About radius of “electron particle” and the possibility of having it a structure.

[Kramer]

About radius of “electron particle” and the possibility of having it a structure.

“ The Standard Model of particle physics is known to be incomplete. Extensions to the StandardModel, such as weak-scale supersymmetry, posit the existence of new particles and interactions that are asymmetric under time reversal (T) and nearly always predict a small yet potentially measurable, (on electron particle ?), of electric dipole moment (EDM), in the range of 10^-27---10^-30 e*r.”

This extract is taken by the link given by moderator, in the case of one of my closed post.

I am confused because, didn’t this means that range of radius of particle is r = 10^-8----- 10^-12 (cm?), and the authors presuppose even r =10^-20 cm. but are not able to measure. In this case why classic radius = 2.8 *10^-15 m (used in formulas by me) is ruled out?
This is the fact that I doubt in certainty of experiments: seems to me that, the performers of experimentations are themselves not sure.

Duality “wave - mass” of particles is an argument plus in the favor of “unique sub particles hypothesis”, as the only brick structure of matter, in the case---for electron particle.
For example:
The electric energy Eme of an electron particle, if supposed to be created by interaction between electric charges “of the same particle”, is equal with the mass energy Em created by (so called me) “unity mass of unique sub. particle”.

Ee.me = [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] =
= ( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε) ^0.5)) ) / Re
(Here Ee.me is electric energy of “electron particles”, and Re its radius.)

Em.me = (G/G) * [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] =
G*(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε *G) * Re) =
= G*( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε*G)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε*G) ^0.5)) ) / Re =
= G * Mu.s*Mu.s / Re = G * (Mplank*α^0.5)^2 / Re = à me * C^2
(Here G is gravity constant, which is the same for mass bodies and for the space.
Mu.s. is the fictive mass of “unique sub=particle”, which gave mass on all particles interacting with the same sign of a mate.
Mplank is plank mass.
me = is the mass of electron particle.)

If this post has at least one reader interested in the topic, about reconciliation of gravity with quantum, and want to discus ideas with somebody that is not expert for both the branch of physics, please don’t close this post. I need help by a partner.

[swansont]

About radius of “electron particle” and the possibility of having it a structure.

“ The Standard Model of particle physics is known to be incomplete. Extensions to the StandardModel, such as weak-scale supersymmetry, posit the existence of new particles and interactions that are asymmetric under time reversal (T) and nearly always predict a small yet potentially measurable, (on electron particle ?), of electric dipole moment (EDM), in the range of 10^-27---10^-30 e*r.”

This extract is taken by the link given by moderator, in the case of one of my closed post.

 

I am confused because, didn’t this means that range of radius of particle is r = 10^-8----- 10^-12 (cm?),

No. What physics makes you think that it does?

 

and the authors presuppose even r =10^-20 cm. but are not able to measure. In this case why classic radius = 2.8 *10^-15 m (used in formulas by me) is ruled out?

The classical radius is based on a calculation from an incorrect assumption. It is WRONG. It is still useful in calculations, but it has no valid physical meaning. It is ruled out because experiments to measure the radius don't give that answer. They indicate that it is much smaller. The value is small enough that a definitive value can't be determined owing to the limits of the experiment. They only put an upper bound on the answer.

 

This is the fact that I doubt in certainty of experiments: seems to me that, the performers of experimentations are themselves not sure.

You are wrong.

 

For example:

The electric energy Eme of an electron particle, if supposed to be created by interaction between electric charges “of the same particle”, is equal with the mass energy Em created by (so called me) “unity mass of unique sub. particle”.

This is the reasoning behind the classical radius. But since it disagrees with experiment, it is discarded. The conclusion is that electron is NOT made up of some material whose mass energy arises from the charge.

 

Ee.me = [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] =

= ( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε) ^0.5)) ) / Re

(Here Ee.me is electric energy of “electron particles”, and Re its radius.)

Em.me = (G/G) * [(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε ) * Re)] =

G*(e^2 / ((4*pi*ε *G) * Re) =

= G*( ((-e) /(4*pi*ε*G)^0.5)) * ((-e) / (4*pi*ε*G) ^0.5)) ) / Re =

= G * Mu.s*Mu.s / Re = G * (Mplank*α^0.5)^2 / Re = à me * C^2

(Here G is gravity constant, which is the same for mass bodies and for the space.

Mu.s. is the fictive mass of “unique sub=particle”, which gave mass on all particles interacting with the same sign of a mate.

Mplank is plank mass.

me = is the mass of electron particle.)

If this post has at least one reader interested in the topic, about reconciliation of gravity with quantum, and want to discus ideas with somebody that is not expert for both the branch of physics, please don’t close this post. I need help by a partner.

!

Moderator Note

No. You don't get to do this. If you want to ask questions, fine, but your attempts at constructing a model fall far short of the rigor we expect here, and your thread was closed because of that. You are better served learning some physics than jumping in and blindly trying to piece together a model.

 

If you do that again, the thread gets locked.

[Sensei]

I need help by a partner.

No, you need to:

- learn how to use quote function in posts,

- learn how to make Latex equations in posts,

- learn physics.

 

To do first simply write [ quote ] stuff to quote [ /quote ] (without spaces).

Your posts discourage everybody from reading because it's so hard to read them without proper quoting.

 

To do second simply write [ math ] equation in latex [ /math ] (without spaces).

And read Latex tutorial f.e. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics

Or use Latex editor..

This will make easier to read and understand equations.

 

To do third, I gave you link with plentiful materials to read.. Did you read all physics history database?

[Kramer]

Sensei
No, you need to:
- learn how to use quote function in posts,
- learn how to make Latex equations in posts,
- learn physics

 

This is all you can say for my post?
I am sorry for you Sensei, because you don’t understand the aim and the essence of my posts.
How many things, phenomena, stand without answers from scientists, and they asks for ordinary people: no why, no what, no how? --- Because have not any satisfactory explanation!
Or their answers are covered with weakly terms like change of flavor or color and with absorbs or releases of quanta. But how is the mechanism of those?
And if an ordinary person, give a “naïve and radical” mechanism for some questions that stand without answer, give for discuss in a ‘speculative forum’, --- this cause irritation.
I think that nobody has a certain idea what is an elementary particle, mass or mass-les. What have they in common and what divide them.
How they change their status in each other.
What cause movement, acceleration, how mass particles disappear and appear in thin air.
Etcetera! Etcetera.
And you, have nothing to say, except giving suggestions for trivial problems.

[Sensei]

You also didn't give answer for unanswered questions like what is mass, what is energy, what is elementary particle.

 

Every time you came up with "theory" in thread, it's easy falsifiable.

Like the last time, when I just gave example of annihilation, and your model failed..

 

In science we analyze set of data, and try to figure out how to predict outcome the next time we will see the same event.

Somebody see trace in Cloud Chamber, and it's behaving differently than known particles, it's spinning in reverse direct in applied magnetic field. And makes different number of circles.

And calls it pion+ or muon+ for instance. See how it's decaying, and new traces coming from it after couple circles..

Analyze what are these particles, what are their charges, what are their rest-masses, what are their other properties.

You have not bothered to build such device when it cost fifty dollars!!!

 

Start analyzing set of data. And make prediction basing on them.

Until you learn physics, you won't know what we do know already.

[swansont]

 

This is all you can say for my post?

I am sorry for you Sensei, because you don’t understand the aim and the essence of my posts.

How many things, phenomena, stand without answers from scientists, and they asks for ordinary people: no why, no what, no how? --- Because have not any satisfactory explanation!

Or their answers are covered with weakly terms like change of flavor or color and with absorbs or releases of quanta. But how is the mechanism of those?

And if an ordinary person, give a “naïve and radical” mechanism for some questions that stand without answer, give for discuss in a ‘speculative forum’, --- this cause irritation.

I think that nobody has a certain idea what is an elementary particle, mass or mass-les. What have they in common and what divide them.

How they change their status in each other.

What cause movement, acceleration, how mass particles disappear and appear in thin air.

Etcetera! Etcetera.

And you, have nothing to say, except giving suggestions for trivial problems.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

You are incorrect to imply we have no understanding of this, or say there is no satisfactory explanation. We have models that work quite well. That you aren't familiar with them, or don't understand them, is remedied by studying some physics (which was suggested) and asking questions about what you don't understand (also suggested).

 

But to attempt a model from a position of ignorance? That's not going to work. If you can't post in rigorously enough to follow our guidelines, you are going to find that you aren't going to be able to post at all.