Can you not provide me with a direct link?Can you not search the data for "electron radius" in this official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .
No, it's because the electron radius isn't well known enough to be quote-worthy. The measurements made on it are official as any other.What I am saying is that, data for proton radius is official but data for electron radius is not yet official.
Who made you the official judge? Yes, it is "official", and moreover, you haven't provided any data whatsoever to demonstrate it's not.Your data about electron radius is not official.
You keep claiming that an experiment that provided a measurement of the electron radius is incorrect. I have now multiple times asked you to back up that claim, but you keep being unable to do so. You have openly doubted the work of this Nobel Prize winner; I'm merely asking you what makes you think you know better than this person who actually has done a measurement, and got a Nobel Prize associated with it. In fact, one can argue that such a measurement is as official as it gets!What this question has to do with official "electron radius".
They are compatible, with one being more restrictive than the other. So unless there's a good reason not to, $$r_e<10^-22 meters$$ is the best value to use.Your wiki link suggested $$r_e<10^-22 meters $$ . Your new links suggest $$r_e<10^-19 meters $$. Which value of "electron radius" should be considered for discussion
You childishly calling peer-reviewed results "not officially valid/accepted" is childish. Grow up.(though these are not officially valid/accepted data)?
It literally says in the text, right above equation 2: "by transposing the subscript indices, one obtains the complementary formula".Also, can you explain how equation (2) is derived from equation (1); in your springer link?
Can you not provide me with a direct link?
No, it's because the electron radius isn't well known enough to be quote-worthy.
The measurements made on it are official as any other.
Who made you the official judge? Yes, it is "official", and moreover, you haven't provided any data whatsoever to demonstrate it's not.
You keep claiming that an experiment that provided a measurement of the electron radius is incorrect. I have now multiple times asked you to back up that claim, but you keep being unable to do so. You have openly doubted the work of this Nobel Prize winner; I'm merely asking you what makes you think you know better than this person who actually has done a measurement, and got a Nobel Prize associated with it. In fact, one can argue that such a measurement is as official as it gets!
They are compatible, with one being more restrictive than the other. So unless there's a good reason not to, $$r_e<10^-22 meters$$ is the best value to use.
You childishly calling peer-reviewed results "not officially valid/accepted" is childish. Grow up.
It literally says in the text, right above equation 2: "by transposing the subscript indices, one obtains the complementary formula".
Once again, not a direct link. More importantly, please point me to where this sites claims that it contains all available electron datas.https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ . All available electron datas can be searched here.
No, the radius itself isn't well known, but an upper limit on it is.Still you are trying to quote electron radius, as if it is well known.
No, not my personal views. The fact that I've provided multiple peer-reviewed papers, and you haven't provided any peer-reviewed criticisms on those. That is how science works.This is only your personal views.
Read the papers for yourself.Anyway, what is the math for electron radius.
False. You have made judgements on certain experiments (which were peer-reviewed) to be incorrect.I am just an observer.
Please show me the statement from scientists that this is "the official website", and that if data is not available on it, it therefor is incorrect/unaccepted.I observe electron radius data is not available in the official website. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/
Yes, from which they calculate an upper bound on the electron radius. Don't judge a book by its cover; read the entire paper. Also, it is explicitly mentioned in the title, which I'd say is a bit more prominent than the abstract.You can read the abstract of that paper. No mention of electron radius is there. Only g-value is mentioned. Implying focus of the paper is to measure g-value.
Right, let me try and explain this basic mathematical fact to you.The difference is in the range $$10^-3 meters $$. Still you consider it compatible.
Read the papers.Again, what is the math used here to support experimental observation.
Is your existence mentioned on this website then?And this experimental observation is not mentioned in the official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .
Let me try and explain this English word to you:How they are complementary formula?
Sure, one can write that, and the second formula would be complementary to the first one, just as in the paper.Say $$ y_1=mx_2$$; can you write $$x_1=my_2 $$.
Once again, not a direct link. More importantly, please point me to where this sites claims that it contains all available electron datas.
No, the radius itself isn't well known, but an upper limit on it is.
No, not my personal views. The fact that I've provided multiple peer-reviewed papers, and you haven't provided any peer-reviewed criticisms on those. That is how science works.
Read the papers for yourself.
Yes, from which they calculate an upper bound on the electron radius. Don't judge a book by its cover; read the entire paper. Also, it is explicitly mentioned in the title, which I'd say is a bit more prominent than the abstract.
Right, let me try and explain this basic mathematical fact to you.
There is a number A. Let's say its value is 1.
A is smaller than 10.
A is also smaller than 100.
See? Both statements are true, and thus compatible.
Read the papers.
Is your existence mentioned on this website then?
me try and explain this English word to you:
Complementary in this context means counterpart. ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complement )
Sure, one can write that, and the second formula would be complementary to the first one, just as in the paper.
Please quote the line where they state that this website contains all available data.Its a CODATA website http://www.codata.org/about-codata .
(I don't understand what you are saying here?)Say the upper limit is $$r_e<10^-22 $$ meters.
So you are claiming that 1 is smaller than 10, but saying that it is also smaller than 100 is wrong... I don't think I need to point out how horrible incorrect you are here.Your one peer reviwed paper says experimentaly $$r_e<10^-22 $$ meters. Other peer reviewed paper calculated $$ r_e<10^-19 $$ meters, which is much higher than the previous value of $$10^-22 $$ meters. So, comparing these two peer reviewed paper datas; one of the data has to be wrong.
Can you explain, how $$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e} $$ ? You can also read this paper https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdf . Eq (8a) shows $$m_pr_p=m_er_e $$.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfFalse. You have made judgements on certain experiments (which were peer-reviewed) to be incorrect.
You can purchase access.I am not able to access the entire paper. Do you have a link for entire paper?
You are missing my point: the two upper limits are compatible.In your case, the calculated value is greater than experimentally observed upper limit value.
Are you asking me to break the law? You can purchase access for yourself.You can pass on the link for entire paper, if you are having.
Doesn't matter how recent it is: it's already disproven.My value is just recent developement. You can also see this link https://readingfeynman.org/tag/reduced-compton-wavelength/ . Here the author also made a similar analysis like my analysis.
It's not a proper mathematical operation, but let me see: take the equation, and substitute subscript 2 for subscript 1, while at the same time substituting subscript 1 for the subscript 2. I hope this is simple enough English for you to understand?Give me a mathematical explanation.
Well, both are wrong, as I've proven in this thread.$$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e} $$ is right or $$m_pr_p=m_er_e $$ is right? Both the equations can not be right.
$$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e} $$ is right or $$m_pr_p=m_er_e $$ is right? Both the equations can not be right.
Well, both are wrong, as I've proven in this thread.
Yes, it's disproven by experimental evidence, just like your electron radius calculation.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02754804 . Your this springer link suggests $$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e} $$ . And you are calling this wrong?
Yes, it's disproven by experimental evidence, just like your electron radius calculation.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. In the paper, they propose a relation, and give a prediction on the electron radius based on that. Years later, evidence is found that this prediction does not hold. And thus, the hypothesis is falsified.So your peer reviewed springer linked paper is wrong?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. In the paper, they propose a relation, and give a prediction on the electron radius based on that. Years later, evidence is found that this prediction does not hold. And thus, the hypothesis is falsified.
The paper is correct in the sense that the derivation is correct, it is wrong in the sense that it turned out not to be the way reality works.
Well, is $$10^{-22} m$$ smaller than $$4.42\times 10^{-17} cm$$?So $$r_e $$ value proposed in that paper is wrong?
Well, is $$10^{-22} m$$ smaller than $$4.42\times 10^{-17} cm$$?
I have? But I'll spell it out for you.Answer my question in post #211.
I have? But I'll spell it out for you.
Because the upper limit of $$10^{-22}m$$ derived from experimental data is smaller than $$4.42\times 10^{-17}cm$$, the value proposed in the paper has been shown incompatible with reality. In that sense, the value is wrong, yes.
Ah, I see what's going on. You're confused: I've provided three pieces of evidence. The one referenced from Wikipedia, the Springer link, and the first paragraph in post #198. I claimed that the Wikipedia paper and the one from post #198 are compatible, and that this experimental evidence falsifies the hypothesis in the Springer link.But some time ago, you were claiming that they were compatible.
Only in the sense I mentioned.So, your springer linked peer reviewed paper is wrong.
Ah, I see what's going on. You're confused: I've provided three pieces of evidence. The one referenced from Wikipedia, the Springer link, and the first paragraph in post #198. I claimed that the Wikipedia paper and the one from post #198 are compatible, and that this experimental evidence falsifies the hypothesis in the Springer link.
(Next time, please specify which paper; I provided two in that post.)The paper you quoted in post #198 says the followings:
And did you realize that this value you are now quoting proves your calculated value of 1544 fm is utterly wrong?Characteristic size related to the case of interaction via excited heavy electron is $$ r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_e ∗ c} <5 × 10^−17 cm$$. For the case of direct contact term interaction$$ r_e \sim \frac{\hbar c}{\Lambda} = 1.17 × 10^−17cm$$.
From this we can say $$m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$$.
The paper you quoted in post #198 says the followings:
Characteristic size related to the case of interaction via excited heavy electron is $$ r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_e ∗ c} <5 × 10^−17 cm$$. For the case of direct contact term interaction$$ r_e \sim \frac{\hbar c}{\Lambda} = 1.17 × 10^−17cm$$.
From this we can say $$m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$$.
(Next time, please specify which paper; I provided two in that post.)
And did you realize that this value you are now quoting proves your calculated value of 1544 fm is utterly wrong?