----- Original Message ----- From: Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 3:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electrons
> Robin, > > I may be wrong but all this sounds complicated and ad hoc, compared to > the standard quantum electrodynamics theory, which, although it often > goes against common sense (e.g. the "preposterous" things I > mentioned), does predict things nicely from a tiny set of rules. > > For example, to go back to the subject of your original question, can > Mills predict the next decimal places for the electron's intrinsic > magnetic moment (presently 12 or so) _before_ they are experimentally > determined, like QED has been doing for about 60 years? (*) > > Cheers, > > Michel But is it really an experiment or is it a quantum computation? Harry > (*) see Feynman's little 1985 book 'QED ['for dummies' he could have > added, as even I was able to understand it!] The Strange Theory of > Light and Matter', and http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29724 > for the latest I believe (2006) experimental refinement of the value. > > 2009/3/2 <mix...@bigpond.com>: > > In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sun, 1 Mar 2009 23:12:06 > +0100:> Hi, > > [snip] > >>Circular? Why not, but around what, and what kind of radius and > rotation rate? > > > > I think the size of the electron is variable, i.e. it comprises a > vibration> (rotation?) in the fabric of spacetime. For the ground > state of the H atom, it > > might be a vanishingly thin walled sphere as Mills suggests, or > perhaps a > > toroid, with major radius = Bohr radius, and minor radius = > classical electron > > radius. > > A torus wouldn't be a problem for free electrons, but according > to Mills free > > electrons are flat disks. > > > > The torus has another advantage, you can fit two (and only two) > of them at equal > > distances from a nucleus on the same axis. This screams electron > "pairing".> BTW, for a torus, (from memory) if the minor radius = > the classical electron > > radius, and the circumferential velocity around the minor > circumference is the > > same as that around the major circumference (i.e. fine structure > constant x c), > > then the frequency of the minor rotation x h = 511 keV. :) > > (But then, I think this is probably the definition of the > classical electron > > radius anyway). > > However it does mesh nicely with the notion that an electron is a > circularly> polarized 511 keV photon that is wrapped around in a > circle till the head meets > > the tail (think of both ends of a "slinky" joined together). > > Perhaps when it is ionized, the radii shrink under the influence > of passage > > through the "ether". That is also essentially what Mills suggests. > > Note that such a shrinkage would imply an increased rotation > frequency, which in > > turn equates to a higher mass. IOW the faster is goes, the more > massive it > > becomes. > > > >> > >>Michel > >> > >>/3/1, mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com>: > >>> In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sun, 1 Mar 2009 > 19:05:42 +0100: > >>> Hi Michel, > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>> Advice given to politicians, is never to ask a question, unless > you already > >>> know > >>> the answer. I think the obvious answer to my own question is > that the > >>> electron > >>> is not a point particle. Mills uses a circular orbit, and gets > a very nice > >>> value > >>> as a consequence. I think it's time that QM got reworked. :) > >>> > >>> > >>>>A very good question Robin, I too would very much like to know > the answer! > >>>> > >>>>The resource below doesn't really provide one, but it does > quantify>>>>the (preposterously high, in their opinion) spin rate > which would be > >>>>required if the intrinsic magnetic moment was due to an actual > >>>>spinning little sphere of charge: > >>>> > >>>>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html#c4 > >>>> > >>>><<The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the > >>>>classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic > moment>>>>described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge > can produce a > >>>>magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained > >>>>above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron > as a > >>>>spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no > "size">>>>of the electron down to a resolution of about 10^-3 > fermis, and at > >>>>that size a preposterously high spin rate of some 10^32 > radian/s would > >>>>be required to match the observed angular momentum.>> > >>>> > >>>>Why they think it would be preposterous I have no idea, it doesn't > >>>>look more preposterous to me than electrons going back in time or > >>>>photons going faster or slower than the speed of light, which have > >>>>been considered perfectly normal things for many decades. > >>>> > >>>>Cheers, > >>>>Michel > >>>> > >>>>2009/2/25 <mix...@bigpond.com>: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> The magnitude of the Bohr magneton is essentially based upon > a Bohr > >>>>> orbit. How > >>>>> is that the intrinsic spin magnetic moment of a point > particle electron > >>>>> is so > >>>>> very close to one Bohr magneton? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Robin van Spaandonk > >>>>> > >>>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Robin van Spaandonk > >>> > >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > >>> > >>> > > Regards, > > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > > > > > >
