Inertia and Relativity

hansda said:
Further, if you consider my equation of mass at post #14; it can be observed that as mass increases, its radius decreases. It can be checked that radius of electron is more than radius of proton.
Click to expand...
:rips Science badge off hansda's uniform, gives it to 7-year-old that made a baking soda volcano:
 
hansda said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Fundamental_properties
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.
 
Last edited:
origin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems you are heading towards singularity.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

NotEinstein said:
In fact, this is mentioned on the electron's Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Fundamental_properties
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.
Click to expand...

You can follow your own link. This suggests an experimental observation for non-zero radius of electron.
 
hansda said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

hansda said:
You can follow your own link. This suggests an experimental observation for non-zero radius of electron.
Click to expand...
And you are absolutely wrong yet again. An upper limit being set does not mean that the lower limit has to be non-zero.
 
hansda said:
Your Δx symbolises non-zero space. This implies that electron has a non-zero radius.
Click to expand...
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.
 
hansda said:
Seems you missed the Penning traps experiment observation, in your own link earlier.
Click to expand...
You mean this line:
Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be $$10^{−22}$$ meters.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

NO. You read your link again.
 
hansda said:
NO. You read your link again.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top