Can you stop the subdivision?

I'm not the one with the numbers here so I won't be doing any calculations but if you want to know more I will direct you to their website - www.commonsensescience.org. They have a better,clear description of the subatomic particles than does QM.
You can read their articles on these pages-
http://commonsensescience.org/newsletter.html
http://commonsensescience.org/previous_articles.html

For their calculation of magnetic moment of electron see
http://www.commonsensescience.org/p...charged_ring_model_of_electron_yields_new.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On page one, the model exceeds the speed of light by the amount (r/R)c.
On page two, the "approximate" formula for the surface area of a torus is actually trivially exact.
Finally, they give a formula for the relationship between R, r, m and e.

( 4 pi m ) / ( permitivity e^2 ) = 3.55 × 10^14 m^-1 = 1/R ln(8R/r)
Now ln(8R/r) > 2, so R > 5.86 fm.

Electron colliders above 212 MeV sample this space. But electron colliders go up to about 1000 times this, so the model is hopelessly contradicted by experiments which show that the electron is not toroidal -- indeed it has no departure from point-like structure all the way down to below 0.01 fm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really don't think its this simple as you are making it out to be. The spinning ring model can explains why doesn't the electron explode under the tremendous coulomb repulsion forces which point particle depiction cannot. If you say that wave nature of the "magical" electron is responsible then this too is an equally hopeless assumption. Matter is not magical in state of rest. The waves only gets associated with particles when they are in motion and hence more excited than ground state. The electron cloud nonsense is completely false.
Btw I do not think the site takes SRT for granted either.
Also the site says that scattering phenomenon shows the evidence that electron is deformable and has elasticity.
I think where you differ from the site is the interpretation of the results of the particle colliders.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clearly youcan't explain how magically you understand everything and noone else does, irrespective of how little you know about it or how much they've learnt and so you fall back on insults. If I've got such a pathetically small brain surely you can come up with better replies to my queries than that?

Why not just admit you can't justify your views and you have no reason other than "Because I say so" ?

 

The bit you quoted was sufficient to show that you didn't understand it.

Run?
Another misunderstanding on your part.

 

Go jack off to QM. Thats all you are good for.

 

You pinhead. Enlighten me then.

Yes pinhead run.

 

This reminds me of that public service announcement where two guys in a café see a guy outside toss away a lighted cigarette. One guy knocks on the window and says, "are you TRYING to start a forest fire?" When the cigarette thrower looks into the café, the guy talking looks like Smoky the Bear.

Your post reminds me of that and my question is, are you trying to get banned?

 

I find it funny that people try to insult me because I've learnt something. Do you honestly think I'm embarrassed that I know something, that I've put in time and effort to accomplish something? Your responses in this thread and the one in Pseudo suggests you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to knowledge and understanding and rather than engage in rational discourse you fall back on vapid and often hypocritical insults.

I don't follow mainstream work slavishly or because someone else has said it, I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of mainstream science to advance because I've spent the time needed to understand it. It's not perfect but for all the whining and "Mainstream people are too close minded!" cries of cranks it's done a hell of a lot better than they have.

Each time you reply with "Oh blah blah blah" you only confirm your jealousy and bitterness. Rational discussion about the particular problems of current models would do much more to get your point across. And make you look a great deal less foolish than you do at the moment.

If you want to undermine a theory it's best to have a working understanding of it and then be able to formalise your complaints. I was at a seminar a month ago where someone was explaining their work and midway someone put up their hand and said "Have you proven those cancel?". It demolished the guys entire argument but only because the person asking understood the details. The flaw would not have been noticed by someone who didn't understand a lot of calculus and have working experience with the material.

Given he comes to a discussion forum and then complains when people don't automatically agree with him I'd say he has no qualms with being banned.

 

As you are probably well aware, spinning things tend to fly apart on their own unless there's some kind of attractive force holding them together. If you take a metal ring and spin in, the electrostatic forces between positive and negative charges in the ring will hold it together. In the case of an electron, the Coulomb force is purely repulsive. So unless you arbitrarily invent some new, undiscovered, experimentally disproved attractive force to fudge a result, your electron ring should fly apart at the moment of the Big Bang and never come back together again.

No it's not a hopeless assumption, it accurately predicts, describes and explains virtually every property of the electron we've ever observed or measured. Do you have a better explanation for why diodes and transistors work the way they do?

The only magical thing is your presumption to know details about things you've never studied or measured. Your daily intuition applies to the subatomic world the same way my car driving intuition makes me an expert bull rider.

That would be a very good reason to ignore the site altogether. No experiment has ever contradicted SRT in its domain of applicability.

And how do you even know if what they say is based on actual data? You really believe they can throw QM out and do things in an entirely different way, yet just happen to make all the same scattering predictions at all the different energy ranges and collision angles? Sounds like a bunch of rubbish, and that's me being polite.

 

I've already been down that route with him :

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2385358&postcount=461 (among others)

 

O really why doesn't your point particle explode then? Normalizing Energy scale crap is the answer to this right? So why is a magical ring so farfetched?
The ring the site predicts is balanced due to magnetic pinch effect due to the current inside its periphery.

Yup it is, when cathode rays and hence electrons strike a an object they exert a lot of mechanical pressure this suggests a spatial extent capable of following newtons laws. The point particle nonsense can't do jack shit without those assumptions of yours.

Nah but I don't close my eyes to alternate explanations of phenomenon especially if they violate well established laws.

Wrong, in 1915 extinction shift effect was discovered by Ewald and Oseen and was a blow to the relativity theories.

Go check for yourself then decide right from wrong.

 

So whats so bad about getting banned from one forum? This is just one lame forum not my girlfriend.

 

Thats coming from a sad troll such as yourself whose only hobby is spewing forth vitriol in others thread incapable of original thinking and tolerating others viewpoints.

Oh but you do. Otherwise you would have acknowledged the fallacies existing throughout QM.

Nah I cannot be even bothered to read all of your post considering all of them are equally worthless so its best not to best my words where it doesn't matter.

Its true I have no fear of getting banned

 

No, you don't need to normalize anything. Coulomb's law doesn't apply at the quantum level, it's nothing but an excellent approximation at macroscopic scales. All I said with regards to the energy normalization thing is that if you had some theory of the electron in which the electron had an infinite self-energy, you would simply need to choose a new energy scale in which the electron has finite or zero self-energy, and this would allow you to make sensible calculations.

I'll have to check up on that and see if the magnetic field from a circular current would have an attractive force on the rest of the current. I'm pretty sure two classical concentric charged rings spinning in the same direction would repel each other, but I'll look into this one more carefully.

The wavelike nature of that point particle explains it perfectly.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html

This topic deals with light travelling through a dielectric medium, in which case absorption and re-emission causes it to travel at substantially less than \(c\) through the medium. I don't see how this is supposed to contradict Special Relativity.

 

Man why can't we find something more clearer, more precise and simpler? Tell me why is it said that coulomb's law ain't valid for distances below 10^-15 m.

Well I do have some problems of my own with the ring model the site presents. I'm not a slave to the site merely was saying that there was some quality work done by the site.

Care to elaborate buddy?

I'm guessing that its the first time you have heard of this theory.

 

You mean you dismiss a theory without knowing it? How open minded of you. Clearly you're the ideal person to be telling physicists they are close minded.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At small distances quantum corrections become important, such as the contribution to how two electrons scatter off one another due to the intermediate photon turning into an electron position pair. Classical electromagnetism is what you get when you don't include the ability of particles to pair produce. Furthermore, when you get to high enough energy (which is equivalent to working at short enough distances) things like electrons scattering off one another have enough energy to produce Z bosons, instead of photons and then you need to be able to describe how electrons scatter off one another if they sometimes communicate by a massless photon and sometimes by a massive (90,000 MeV compared to the electron's 0.5MeV) particle. These are electroweak corrections.

Coulombs force can be derived from QED by working out its long distance effective theory. These perturbations from Coulombs law are experimentally observed, if you smash electrons at one another sufficiently fast so that they pass within that kind of distance to one another then they don't obey Coulombs law exactly.

Given your lack of knowledge of subatomic physics and, I'd wager, mathematical methods, I don't think you're really in a position to make an informed critical analysis of attempts to describe subatomic processes. You simply mention that site because it has the same qualitative view as you do.

Given your lack of knowledge of subatomic physics and, I'd wager, mathematical methods, I don't think you're really in a position to make an informed critical analysis of attempts to describe subatomic processes. You simply mention that site because it has the same qualitative view as you do. The blind leading the ignorant..... and blind.

Once again, you give the distinct impression you think you understand things so well, despite having no knowledge of them or a skim reading of some website, compared to people who actually research physics for a living.

Besides, its a bit stupid you having a go at Cpt for supposedly not knowing a result he's just dismissed when you asked how Coulombs law breaks down in quantum mechanics, a theory you dismiss. So your ignorance is okay but the supposed ignorance of others not?

 

Nope you pathetic idiot I was asking a question not implying anything. Ah the dull wits you have.

You are wasting your time. I have long since stopped listening to your drivel.

Thx for the explanation anyway but go find someone else.

Nope its the formulas of the physics. I have a good understanding of mathematics. And wrong point particled brain the site has different qualitative view than me. If you believe them there is no further division....

I merely shared my opinions not made claims but a point particled brain like yourself cannot even a understand a simple thing as that.

More of the crapola. Keep barking fool.

Now we are talking baby.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Lets see how you do in the insults department since you fail with flying colors in the science one.

 

So you ask a question with no intention to listen to the answer?

Simply saying "I'm not listening" doesn't mean the experimental evidence for the non-exact nature of Coulombs force isn't there. Your denial doesn't make it so.

Given quantum mechanics requires undergraduate level mathematics and quantum field theory needs graduate level I seriously doubt you do. Are you claiming that level of understanding?

I would say you're doing a pretty good job of making yourself look foolish. And you don't even bother to read my explainations (so you say) so how can you tell whether I have 'failed with flying colors'? Besides, my work has not come into this thread, I have been telling you the work of others. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand my work.

 

At least the answer was not required from you.

Your levels are not clear to me as I do not belong to the same nation as you. But I do own a bachelor of engineering degree and hence am a graduate but not in the field of physics and I have studied graduate level mathematics too.

Your work?? I can bet that all your work is merely ripoff of textbooks. Copy pasta at its best. You clearly have shown me that you are incapable of original thoughts and imagination. You point particled brain.
Keep it coming alpha. Lets see just how long can you keep it up.