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, [email protected] <[email protected]>: >> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>> 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
