NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
I never claimed that they do exist; the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't, since it is you who's making the claim here.
Inertia and Relativity
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
So you are not able to prove that zero radius particle can exist.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Please stop being intellectually dishonest.
As per my equation of compton wavelength; zero radius particle with non-zero compton radius can not exist. For electron its reduced compton wavelength is about 386 fm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength . So its radius should be around 386 x 4 = 1544 fm . My equation is very close for particle proton and neutron.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
And as I've already demonstrated: this is because you're employing circular reasoning.
Protons and neutrons are known to be composite particles; electrons are not. Your comparison thus may not hold true.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The fact that it is part of the Standard Model means it has passed the burden of "proof" (the preponderance of evidence) for the scientific community.
It is now ... standard.
The burden is on you to overthrow the Standard Model.
My proof is my math.
Earlier we have seen that classical electron radius $$ r_e$$ and compton electron radius $$\lambda_e $$ are dependent on actual electron radius $$ r$$ . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering . From these links Bohr radius $$a_0 $$ and Thomson cross section $$\sigma_t$$ are dependant on classical electron radius $$r_e $$. So $$a_0 $$ and $$\sigma_t $$ are also dependent on actual electron radius $$ r$$ .
Have we really? I think what we've seen is you being disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and arrogant enough to suggest you've got "the answer" where thousands of actual scientists haven't.hansda said:
Says who? You?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And it has not made your case. You are encountering factual contradictions.
The progress of science is by those , who in the end have " the answer " . Where others have failed , and nor could imagine .
Progress of science does not come from , and has never come from conservative science thinking , nor from the " thousands of actual scientists " ironically , the foundation of conservative science is always based on rebels thinking .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
He's not a rebel.
He's no more a rebel than me being a "rebel" football player because I don't know how to play football.
Why is Hansda not a rebel ? I hardly think that he is completely ignorant of the mainstream thinking .
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
That's a wavelength, not a radius.
Many of these quantities are indeed related to each other. However, that was not in dispute (at least, not for me). Your initial claim was that the electron radius was larger than the proton radius, which has been proven wrong. Your next claim was that the electron has been shown to have a non-zero radius, which has also been proven incorrect. Ignoring your errors doesn't make you right.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Radius of Electron = 1544 fm?
Yaa. This is so; as per my analysis, as per my equations.
Seems you are right. Its just a typo.
Where you have proven it wrong. Give me the link or the post number. My claim is as per my math.
I think you are claiming this as per Standard Model(SM). SM is not complete. There can be physics beyond SM. As per SM, electron radius is zero; this is just a general consensus. There is no mathematical or experimental proof for this.
Electron has a non-zero mass $$m_e $$. It also has an intrinsic spin. So particle electron has an intrinsic angular speed $$w_e $$. Every spinning mass has a moment of Inertia $$ I$$. So, particle electron also will be having a moment of Inertia $$I_e $$. If it is having a moment of Inertia, it should also have a non-zero radius $$r_e $$.
We can write $$I_e=m_er_e^2k $$; where $$k $$ is some constant. From this we can say $$r_e=\sqrt{\frac{I_e}{m_ek}} $$.
Earlier we have seen that $$ L=Iw=mr^2kw=mrk_1rw\frac{k}{k_1}=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$. So we can also write $$r_e=\frac{L_e}{m_ec}\frac{k_1}{k} $$.
We can write $$I_e=m_er_e^2k $$; where $$k $$ is some constant. From this we can say $$r_e=\sqrt{\frac{I_e}{m_ek}} $$.
Earlier we have seen that $$ L=Iw=mr^2kw=mrk_1rw\frac{k}{k_1}=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$. So we can also write $$r_e=\frac{L_e}{m_ec}\frac{k_1}{k} $$.
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
I know, but it's a rather bad typo, as it's confusing the very two things we were talking about; hence my explicit pointing it out.
Well, it starts by your claim in post #39 that the radius of the electon is larger than that of the proton. In post #43 I point out that you are wrong: you've misinterpreted a calculated quantity that happens to have the word "radius" in its name for a physical radius, and you admit it in post #50.
Have you forgotten that you admitted your mistake in post #50?
No, my claims are based on the available experimental data, not the Standard Model. There is no experimental data that demonstrates that the electron must have a non-zero radius.
(True, but irrelevant as I'm not talking about the SM.)
Not sure if that's strictly true, but even if so, that's irrelevant as per above.
True, which is why I'm not claiming that the electron has a radius of zero. I've only proven your claim that it has been demonstrated to have a non-zero radius false.[/QUOTE]
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
A particle having a non-zero quantum spin doesn't mean the particle is physically rotating, so your entire calculation is wrong.