# Inertia and Relativity

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

1. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
So you're not sure is his calculation is right, but you're willing to use it to back yours up? How am I to interpret your post #219 in the light of your post #217?

I don't understand the question? You mentioned a paper, pointing to two. I asked you to specify which one of the two next time.

Oh, so your calculated value is just plainly wrong then?

3. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109138.pdf . This is the paper you quoted earlier. As per this paper $r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_ec}$ .

You can check my equation at post #78. That is a generalised equation. If we use that equation for electron, then $\frac{r_e \pi}{2}=\frac{h}{m_ec}$ or $r_e=\frac{h}{m_ec}\frac{2}{\pi}=4(\frac{\hbar}{m_ec} )$.

So, my value is approx $4$ times, what your paper is claiming. I dont think, it is a big anomaly.

5. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
Can you provide the error margins on your calculation, so that we can actually check whether the two are compatible? You know, basic statistics.

Additionally, there's the issue that we've also got an upper limit of $10^{-22} m$. Do you think multiple orders of magnitude is also not "a big anomaly"?

7. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
From the equations you can check, my value is 4 times your paper's value.

If my value is big anomaly, your paper's value also will be in the similar range.

8. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
Please learn basic statistics (especially how to calculate statistical errors), and get back to me when you understand my question, and why your answer shows your ignorance.

Sure, but you'll note that the paper explicitly mentions that it's doing that calculation in the context of a non-pointlike coupling. In other words, they assumed the electron has a non-zero radius for the sake of the calculation. There is thus one possibility left to have all this experimental data be consistent: the electron has zero radius.

9. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
That you also can calculate.

10. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
I'm not going to do your homework.

So we've established that your "not a big anomaly" thing was just a guess, and we actually don't know whether this factor 4 is problematic or not.

No, I'm not concluding that. I'm merely pointing out that there is one conclusion that still exists, where none of the mentioned papers are wrong about their values.

Please point me to "my" experimental observation that demonstrated the electron radius is non-zero.

11. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Its not so important.

Its only factor 4. Your paper made the symbol $\sim$ instead of $=$ . So this factor can be less also.

I am not getting, what you try to say.

The experiment you often quote for $10^-22 meters$ upper limit.

12. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,121
Setting an upper limit on an electron size does not imply it has a non-zero size!

What we're doing here is testing by experiment what our theories tell us.

1. Our theories say an electron should have a zero radius.
2. We do an experiment to test for a radius of r. It passes that test.
3. We develop a more advanced experiment to test for a radius of s. It passes that test too.

If it ever fails one of these tests, our theory is busted.

There is no implication that it is of size t, simply that we cannot say for certain (without actually doing the experiment) that it is t or less.

Eventually, we will devise a better experiment that the electron will fail if it is larger than u.

We may never have a test that tests for a minimum size of zero. (because how would you test that experimentally?)

Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
13. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
It's not important to know whether your value is compatible which this one?

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. You've just said that you can't compare these two values for compatibility, and that doing so isn't important. Yet one (!) single sentence further, you are doing just that.

Yes, which is why it's doubly important to get the error margins.

Let me phrase it in simple terms. Let's say we have the following two statements:
A < 10
If A is not zero, then A = 20.

What is the value of A?
If both statements are correct: A = 0
If only one statement is correct: A < 10 or A = 20
If no statement is correct: A = ?

Please point me to the section in that paper where it states that the electron radius is non-zero. Remember, $A<10$ doesn't imply $A\neq 0$.

Messages:
2,424

15. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,121
This is not how science is done.

Theory says it is zero. We are validating the theory through experiment. So far, observations are consistent with theory. Further tests will further verify theory - or bust it.

16. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Unnecessarily you are complicating this. Earlier we have seen minimum radius. So electron radius can not be less than that.

17. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Theory says, it can not be less than minimum radius.

18. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
I don't recall that; can you please link me to the experimental evidence for that?

19. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,121
You have not yet demonstrated your theory is valid.

20. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
You can apply your common sense. If it is below that value, electron will be a black hole.

21. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Theory says, if it is below minimum, it will be a black hole.

22. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,912
This is a new argument; so I take it that your statement in post #233 was wrong.

So? What if it is?

23. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
11,121
You are blindly extrapolating macro properties to the subatomic world.