Inertia and Relativity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, Dec 22, 2017.

1. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
NotEinstein, are you under the illusion/imagination that as the mass decreases, the radius will also decrease for spinning, massive atomic particles?

3. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Can you not provide me with a direct link?

No, it's because the electron radius isn't well known enough to be quote-worthy. The measurements made on it are official as any other.

Who made you the official judge? Yes, it is "official", and moreover, you haven't provided any data whatsoever to demonstrate it's not.

You keep claiming that an experiment that provided a measurement of the electron radius is incorrect. I have now multiple times asked you to back up that claim, but you keep being unable to do so. You have openly doubted the work of this Nobel Prize winner; I'm merely asking you what makes you think you know better than this person who actually has done a measurement, and got a Nobel Prize associated with it. In fact, one can argue that such a measurement is as official as it gets!

They are compatible, with one being more restrictive than the other. So unless there's a good reason not to, $r_e<10^-22 meters$ is the best value to use.

You childishly calling peer-reviewed results "not officially valid/accepted" is childish. Grow up.

It literally says in the text, right above equation 2: "by transposing the subscript indices, one obtains the complementary formula".

5. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ . All available electron datas can be searched here.

Still you are trying to quote electron radius, as if it is well known.

This is only your personal views. Anyway, what is the math for electron radius.

I am just an observer. I observe electron radius data is not available in the official website. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

You can read the abstract of that paper. No mention of electron radius is there. Only g-value is mentioned. Implying focus of the paper is to measure g-value.

The difference is in the range $10^-3 meters$. Still you consider it compatible.

Again, what is the math used here to support experimental observation. And this experimental observation is not mentioned in the official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .

How they are complementary formula?

Say $y_1=mx_2$; can you write $x_1=my_2$.

7. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Once again, not a direct link. More importantly, please point me to where this sites claims that it contains all available electron datas.

No, the radius itself isn't well known, but an upper limit on it is.

No, not my personal views. The fact that I've provided multiple peer-reviewed papers, and you haven't provided any peer-reviewed criticisms on those. That is how science works.

False. You have made judgements on certain experiments (which were peer-reviewed) to be incorrect.

Please show me the statement from scientists that this is "the official website", and that if data is not available on it, it therefor is incorrect/unaccepted.

Yes, from which they calculate an upper bound on the electron radius. Don't judge a book by its cover; read the entire paper. Also, it is explicitly mentioned in the title, which I'd say is a bit more prominent than the abstract.

Right, let me try and explain this basic mathematical fact to you.

There is a number A. Let's say its value is 1.
A is smaller than 10.
A is also smaller than 100.

See? Both statements are true, and thus compatible.

Is your existence mentioned on this website then?

Let me try and explain this English word to you:
Complementary in this context means counterpart. ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complement )

Sure, one can write that, and the second formula would be complementary to the first one, just as in the paper.

8. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Its a CODATA website http://www.codata.org/about-codata .

Say the upper limit is $r_e<10^-22$ meters.

Your one peer reviwed paper says experimentaly $r_e<10^-22$ meters. Other peer reviewed paper calculated $r_e<10^-19$ meters, which is much higher than the previous value of $10^-22$ meters. So, comparing these two peer reviewed paper datas; one of the data has to be wrong.

Can you explain, how $\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e}$ ? You can also read this paper https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdf . Eq (8a) shows $m_pr_p=m_er_e$.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfFalse. You have made judgements on certain experiments (which were peer-reviewed) to be incorrect.[/quote]

incorrect?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfPlease show me the statement from scientists that this is "the official website", and that if data is not available on it, it therefor is incorrect/unaccepted.[/quote]

It is a codata website. I gave the link earlier. You can read it.

I am not able to access the entire paper. Do you have a link for entire paper?

In your case, the calculated value is greater than experimentally observed upper limit value.

You can pass on the link for entire paper, if you are having.

My value is just recent developement. You can also see this link https://readingfeynman.org/tag/reduced-compton-wavelength/ . Here the author also made a similar analysis like my analysis.

Give me a mathematical explanation.

$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e}$ is right or $m_pr_p=m_er_e$ is right? Both the equations can not be right.

9. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Please quote the line where they state that this website contains all available data.

(I don't understand what you are saying here?)

So you are claiming that 1 is smaller than 10, but saying that it is also smaller than 100 is wrong... I don't think I need to point out how horrible incorrect you are here.

incorrect?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfPlease show me the statement from scientists that this is "the official website", and that if data is not available on it, it therefor is incorrect/unaccepted.[/quote]

It is a codata website. I gave the link earlier. You can read it.[/QUOTE]
Why do I need to read your links, if you don't read mine? I don't need to explain anything; you are the one making claims that these radii and masses can be equated. All I did was point out a peer-reviewed paper that did just that, and demonstrated that it's since been shown wrong, just as your own version of it.

You can purchase access.

You are missing my point: the two upper limits are compatible.

Also, if a calculated value is excluded by experiments, then the calculated value is (obviously) wrong.

Are you asking me to break the law? You can purchase access for yourself.

Doesn't matter how recent it is: it's already disproven.

It's not a proper mathematical operation, but let me see: take the equation, and substitute subscript 2 for subscript 1, while at the same time substituting subscript 1 for the subscript 2. I hope this is simple enough English for you to understand?

Well, both are wrong, as I've proven in this thread.

10. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02754804 . Your this springer link suggests $\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e}$ . And you are calling this wrong?

11. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Yes, it's disproven by experimental evidence, just like your electron radius calculation.

Messages:
2,424

13. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
It's a bit more nuanced than that. In the paper, they propose a relation, and give a prediction on the electron radius based on that. Years later, evidence is found that this prediction does not hold. And thus, the hypothesis is falsified.

The paper is correct in the sense that the derivation is correct, it is wrong in the sense that it turned out not to be the way reality works.

14. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
So $r_e$ value proposed in that paper is wrong?

15. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Well, is $10^{-22} m$ smaller than $4.42\times 10^{-17} cm$?

16. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Answer my question in post #211.

17. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
I have? But I'll spell it out for you.
Because the upper limit of $10^{-22}m$ derived from experimental data is smaller than $4.42\times 10^{-17}cm$, the value proposed in the paper has been shown incompatible with reality. In that sense, the value is wrong, yes.

18. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
But some time ago, you were claiming that they were compatible. So, your springer linked peer reviewed paper is wrong.

19. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Ah, I see what's going on. You're confused: I've provided three pieces of evidence. The one referenced from Wikipedia, the Springer link, and the first paragraph in post #198. I claimed that the Wikipedia paper and the one from post #198 are compatible, and that this experimental evidence falsifies the hypothesis in the Springer link.

Only in the sense I mentioned.

20. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
The paper you quoted in post #198 says the followings:

Characteristic size related to the case of interaction via excited heavy electron is $r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_e ∗ c} <5 × 10^−17 cm$. For the case of direct contact term interaction$r_e \sim \frac{\hbar c}{\Lambda} = 1.17 × 10^−17cm$.

From this we can say $m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$.

Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
21. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
(Next time, please specify which paper; I provided two in that post.)

And did you realize that this value you are now quoting proves your calculated value of 1544 fm is utterly wrong?

22. hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
I am not sure, if his calculation is right. Here $r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_e ∗ c}$ suggests it is reduced compton wavelength, whoose value is approx 386fm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength .

Messages:
2,424