Inertia and Relativity

[NotEinstein]

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 .

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?

Are you still considering your springer linked paper?

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.

You can check the equation. It is same as reduced compton wavelength for electron.

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

 

[hansda]

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?

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

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"?

 

[hansda]

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

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

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"?

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

 

[NotEinstein]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[hansda]

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.

That you also can calculate.

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.

Seems your conclusion is electron radius zero. This is against your expermental observation, which observed non-zero radius.

 

[NotEinstein]

That you also can calculate.

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.

Seems your conclusion is electron radius zero.

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.

This is against your expermental observation, which observed non-zero radius.

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

 

[hansda]

I'm not going to do your homework.

Its not so important.

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.

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

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.

I am not getting, what you try to say.

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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?)

 

[NotEinstein]

Its not so important.

It's not important to know whether your value is compatible which this one?

Its only factor 4.

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.

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

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

I am not getting, what you try to say.

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 = ?

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

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 $$A\neq 0$$.

 

[hansda]

I don't know why this escapes you.

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 x. It passes that test.
3. We do another experiment to test for a radius of y. It passes that test too.

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

What is your conclusion? electron radius zero?

 

[DaveC426913]

What is your conclusion? electron radius zero?

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.

 

[hansda]

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 $$A\neq 0$$.

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

 

[hansda]

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.

Theory says, it can not be less than minimum radius.

 

[NotEinstein]

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

I don't recall that; can you please link me to the experimental evidence for that?

 

[DaveC426913]

Theory says, it can not be less than minimum radius.

You have not yet demonstrated your theory is valid.

 

[hansda]

I don't recall that; can you please link me to the experimental evidence for that?

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

 

[hansda]

You have not yet demonstrated your theory is valid.

Theory says, if it is below minimum, it will be a black hole.

 

[NotEinstein]

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

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

So? What if it is?

 

[DaveC426913]

Theory says, if it is below minimum, it will be a black hole.

You are blindly extrapolating macro properties to the subatomic world.