On
20/1/2004, Zero Sum posted:
Does this make sense to anyone..
http://www.newphysics2000.org/electron.htm
Kevin Phyland replied:
I'm always suspicious of articles
that strain my vocabulary to breaking point (not too far these
days...it's like aged
rubber)....but this line interests
me...
>An electron has mass. Its
energy equivalent mass is 0.51099MEV. The energy of the electron photon,
a gamma ray, is lethal.<
so...does the author think that
photons have mass? He/she/it seem to be equating the two...
Zero Sum replied:
> so...does the author think that
photons have mass? He/she/it
> seem to be equating the two...
Yeah. He says some questionable things, but he also says some
remarkable sensible things - or so they appear to me. I won't
dismiss his good points because of his bad.
I don't consider the electron 'black hole' as sensible, I can see that
his explanation of the styple of electric charge as holding 'it'
together. It would make an electron Something that is self
sustaining until field is disrupted. It would seemingly account
for much and is even the best explanation I have seen as to why inertia
exists.
Because the presentation is almost facetious does not cause me to
dismiss it. I have used such facetious presentations for effect
myself and consider them in the mould of 'lies told to children'.
Paul
Williams responded:
"When it became accepted that an
electron is a gamma ray in spherical resonance in a micro black hole,
it became possible to further analyze the electron as to its nature."
I have no idea what this means.
Gamma Rays are defined as the
highest energy, shortest wavelength electromagnetic radiation.
They may be thought of as photons
having energies greater than about 100,000 electronvolts.
Photons having lesser energies are
*not gamma rays* by definition.
"Spherical resonance" is not
defined and is therefore meaningless.
"A micro blackhole" depending on
it's mass, may evaporate via Hawking radiation virtually
instantaneously or if somewhat bigger may potentially exist for
billions of years.
Blackholes are defined as regions
of space where gravity is so strong that even *light* cannot escape.
Electrons absorb and release photons all the time.
"A photon (gamma ray in this case)
travels at two velocities, rest and the speed of light."
All photons travel at c -
invariably.
This is easy to understand if one
knows that photons are massless.
Derived equation is E = pc ( E =
energy, p = momentum and c = speed of light)
If p is zero, E is zero. In other
words, no momentum no energy. A photon at rest has ceased to exist.
"A photon at rest has no energy or
mass. As the electron has mass (which through calculation by Einstein's
equation equals the equivalent mass of the resonating gamma ray), the
equivalency demonstrates the existence of the gamma ray in the
electron. It can be assumed that the gamma ray of the electron is
moving at the speed of light within the electron. (If the gamma ray
were not moving, the electron would have no mass) This is very
important. For one thing, it explains why atomic particles cannot
exceed the speed of light (atomic particles are composed of photons
(solely), and photons cannot exceed the speed of light.) As you can
see, this is part of the problem of propelling a spaceship faster than
light. A spaceship is composed of atomic particles. Its atomic
particles are composed of photons, which cannot exceed the speed of
light."
Atomic particles are *not*
composed of photons.
Electrons are considered to be
single point particles - they cannot be divided.
Any particle *without mass* must
travel at the speed of light.
Any particle *with mass* can only
potentially attain speeds slower than the speed of light.
That will do for now...:-)
Zero Sum replied:
For many particles that seems obvious but the position of the electron
seems ambiguous.
What interested me was the idea that an electron was photon travelling
in a 'path' that is self constrained. That is the only concept in
the whole thing that is of interest (and its relation to
inertia). That that self constrained 'path' could give rise to
the phemomena of charge and intertia I found interesting.
While the item as a whole is clearly 'cranky' it strike me as there may
be someting valid hidden in there beneath the garbage, and that was the
reason for my query.
> Any particle *without mass* must
travel at the speed of light.
> Any particle *with mass* can only potentially attain speeds slower
than
> the speed of light.
>
> That will do for now...:-)
Can you then explain to me the 'why' of intertia? Conservation of
energy does not seem a sufficient answer to the 'why' for it simply
begs the question and replaces it with another.
Perhaps I am begging the question in asking that one and the question
should be 'why mass', but that is more complicated because the mass of
a particle can change with the frame of reference.
Paul
Williams answered:
I believe that the Standard Model
predicts a mass carrier(s) called the Higgs Boson.
When the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) is up and running in 2005, Physicists will be able to deal in
energies which will hopefully find it.
If it doesn't exist, some
reworking of theory will be needed (to put it mildly)
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Ps/bbs/bbs_mass_he.asp
A Physicsweb article on the Higgs
Boson and the LHC:
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/5/9/1
Christopher Luke wrote:
Can't pass judgment on Dr Zotz (although I suspect it is crap) - I
realized I was a particle physics voyeur when I read an article on
quantum chromodynamics. Does not stop me reading and thinking
about it - it is even more abstruse than Dr Alan Greenspan who, when
told by someone that they understood what he had said, replied "You
have not thought enough about it then",
David
Sutcliffe responded:
> Yeah.
He says some questionable things, but he also says some remarkable
> sensible things - or so they appear to me. I won't dismiss
his good
> points because of his bad.
I won't pretend that I managed to
follow most of the particle physics in the paper, I will leave
that to the people who know better ... and learn something from the
discussion.
The use of inductive analysis (or
inductive reasoning as it is sometimes known) as a tool to try and
prove something is fraught with danger. It is very easy to
introduce falsehoods into an inductive argument by taking a specific instance or fact, and
projecting it to the general realm - i.e using it to represent all
cases in that realm. It is often done unintentionally.
To quote the classic example of
the effects of this - from Monty Python . If she weighs the same
as a duck, she's made of wood - and therefore a witch (burn her! burn
her!)
Inductive analysis is a great tool
for building hypothesis that can later be tested using the experimental
method that Dr Z shunned. Economists do it all the time. As
a tool for developing scientific proof - it sucks
I don't know enough about the
specifics of Dr Z's argument or the subject matter to determine if or
where he made these projections. There is a pretty good chance
that he did though. His use of such an unsuitable tool is very unscientific IMO.
