may not be put in the best professional standard but, your reply is a reversible arguement. You are using Quantum Theory to claim that a Classic theory is wrong; this is a reversible argument in that in reply Classical theory can be used to say that the interpretation that accompanies Quantum theory is wrong.

 

In The ideas of Particle Physics (An introduction for Scientists by Guy D. Coughlan, James E. Dodd and Ben M. Gripaios published in 2006; they write:

 

…recent experiments in neutrino physics cannot be explained using the Standard Model, showing beyond doubt that there must be a theory beyond the Standard Model, and that the Standard Model itself is only an approximation (albeit a very good one) to the true theory.

 

I have shown that a vacuum/anti-vacuum force field can be used to explain all four of the observed and theoretical, Quantum and Classical radii of an electron; simply picking out one Quantum theory radius and saying that it is the only acceptable radius because Quantum theory says so, is a little like using Archimedes magical triangle to prove the existence of God.

[swansont]

swansont

The zero-point energy of 1/2 hf is a result of quantum physics.

 

My case may not be put in the best professional standard but, your reply is a reversible arguement. You are using Quantum Theory to claim that a Classic theory is wrong; this is a reversible argument in that in reply Classical theory can be used to say that the interpretation that accompanies Quantum theory is wrong.

 

No, I'm simply pointing out that the claim is false that QM is not present in the theory. The zero-point energy is invoked, and it's disingenuous to then claim that the theory is free of QM. Your first two references confirm this! This is a problem when you pick through the literature to find thigs that agree with you — sometimes they conflict with each other. Mainstream physics, on the other hand, is a framework that is self-consistent.

[elas]

swansont

 

Am I misunderstanding your reply? The following quote ends with ..there is no Quantum physics involved are you saying this is right or wrong?

 

“In the 1960s British physicist Trevor Marshall and, separately, American Timothy Boyer were two of the principal investigators who essentially took up the abandoned approach and pushed it much farther by asking the question: which quantum phenomena might be explained using solely classical physics plus an assumed classical representation of a zero-point field with zero-point energy? For the contribution of other researchers, see the book "The Quantum Dice" by de la Pena and Cetto (below). This became the discipline known as stochastic electrodynamics (SED, earlier sometimes referred to as random electrodynamics). In the SED representation the zero-point field is taken to be a given, and is treated as an ensemble of ordinary electromagnetic plane waves having an energy 1/2 hf in each and every mode. There is no quantum physics involved”.

 

Of course, the mathematics of QT are correct, the question is one of interpretation; are QT physicists correct in claiming that R(E) is the electron radius or is the CLF model correct in claiming that R(E) is an attempt to measure the ZP radius (hence the: not greater than symbol). If the QT interpretation is correct then the other radii R(O), R(H), R© and R(QMC) are wrong and must be accounted for in some other manner or their existence denied. If the CLF model is correct then all four radii mark the divisions between different states of the vacuum/anti-vacuum force field. If QT is correct then the CLF connection with a vacuum field must be dismissed as pure coincidence.

It comes down to a question of what is inside or outside the electron, if the QT interpretation is accepted then one has to accept that a complete interpretation is impossible and all we will ever have is a mathematical prediction theory (if you can compute it, you understand it etc). On the other hand CLF, for all my amateurish presentation; offers a gateway to a complete interpretation in that (so far) it explains particle structure, atomic structure, Hall fractions, mass, charge and '0' charge as variations in, or parts of; a vacuum field.

 

I think Newton understood vacuum fields but due to the religious intolerance of his times could not say so openly. Newton did however, suggest that perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature (the CLF model is corpuscular) and also wrote that It is to the glory of all God's work, that they be done with greatest simplicity. Is there anything more complicated than QT or more simple than CLF?

[lfmorgan]

The elecron is a helical string wave of 1/h-squared Higgs particles that is much longer than it is wide. Our extemely crude measure of physical reality makes it impact at high speed as a "click' in our best instrumentation so we eroneously call it a particle----the wave duality simply means that what is being scattered in slit experiments is likely due to break up the particluate wave into measurable segments of Higgs particles. A quantum in my theory is a photon wave which is a one turn helical wave of 1/h Higgs particles. It takes 1/h quantum-photon one-turns to make one electron wave. Quantum mass, at h grams, is the elecron wave. That means when we measure using the Planck relation E = nhf the n is a count of electrons of h grams each so that when n = 1/h we have one unit of mass traveling as radiation energy and the energy of radiation is always measured as frequency-- so that E = (1/h)hf = f. When you let 1/h electrons be one unit of traveling mass, then E = Mf = M(v-squared). Current best theory is a complete problematic mess and the Bohr atom is too!

 

follows his just discpovered Universal Harmony (UH) to a simple algebra version of his field eq namely G = R/3(v-squared) where R is an infinitely variable material point whose 3-axis outer surface spin energy is 3(v-squared) and where (UH) autogranulates material points to that R/G is always numerically equal to its 3-axis linear (pulse distance) energy. G is the Higgs particle that very dynamically defines the spin/vibration surface of R. 1/G literally does numerically define the force acting at G on R! Mass is a spin surface quality not a volume quality. The internal mass of every R as a volume, no matter how small, can only be infinity. The surface mass of R for a simplest 3-D geometry must be 1/h-cubed, or 1/h times 1/h-squared Higgs.

 

An electron has esentially an infinitely small length in orbit inside the BH and and expands without limit when orbiting at the cosmos+ level...

[swansont]

swansont

 

Am I misunderstanding your reply? The following quote ends with ..there is no Quantum physics involved are you saying this is right or wrong?

 

I'm saying it's wrong, because invoking a zero-point that comes from QM means you can't claim that there is no QM. Classical harmonic oscillators have a zero-pont of zero.

[elas]

lfmorgan

 

The electron is a helical string wave of 1/h-squared Higgs particles that is much longer than it is wide. Our extremely crude measure of physical reality makes it impact at high speed as a "click' in our best instrumentation so we erroneously call it a particle

 

Higgs particles have yet to be found. The length and width can be explained using Hall fractions as found by experiment. The wave can be explained as part of the internal structure, the cause of the wave being the separation of force and anti-force within the particle.

 

I am not saying UH is wrong (I have not heard of UH before your submission), I am simply saying that there is an alternative interpretation.

 

swansont

 

I'm saying it's wrong, because invoking a zero-point that comes from QM

 

I am using the ZP at the centre of a vacuum, which I believe is a long standing classical physics entity. It is QM that has usurped a long accepted classical physics entity and re-defined it as part of a mathematical prediction theory. Now you say that QM use of a vacuum zero point proves the classical use to be incorrect; I find that difficult to accept.

[Klaynos]

A good rule of thumb is that if there's an h-bar it's quantum...

 

Zero point energy is a QM effect. Not classical, I think that's swansonts point...

[elas]

Klaynos

 

Zero point energy is a QM effect. Not classical, I think that's swansonts point...

 

You are correct but, I am not saying that QM does not have its own ZPE but, I am saying that:

 

(1) in classical physics the zero point of a vacuum field is a well established entity.

 

(2) that, to be valid; an interpretation of a classical theory of particle structure must also include an interpretation of the entities of QT prediction. This need is made clear in Mac Gregor's book, by the inclusion of two QT measurement in his Fig. 1.1 (reproduce at the bottom of my diagram).

 

My diagram is intended to show that all the so called electron radii (classical and QT) are measurements to different points along the radius of a vacuum/anti-vacuum field. The numerical value of the measurements are not being questioned, it is the use of the term radius that is being questioned; it is proposed that they are in reality definable parts of the radius.

 

PS:To read article with table go to:

 

http://69.5.17.59/erp2.pdf

 

On:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=390095#post390095

 

there is a debate on time. If, as thought by some; the only time is 'now', this is in agreement with the conservation of particles as proposed in the CLF model. Particles are conserved because: Vacuum and anti-vacuum are the constants of infinity. (i.e. including the infinite 'Now'.)

[swansont]

Particles are not conserved.

 

n —> p + e + antineutrino

[elas]

swansont

 

n(ddu) —> p + e + antineutrino

 

u quark expands to p lepton.

Both the vacuum and anti-vacuum fields of one d quark expand to e lepton. The vacuum field of the other d quark collapses to form a neutral e particle consisting of an anti-vacuum field (matter) with a vacuum zero point but, no vacuum field (hence no charge - the ratio of force to anti force).

The CLF model explains 'how' and 'why'. It is the allocation of fractional charge to quarks, done simply to maintain the conservation of charge rule; that prevents the Standard model from explaining 'how' and 'why'.

[elas]

A summary of the current situation is on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=8

My thanks to those who have made constructive criticisms.

[Riogho]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2 and thus anything confined to a box smaller than Δx would have a momentum of uncertainty proportionally greater. You preon model proposes particles smaller than the elementary particles they make up, therefore, the momentum of uncertainty Δp should be greater than the particles themselves.

 

Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "pointlike" down to distance scales of less than 10−18 m (or 1/1000 of a proton diameter). The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV, 50,000 times larger than the rest mass of an up-quark and 400,000 times larger than the rest mass of an electron.

 

Thus, your preon model represents a mass paradox: How could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta?

[elas]

 

 

Amongst the latest paper on quarks, published by the Particle Data Group is one that points out that current knowledge is 'theme dependent'. My work is also 'theme dependent' in that it is based on the fractional relationship between particles and atoms. (Some of the fractions have been found by experiment and interpreted using Quantum theory in the majority of papers).

While not disagreeing completely with QT I am making the case for a much simpler interpretation based on a 'single elementary particle' and a 'single force'; I do this by re-arranging the particle tables published by the PDG and (for atoms) the tables in 'The Elements' by John Emsley. I have also re-arranged table in two published papers. So far I have produced several un-reviewed papers that you will find listed on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32700

The conclusion I draw is that infinity contains wave systems within wave systems each smaller system being a scaled down version of a larger system. The mathematics of the Standard model are in reality mathematical 'shortcuts' that allow us to predict quantities without knowing why the mathematics give the correct prediction (they are mathematical formulas based on observations not on understanding the science in words). That is why the Standard model does not have an interpretation. My model makes small start on explaining what the quantities are and why particles have their particular properties.

[elas]

No, I'm simply pointing out that the claim is false that QM is not present in the theory. The zero-point energy is invoked, and it's disingenuous to then claim that the theory is free of QM. Your first two references confirm this! This is a problem when you pick through the literature to find thigs that agree with you — sometimes they conflict with each other. Mainstream physics, on the other hand, is a framework that is self-consistent.

 

Just found:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM2.html

 

Clearly there is an accepted classical concept of a vacuum field where the vacuum field has a centre of effort that is also a zero force point. It is this classical concept of a vacuum field that I seek to refer to. But, what term do I use to distinguish between the classical and quantum concept of a vacuum zero point?

[swansont]

Just found:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM2.html

 

Clearly there is an accepted classical concept of a vacuum field where the vacuum field has a centre of effort that is also a zero force point. It is this classical concept of a vacuum field that I seek to refer to. But, what term do I use to distinguish between the classical and quantum concept of a vacuum zero point?

 

If you read the article carefully you'll notice that he never explains the source of the zero-point radiation.

 

"In 1958 the Dutch physicist M. J· Sparnaay carried out a series of experiments based on Casimir's proposal and found that the force did not approach zero when the thermal radiation was reduced to low intensity. Instead there was a residual attractive force that would persist even at absolute zero.

[…]

Whatever the magnitude of the Casimir effect, its very existence indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the 19th-century idea of the classical vacuum. If one is to fit classical theory with experiment, then even at zero temperature the classical vacuum cannot be completely empty; it must be filled with the classical electromagnetic fields responsible for the attractive force Sparnaay measured. Those vacuum fields are now referred to as classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation."

 

i.e. You can deduce that there is a field there, but this doesn't show that classical physics predicts it. QM does.

[elas]

If you read the article carefully you'll notice that he never explains the source of the zero-point radiation.

 

"In 1958 the Dutch physicist M. J· Sparnaay carried out a series of experiments based on Casimir's proposal and found that the force did not approach zero when the thermal radiation was reduced to low intensity. Instead there was a residual attractive force that would persist even at absolute zero.

[…]

Whatever the magnitude of the Casimir effect, its very existence indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the 19th-century idea of the classical vacuum. If one is to fit classical theory with experiment, then even at zero temperature the classical vacuum cannot be completely empty; it must be filled with the classical electromagnetic fields responsible for the attractive force Sparnaay measured. Those vacuum fields are now referred to as classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation."

 

i.e. You can deduce that there is a field there, but this doesn't show that classical physics predicts it. QM does.

 

Thanks once again; right from the beginning I have said 'QT predicts, CLF explains'; but that is a generalization, I have recently shown that CLF also predicts and I am currently awaiting a copy of a paper that I hope will confirm the predictions.

CLF needs re-writing using the correct academic terms; I will struggle on with that revision.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have shown that a vacuum/anti-vacuum force field can be used to explain all four of the observed and theoretical, Quantum and Classical radii of an electron; simply picking out one Quantum theory radius and saying that it is the only acceptable radius because Quantum theory says so, is a little like using Archimedes magical triangle to prove the existence of God.

 

On the other hand CLF, for all my amateurish presentation; offers a gateway to a complete interpretation in that (so far) it explains particle structure, atomic structure, Hall fractions, mass, charge and '0' charge as variations in, or parts of; a vacuum field.

 

The CLF model explains 'how' and 'why'.

 

Thanks once again; right from the beginning I have said 'QT predicts, CLF explains'; but that is a generalization, I have recently shown that CLF also predicts and I am currently awaiting a copy of a paper that I hope will confirm the predictions.

CLF needs re-writing using the correct academic terms; I will struggle on with that revision.

 

I have a simple theory that explains both "how" and "why" of everything. God did it, cause he felt like it. Unfortunately, it does not predict anything. IMO, unless you get into predicting rather than explaining, you will never get anywhere in science.