pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/14/85)
The author taunts: >> I believe Scott mentioned something of order 10^(-18) meters for the >> electron radius of an electron at rest. Now where do you think >> Scotty got that number from? > Scott Anderson kaos!sra Message <956@oddjob.UUCP> answers: > Not an electron at rest, an electron who's position is > known exactly. > > One can also go to the literature for the actual experimental > results; .. . an e+e- collision experiment, and on the basis > of this and other experimental results, physicists have > concluded that electrons > {see: B.L. Beron, et al., > Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 663 (1974)}. are much smaller > {~10^(-17) meters} than predicted by the classical electromagnetic > arguments recently discussed {3*10^(-15) meters}. The phrase "electron on rest" doesn't refer to a "stopped" or "exactly positioned" electron. I meant to say one with a its mass approximately the "rest mass" so its velocity is less than, for example, 1/3 light speed. The original proposition put out here, and Scotty seems to agree, is that an electron has "extent" regardless of its kinetic energy. So philosophically speaking its not a "mathematical point", and a size of 10^(-18) meters is as significant as 10^(-15) meters. These extensive "smudges" are both too excessively large to be mathematical points. My claim is that matter is subdivided into discrete entities (particles) which have both operator and array characteristics (quark-like?). A particle is then both an array of information grains and operates on this array existence-wise. Anyway, distance in time and space (meters and seconds) are sort of a huge values of microscopically averaged measures over the "local" region of space that we occupy. When we get to "teensy weensy dinky winky" little tiny chunks of space or time the damn stuff is grainy and that is exactly where the cited experiment is located. So to get a better idea of measure we should think of space and time as a clumpy ocean of grains (information or existence), and then measure distance as the number of grains one "encounters" or processes to get from one location to another in space or time. The "size" of an electron is more how many grains does it "span". To translate that into meters or seconds one has to look at the grain density in that location and within the span of the particle (electron) and then compare it with the "averaged local macro" grain density. How? Glad you asked!. In this case we want to compare an electron with mass of one electron rest mass, with another hyperkinetic electron of mass equal to ~4000 * the electron rest mass. The grain density of a particle is related to the square root of the its energy or "mass". Guess what Scotty, if you look at them thar electron positron photon X speriment you'all cited. .. well it's a few GeV of energy (giga electron volts). That's order of 10^(+9) electron volts, which beats out our half MeV (rest mass) electron, by a fair shake. Let me see square root of 4 * 10^(+3) is hmmmm .. ~63. Voila!, that's order 100 less than the radius of an electron with mass approximately the electron rest mass or down to r=~10-(17) meters. Amazing, huh! That classical calculation is NOT as bad as they first thought! A grain of truth. Now we should be able to predict a little more about relativistic electrons that "pop" into the inside of a nucleus. And everybody knows how big a nucleus is. By the way this space "contraction" is a well known effect. Consider how roomy Doctor Who's tartis is once you get inside. Boy, this is a big phone booth! Physics text books make great history. "Give me all she's got, Scotty." "Aye, Captain" - - NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER - - +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..umcp-cs!seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
brooks@lll-crg.UUCP (Eugene D. Brooks III) (09/15/85)
On the topic of the electorn radius, lets please not distort the facts. The figure given for the electron radius is an upper limit of any radius if there is any. The experimental evidence only establishes an upper limit on the radius. The experiments to date are consistent with a radius of 0 it a point particle. It is generally agreed in the theory that it is a point particle, there is no quantum field theory of interest to date that predicts any thing else. (For the theory to be of interest it has to predict something that is measureable and they you go out and either confirm or disprove it.) .