On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:58:05 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:56 PM, John Ross > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > > What is your experiments evidence that the electron does not have an >> internal structure? >> > > I don't have any evidence that the electron has no internal structure, > and I have no evidence the electron isn't the Easter bunny either. There > are plenty of mysteries in the universe and so no need to invent questions > that don't need answering; as I said before there is no experimental > evidence that there is an internal structure to the electron and no > theoretical reasons to suppose that it does. > > >> > Electrons have a size and a mass. >> > > An Electron has a mass but there are no experimental or theoretical > reasons to suppose it has a size. It's true that you can plug in some > numbers from classical physics and get a figure of 10^-15 meters for the > radius of the electron, but the problem is there is no experimental > evidence that the electron actually has that radius and that shouldn't be > surprising because classical physics is wrong, especially at such small > scales. As far as we can tell the electron is a point particle, it's radius > is not 10^-15 meters it's ZERO. > > > When electrons and positrons are destroyed at least two photons are >> produced (my model says there are three photons produced). >> > > Then there is solid evidence your theory is wrong. The mass of the > electron (and the positron) is 9.1 *10^-31 kilograms, and from E=MC^2 we > can figure out that's equivalent to 511kev of energy. Gama ray photons of > exactly 511kev have been detected in electron positron experiments > performed in particle accelerators and they have also been found radiating > from the center of our galaxy. This indicates that 2 photons were produced > when electrons and positrons annihilate each other; if it were three we > wouldn't see that, we'd see Gamma rays of 341kev because (511+511)/3 = 341. > > John K Clark > Which means John Ross produced a falsifiable theory, and did make a falsifiable prediction. Well done John...this is what the world needs a lot more of these days. Of course, John's whole theory may not be falsified...it all depends how important or central to the theory this was. Maybe he can rework it...but hopefully he'll be sure to make the next model so easily testable as this one. This is what Science needs more of, because it's almost completely lacking at the frontier right now.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
