🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2NOV199214144631@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov02.091053.23915@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes...
>>In article <30OCT199211272273@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:


>>You mean this (point-like electron concept) is true for either 
>>mathematicians disguised as physicists, or physicists working in 
>>regimes for which the electron "size" is ignorable.
>
>No.  I mean that as far as any experiment has ever been able to detect, the
>electron has zero radius - it is a point particle until proven otherwise in 
>the minds and models of working physicists.  

I don't think that models of electrons are electrons.  That is
the definition of one or another electron model is absolute when
compared to the the object of reality we identify as an electron.

The supposition that a real particle is a point in extent implies that
it has no volume and therefore it would have an infinite density 
(charge, mass, but zero angular momentum) doesn't appear to me to be 
logical. 

Now if you include the energy/mass density and vorticity (angular 
momentum of its adjoining electric field (in its immediate periphery), 
which also generates the repulsion or reflection of high speed 
particles, then I would be inclined to feel that that dense portion 
of the field is "hard" enough or of such influence that it should 
be included as the within the extent of the electron.  I do admit 
that the centroid of the electric field or the centroid of its mass 
field are points and such points can satisfy the position of gravity
forces and displacements.  For example the center of the mass of the 
earth has such a point; yet it would be fooolish to assume that the
earth has zero extent. 

>>>Due to quantum mechanics, it has a wavelength however,
>>>which *does* shrink with energy.  This causes, for example, the 
>>>electron-positron total annihilation cross-section to vary as 1/E^2.   As
 
>> Wavelike character arises from the non-infinite information density
>>of real space (it's grainy) and the localized quantized time.  
>>Not true, there is a limit to the information density of any particle
>>object and reaching that critical density the particle will grow in
>>volume (or distort-compress the local metric or spontaneously generate
>>additional information operators to handle the excess (that is: photons 
>>or charged particle pairs). 

>This is not a statement of any physics that *I* know.  As a matter of fact,
>I'm willing to go further and say that it's total rubbish.  Can you 
>point to a textbook which contains any statement resembling what you have
>claimed?

In your speak -- such as conditions for Cherenkov radiation or charged 
		particle pair production.  

It's an expanded paradigm.  Your your exposure is limited or confined 
by the mosaics of ideas that are found in displays of text on paper and 
other media and you haven't yet practiced extensively the world of 
thought, creativity that goes beyond the current understanding.  It is 
very difficult to pick up on without some considerable discussion.  

>>Energetic electrons have a lower collision cross section as they gain
>>energy traveling through a plasma, for example.  As they get above
>>mass energies of several rest masses (several gamma) they flatten
>>out in there ****SHAPE****.  Hear that --- shape.  

>I see.  You are confusing the shape of the electric field pattern
>of the passing charge with the shape of the electron which has the charge.
>But, as you may know, an electron of any reasonable shape would have the
>same field pattern at distances from the electron which you can probe with
>your experiments - i.e., the corrections due to higher multipoles from a 
>non-spherical shape would be very small and would drop off quickly. 
>Experiments do already constrain the size and electric dipole moments
>to be so small that your plasma experiments would be completely insensitive
>to any effect which might exist.

You are most probably thinking of thermal electrons in a thin 
plasma. You are still correct for MOST interceptions of energetic 
particles including those of slight significance. That is most 
encounters of high gamma electrons in a thin plasma this is the 
case, and consequently only very small angle scattering takes 
place which is averaged out.  However, there are "direct hits" 
of these electrons with back ground thermal electrons which 
for all practical purposes are relatively stationary until hit. 
These "direct hits" are rare for any particular single energetic 
electron.  However, in a substantial current of a few tens or 
hundreds of kiloamperes per square centimeter, these collisions are 
not rare and produce, not a scattered dispersion of knockons (now 
also relativistic), but a very sharply forward cone of knockons, 
strongly suggesting that the "electron" doing the hitting
was flattened like a ping pong paddle.  The current from these hard
knockons probably (engineering guess is on the order of 10 milliamps).    
That suggests a non-zero extent for "real" electrons.  These real
electrons are the same guys (albeit not as energetic) that buzz 
around the nuclei of the atoms that together form your brain.  I'm
not speaking of model or abstract electrons.  With a point electron
the flatness of the local field would give way at the highest 
values of energy to a more roundness of the overwhelming strong or
immutable field at the point's immediate boundry region.  

You might read Hans Bethe's work on this or give him a line at Cornell. 

>>Electrons were defined by GOD or by his 2space super angelic underlings
>>when they designed this physical topology, and just before they 
>>kicked a chunk of hypermatter out into three space to shatter and
>>set off what we idiots see as the BIG BANG.  

>Oh.  Now I understand.  [Aside:  Feel free to feel like an idiot.  But please
>keep your personal characterizations to yourself.]

Hey that "idiocy" went for ALL of us.  I thought since  you have the poetic 
licence to conclude that your selected model of the electron is the 
absolute identical electron of reality as far as extent goes I thought 
I would join in the fun.  

>>The only people who still think that points have zero extent are
>>mathematicians.  Such a concept has no measure in reality or in physics.
>>THINK delta Function.  

>The point particles in all my Lagrangians have zero extent.  Nobody pretends
>to believe that an electron must be pointlike just because we have been
>unable with our best experiments to probe the length scale necessary
>to find out what's what.  But as an "effective model" of the electron, 
>a pointlike Dirac fermion is such a good approximation that our most
>sensitive experiments to date have been unable to distinguish any 
>discrepancy.  Consequently, it is perfectly fair to say that as far as we
>know, the electron is both fundamental and pointlike - a nice simplifying
>abstraction with which to work until we have better information.

Abstractions that achieves simplfication through selective filtering.  
More of a one dimensional icon.   

Yep! There is a BIG BIG reality wall why such experiments have failed.
It is true that there are no tests (other than, for me at least, 
bouncing slow electrons off very energetic ones), that demonstrate the 
extent and shapeability of electrons.  I always thought that theories 
that came up with untestable conclusions (here due to the H-principle) 
were a kind of biodegradable plant food (bull shit). Now untestablility 
being the case, I would dance lightly over the fact that these 
"mathematicians" are painting a scene from reality using a capricious 
and fanciful hypothesis, but apparently advancing them as tested 
and "sound" hypothesis.  As they say in New Jersey, "Fellow, I think 
you're being taken for a ride".  

>--------------------
>Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
>				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
>				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
>				 life." - Lewis Thomas

Skeptically yours
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************