# Inertia and Relativity

You must have given a wrong input to wolframalpha.

Anyway, I think with the existing math, this minimum radius can not be derived. But with my math, I am able to derive this minimum radius.

You must have given a wrong input to wolframalpha.
Re-read my posts, and you'll find out what happened.

Anyway, I think with the existing math, this minimum radius can not be derived.
Possibly true.

But with my math, I am able to derive this minimum radius.
Yes, but we know your math is wrong, because it gets the electron radius wrong by at least several orders of magnitude.

Following my earlier derivation $$r=\frac{4c}{2\pi f}=\frac{4\lambda}{2\pi}$$; we can correlate maximum frequency $$f_maximum$$ or minimum wavelength $$\lambda_minimum$$ with this minimum radius $$r_minimum$$. We also can correlate maximum mass $$m_maximum$$ with the $$r_minimum$$.

Yes, but we know your math is wrong, because it gets the electron radius wrong by at least several orders of magnitude.

You can read the abstract of that paper. That paper was mainly to find the g-value. Data about electron radius is only a suggestion and not a conclusion.

You can read the abstract of that paper. That paper was mainly to find the g-value. Data about electron radius is only a suggestion and not a conclusion.
The main aim of the paper doesn't matter: they managed to set an upper bound on the electron radius based on their experimental data. You can't dismiss evidence because it was found accidentally!

The main aim of the paper doesn't matter: they managed to set an upper bound on the electron radius based on their experimental data. You can't dismiss evidence because it was found accidentally!

That was only their suggestive value and not a conclusive value. Had it been a correct value, it would have been mentioned in the leading websites along with other electron datas.

That was only their suggestive value and not a conclusive value. Had it been a correct value, it would have been mentioned in the leading websites along with other electron datas.

Also "correct"? Your usage of that word is intellectually dishonest.

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?me , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron . Could you locate the electron radius data in these sites. Though other electron datas are available in these sites.
Your first link is to a page about the electron's mass, thus irrelevant. The second link actually lists the paper whose conclusions you've just dismissed!

Please post direct links to those "other electron datas". Obviously you have them, because otherwise you have lied in post #187.

Your first link is to a page about the electron's mass, thus irrelevant. The second link actually lists the paper whose conclusions you've just dismissed!

Please post direct links to those "other electron datas". Obviously you have them, because otherwise you have lied in post #187.

In the first link I could not search electron radius data, though electron mass and classical electron radius can be searched in that first link.

In the first link I could not search electron radius data, though electron mass and classical electron radius can be searched in that first link.

Also, I just noticed: have you read the full title to the paper? Especially the last bit of it kinda destroys your "That paper was mainly to find the g-value." "argument". In addition, you should know the author received a Nobel Prize for his work on this, and it's the same (type of) experiment that your unsourced non-zero electron radius stems from. In other words, if you dismiss this out of hand, you are also dismissing a lot of what you've been doing.

Please post direct links to those "other electron datas". Obviously you have them, because otherwise you have lied in post #187.

Are you blind. Can you not see the other electron datas on the top right corner, in the wiki page for electron.

Are you blind. Can you not see the other electron datas on the top right corner, in the wiki page for electron.
Are you? The first mention of the word "radius" is in the "Fundamental properties"-section; nothing about the electron radius in the top right corner.

Please directly link to the "other electron datas" you have been talking about. Just imagine I'm blind, and instead of making me search in the dark, guide me straight to the links you obviously have found.

Are you? The first mention of the word "radius" is in the "Fundamental properties"-section; nothing about the electron radius in the top right corner.

Please directly link to the "other electron datas" you have been talking about. Just imagine I'm blind, and instead of making me search in the dark, guide me straight to the links you obviously have found.

That data is not available. So your claim is not conclusive.

You can compare wiki sites of proton and electron. In the proton site, proton radius is mentioned.

That data is not available. So your claim is not conclusive.
Erm, you are the one being unable to provide data you claim to have. It's your claim that's inconclusive...

You can compare wiki sites of proton and electron. In the proton site, proton radius is mentioned.
Yes, and we are not talking about the proton radius, so that's irrelevant.

Conclusion: both links you provided in post #189 do not constitute this "other electron datas" you claimed in post #187 would disprove my mentioned paper about the electron's radius. Do you actually have any link to back up your claim that the work that this person got a Nobel Prize for is incorrect?

I just found this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109138.pdf
In it, an upper bound on the electron radius is set at $$1.17\times 10^{-17}$$ cm, which is many orders of magnitude lower than your value. Again, experimental data (in this case from electron-positron interactions) proves you wrong.

Edit: Or this one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02754804 (note: this was published years before my original linked paper.)
Even this paper already gives an electron radius much smaller than yours. Even better, it seems to be arguing a similar correspondence between the proton and electron as you are. However, the required electron radius this paper gives has been experimentally excluded since! In other words, the entire idea that the electron and proton have similar mass/charge ratio's is not new, and already debunked since the late 1980's.

Erm, you are the one being unable to provide data you claim to have. It's your claim that's inconclusive...

Can you not search the data for "electron radius" in this official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .

Yes, and we are not talking about the proton radius, so that's irrelevant.

What I am saying is that, data for proton radius is official but data for electron radius is not yet official.

Conclusion: both links you provided in post #189 do not constitute this "other electron datas" you claimed in post #187 would disprove my mentioned paper about the electron's radius.

Do you actually have any link to back up your claim that the work that this person got a Nobel Prize for is incorrect?

What this question has to do with official "electron radius".

I just found this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109138.pdf
In it, an upper bound on the electron radius is set at $$1.17\times 10^{-17}$$ cm, which is many orders of magnitude lower than your value. Again, experimental data (in this case from electron-positron interactions) proves you wrong.

Edit: Or this one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02754804 (note: this was published years before my original linked paper.)
Even this paper already gives an electron radius much smaller than yours. Even better, it seems to be arguing a similar correspondence between the proton and electron as you are. However, the required electron radius this paper gives has been experimentally excluded since! In other words, the entire idea that the electron and proton have similar mass/charge ratio's is not new, and already debunked since the late 1980's.

Your wiki link suggested $$r_e<10^-22 meters$$ . Your new links suggest $$r_e<10^-19 meters$$. Which value of "electron radius" should be considered for discussion(though these are not officially valid/accepted data)?

Also, can you explain how equation (2) is derived from equation (1); in your springer link?

Last edited: