Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, Dec 22, 2017.
:rips Science badge off hansda's uniform, gives it to 7-year-old that made a baking soda volcano:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?re ; https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp
\(r_e \simeq 2.8 fm \) and \(r_p \simeq 0.87 fm\) .
From these two sites, you can check that, electron radius is more than proton radius.
Please explain you can compare the classical electron radius (a value calculated without taking into account any quantum effects, and thus about 100 years ago proven to be wrong) to the measured charge radius of a proton. These are two completely different things, and one of them is to be proven wrong.
In fact, this is mentioned on the electron's Wikipedia article:
Where it clearly states that experiments have shown the electron radius to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the proven-wrong value that you just gave. In other words, you are wrong: it's the exact opposite. The proton is much, much larger than the electron.
Typical, mixing and mashing different ideas together to produce junk. The electron is now thought of as point particle, ie it has no radius. No radius is less than the radius of a proton.
Seems you are heading towards singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant . Follow these two links. \( r_e\) is very much useful in the math of the equations in these two links.
You can follow your own link. This suggests an experimental observation for non-zero radius of electron.
Not surprised that you think that.
Oh, no doubt it may be useful, but that wasn't the discussion. You claimed that \(r_e\) is the physical radius/size of the electron, which it clearly is not. You were proven to be wrong. All that remains is to see whether you are able to admit your error or not.
And you are absolutely wrong yet again. An upper limit being set does not mean that the lower limit has to be non-zero.
No. Actually it implies the electron has a non-zero wavelength, but in the time domain. Moreover, the "waveform" is not 1-dimensional (it looks like a corkscrew).
On the other hand, I would say no-one "really" knows what the shape of an electron is. If it's really an indivisible particle which is pointlike, then there's a problem with electron diffraction in a double slit experiment, not to mention the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect that splits an electron into two quasiparticles.
It seems \( r_e\) and actual electron radius \( r\) are different. From my equations compton wavelength can be derived. I observe that compton wavelength depends on actual radius of a particle. Electron has compton wavelength \(\lambda_e \). So we can say it has non-zero radius.
Good. You admitted your error.
Well, but electron radius is non-zero.
(I don't believe I've claimed otherwise?)
So you agree that, electron has a non-zero radius.
No, I don't. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Seems you missed the Penning traps experiment observation, in your own link earlier.
You mean this line:
You probably misread it: it say "upper limit". As I previously pointed out to you in this thread: establishing an upper limit doesn't mean the radius is non-zero.
Now please admit you've made another error.
NO. You read your link again.
I just literally quoted the relevant section. Please point out where in that sentence it claims anything about the electron having a non-zero radius. Tip: It doesn't.
Whether you can admit it or not, it seems clear that you've made an error.
Hansda: my kitchen collander passes grains of sand. That puts an upper limit on grains of sand of about .5cm.
Can we now conclude grains of sand are about .5cm in diameter?
Separate names with a comma.