# Inertia and Relativity

NotEinstein, are you under the illusion/imagination that as the mass decreases, the radius will also decrease for spinning, massive atomic particles?

Can you not search the data for "electron radius" in this official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .
Can you not provide me with a direct link?

What I am saying is that, data for proton radius is official but data for electron radius is not yet official.
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.

What this question has to do with official "electron radius".
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!

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
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.

(though these are not officially valid/accepted data)?
You childishly calling peer-reviewed results "not officially valid/accepted" is childish. Grow up.

Also, can you explain how equation (2) is derived from equation (1); in your springer link?
It literally says in the text, right above equation 2: "by transposing the subscript indices, one obtains the complementary formula".

Can you not provide me with a direct link?

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ . All available electron datas can be searched here.

No, it's because the electron radius isn't well known enough to be quote-worthy.

Still you are trying to quote electron radius, as if it is well known.

The measurements made on it are official as any other.

This is only your personal views. Anyway, what is the math for electron radius.

Who made you the official judge? Yes, it is "official", and moreover, you haven't provided any data whatsoever to demonstrate it's not.

I am just an observer. I observe electron radius data is not available in the official website. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

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!

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.

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.

The difference is in the range $$10^-3 meters$$. Still you consider it compatible.

You childishly calling peer-reviewed results "not officially valid/accepted" is childish. Grow up.

Again, what is the math used here to support experimental observation. And this experimental observation is not mentioned in the official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .

It literally says in the text, right above equation 2: "by transposing the subscript indices, one obtains the complementary formula".

How they are complementary formula?

Say $$y_1=mx_2$$; can you write $$x_1=my_2$$.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ . All available electron datas can be searched here.
Once again, not a direct link. More importantly, please point me to where this sites claims that it contains all available electron datas.

Still you are trying to quote electron radius, as if it is well known.
No, the radius itself isn't well known, but an upper limit on it is.

This is only your personal views.
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.

Anyway, what is the math for electron radius.

I am just an observer.
False. You have made judgements on certain experiments (which were peer-reviewed) to be incorrect.

I observe electron radius data is not available in the official website. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/
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.

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.
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.

The difference is in the range $$10^-3 meters$$. Still you consider it compatible.
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.

Again, what is the math used here to support experimental observation.

And this experimental observation is not mentioned in the official website https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ .
Is your existence mentioned on this website then?

How they are complementary formula?
Let me try and explain this English word to you:
Complementary in this context means counterpart. ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complement )

Say $$y_1=mx_2$$; can you write $$x_1=my_2$$.
Sure, one can write that, and the second formula would be complementary to the first one, just as in the paper.

Once again, not a direct link. More importantly, please point me to where this sites claims that it contains all available electron datas.

Its a CODATA website http://www.codata.org/about-codata .

No, the radius itself isn't well known, but an upper limit on it is.

Say the upper limit is $$r_e<10^-22$$ meters.

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.

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.[/quote]

incorrect?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfPlease 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.[/quote]

It is a codata website. I gave the link earlier. You can read it.

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.

I am not able to access the entire paper. Do you have a link for entire paper?

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.

In your case, the calculated value is greater than experimentally observed upper limit value.

You can pass on the link for entire paper, if you are having.

Is your existence mentioned on this website then?

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.

me try and explain this English word to you:
Complementary in this context means counterpart. ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complement )

Give me a mathematical explanation.

Sure, one can write that, and the second formula would be complementary to the first one, just as in the paper.

$$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e}$$ is right or $$m_pr_p=m_er_e$$ is right? Both the equations can not be right.

Please quote the line where they state that this website contains all available data.

Say the upper limit is $$r_e<10^-22$$ meters.
(I don't understand what you are saying 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.
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.

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.

incorrect?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401050.pdfPlease 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.[/quote]

It is a codata website. I gave the link earlier. You can read it.[/QUOTE]
Why do I need to read your links, if you don't read mine? I don't need to explain anything; you are the one making claims that these radii and masses can be equated. All I did was point out a peer-reviewed paper that did just that, and demonstrated that it's since been shown wrong, just as your own version of it.

I am not able to access the entire paper. Do you have a link for entire paper?
You can purchase access.

In your case, the calculated value is greater than experimentally observed upper limit value.
You are missing my point: the two upper limits are compatible.

Also, if a calculated value is excluded by experiments, then the calculated value is (obviously) wrong.

You can pass on the link for entire paper, if you are having.
Are you asking me to break the law? You can purchase access for yourself.

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.
Doesn't matter how recent it is: it's already disproven.

Give me a mathematical explanation.
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?

$$\frac{m_p}{r_p}=\frac{m_e}{r_e}$$ 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.

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.

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.

So $$r_e$$ value proposed in that paper is wrong?

So $$r_e$$ value proposed in that paper is wrong?
Well, is $$10^{-22} m$$ smaller than $$4.42\times 10^{-17} cm$$?

Well, is $$10^{-22} m$$ smaller than $$4.42\times 10^{-17} cm$$?

Answer my question in post #211.

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.

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.

But some time ago, you were claiming that they were compatible. So, your springer linked peer reviewed paper is wrong.

But some time ago, you were claiming that they were compatible.
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.

Only in the sense I mentioned.

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.

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 $$m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$$.

Last edited:
The paper you quoted in post #198 says the followings:
(Next time, please specify which paper; I provided two in that post.)

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 $$m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$$.
And did you realize that this value you are now quoting proves your calculated value of 1544 fm is utterly wrong?

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 $$m_er_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{c}= constant$$.

I am not sure, if his calculation is right. Here $$r_e \sim \frac{\hbar}{m_e ∗ c}$$ suggests it is reduced compton wavelength, whoose value is approx 386fm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength .

(Next time, please specify which paper; I provided two in that post.)