Ok; I finally found a pdf reader for my Linux box and skimmed through the link. I'll detail it later but just skimming it, I like it and think the guy is right on the mark. The confinment model he is looking for can be found in positive feedback and the power of resonance, each contributing half the confinment force needed. Keep on chuggin !! Vern
Kick 'em off, Vern. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark We study the properties of a simple semi-classical model of a photon confined in periodic boundary conditions of one wavelength. The topology of this object, together with the photon electric field, give rise to a charge of the order of 10-19 Coulomb and a half-integral spin, independent of its size. The ratio of the electromagnetic energy inside and outside the object leads to an anomalous spin g factor which is close to that of the electron. Although a finite size of order 10-12 meter arises in a natural way, the apparent size of the object will be much smaller in energetic scattering events.... Edit: oops, post overlap!
It's pretty clear that the thing they are describing has absolutely nothing to do with an electron. The electron is one of the most well-studied fundamental particles, and we know that it's charge isn't "close to 10^-19", we know that it is exactly 1.6... x10^-19. We know that the g factor is exactly 2, at tree level, and we know that it is nonsense to talk about the "radius" of an electron, especially when that "radius" is 1000 times bigger than a proton. If the electron had a size of 10^-12, there would be an associated energy scale---in this case it works out to about 10 MeV. This means that we'd expect new physics in electron scattering experiments at center of mass energies of about 10 MeV. Because we've been doing scattering experiments at energies about 10000 times that energy for several years at FermiLab, I think we would have heard something.
I'll get back to your original post in a little while Vern. I have been too busy with real physics lately.
The paper explained why measurements of an electron indicate a point, it is the electron's photon that is detected and it is a point. The electron itself is many orders of magnatude greater in size. Perfactly reasonable to me. Vern
Good; I don't think we've put that notion to bed yet. If the binding forces do move at the speed of light, some kind of distortion must happen to accomidate motion. I think we've allowed too much magic in QM and it gets in the way of cause and effect as a reasoning tool.
One thing in favor of Farshights view is that we cannot predict exactly where an electron will strike a target. It seems fuzzy. Strange that the area of fuzzyness is just exactly the size of the electron that Farsight predicts, isn't it? Vern
It is "fuzzy", Vern. The thing to remember, is that while we talk about it as a moebius doughnut, there are no actual surfaces at all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The concept people have for an electron is that of a point with a charge extending outwards. But that's the wrong approach. That charge extending outwards is part of what it is. PS: Ben is best ignored. He chucks out provocation and distraction, and is in no way sincere. The great shame is that guys like him drive people away from a forum and end up killing it. But to be honest, I think that's the idea.
Right, no surfaces, however, there would be a place where the photon's point of maximum amplitude passes. I refer to that as the surface. Going toward the center past that "surface" you would find the positive charge of the electron wrapped up inside the loop. If you made a similar construct to the electron except make it 2.5499146 times more massive, and so smaller, you would have a place "surface" where the charge amplitude would be 2.5 times as great as an electron's surface charge. However, seen at the radius of an electron, it would be exactly that of an electron. That would be the outer shell of a neutron Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Keep on chuggin !! Vern
Have you been talking to the Einsteinhoax.com guy? He says the same thing about a photon being "refracted" into a circular orbit, and he is just as wrong about it as you are. His idea was to take the photon and put it into a little orbit, so the electric field reinforced, and you get the appropriate electric field for a quark. Of course, quarks also carry magnetic fields, and if you do this with a photon (IF IF IF---I still think that it is impossible), then the magnetic fields cancel, and you'd have a quark with no magnetic moment. Of course, you and Farsight are making the same mistakes. If you can somehow get the electric field of the photon to "reinforce" (note: I'd have to see some math to buy this), and somehow oscillate like cos^2 theta instead of cos theta, you'd still end up with a zero net magnetic field. BOTH fields can't "reinforce" (and I am sure that not even one of the fields can). Further, the electron has a very well measured magnetic moment (to something like 13 decimal places---the most accurate experiments in all of physics, I think). So to say "Our toroidal photon gives something with CLOSE to the magnetic moment of the electron" basically says "Our theory is in stark disagreement to the most accurate measurements of reality ever preformed". So tell me, why are you willing to believe this if you are on a crusade to uncover reality?
Farsight has been reticent to talk to me since I caught him in an admission that his ideas were "metaphysics", and his "Relativity+" thread was banished to the Pseudoscience nether regions. Life goes on I guess. It doesn't matter that there are no surfaces, or that the toroid is "fuzzy". It only matters that there is a new scale at 10 MeV, which is not observed in nature. For example, people thought that atoms were "fuzzy" once. Once they started doing experiments at about 100 MeV, new structures opened up. Same thing for protons and neutrons. If you do your experiments below 1 GeV, the proton and neutron look like fundamental particles. This was Pauli's isospin. But if you do higher energy experiments, you find out that protons and neutrons can't be fundamental, and the energy scale is the QCD scale, somewhere around 3 GeV.
Trust me, if I thought I could keep you from posting your "xxx Explained" BS, then I would be more vocal.
I'm not really a believer - of anything. My wife accuses me of not believing the road in front of the house goes the same place today that it went to yesterdayPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When you just have a hunch at the beginning of a new theory, you can't expect the numbers to be dead nuts. There are too many unknowns. So just comming close in an approximation has some meaning. I still find the concept plausable. Vern
Thanks for the link; I spent a couple of hours there but couldn't find any real conclusions advocated except that everybody is wrong. I suspect there's a lot of truth in that. I think it was Will Rogers that said I think science is a lot like that. Vern
If I can believe your profile, then I think the two of you have a lot in common. He is also a septagenarian, retired military engineer or some such. Great. Prove us all wrong, I dare youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A little advice, however. We've been doing tests on electrons for over 100 years, at all kinds of energy levels. I know of no tests which have the electron as ANYthing except a point particle. If you can't match the magnetic moment or the charge of the electron exactly, I'd say you were on the wrong track.
I would be very surprised to find that every experiment we have been doing for the past 100 years is wrong...
Hi BenTheMan; the experiments are exactly right; it is the conclusions that are in quesitonPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have studied the experiments. None show the electron to be a point particle. When experiments are devised to detect an expected size of the electron circa its compton wave length, we will find it. We were looking for a point particle. We didn't find it. Keep on chuggin !! Vern
And I'm telling you---we've been doing experiments at the compton wavelength of the electron for 100 years. All length scales correspond to energy scales. The length scale to probe 10^-12 meters is 10 MeV. We have been routinely probing length scales of 1 TeV at FermiLab for several years, which is 100000 times bigger than 10 MeV. If the electon had some structure, these experiments would have revealed it.
You didn't catch me in anything, you deliberately trashed my RELATIVITY+ thread with distraction and urged Pete to kick it into pseudoscience. Like you will with this one. I note you skipped over my post on mass where I talked about a vector field. And you don't mention our old friend Zitterbewegung But forget it. I'm not engaging in conversation with you because you have no sincerity and you cannot be trusted. You're a wrecker.
Hi BenTheMan; yes and we would have found the electron if it were a point particle. We didn't find it. So maybe it is not a point particle but a dynamic photon structure. A 10 mev beam would punch right through it with hardly a wiggle. You need to get in the range of .5 mev to have a chance and that may be too much. Keep on chuggin !! Vern
