It is better, not to daydream but from my equations, this correlation can be observed.
Inertia and Relativity
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
It is better, not to daydream but from my equations, this correlation can be observed.
See, our earth is spinning on its axis. This angular speed can be increased. But this angular speed has a limit. This limit,(like speed limit c) can be considered as $$w_c $$
Through math all hidden truth or invisible truth can be known.
The electron has a mass, what's the radius? What about an electron in a hydrogen atom (i.e. bound to a proton)? Does it have a moment of inertia?hansda said:
Or is the moment of inertia restricted to classical rigid objects with a known geometry? (I think so)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And I'm saying, seriously, if you have managed to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, you have accomplished what the entire scientific community has been unable to accomplish in a half century.
Sci-fo is peanuts. Take your work to a university. They will shower accolades upon you and introduce you to Hawking. Why are you wasting your time here?
Electron do have a radius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
Every massive, spinning particle should have a moment of Inertia.
Conservation of angular momentum is also true for quantum particles. It is universal. http://www.idc-online.com/technical...eering/Quantum_Mechanics_Angular_Momentum.pdf
Last edited:
Thanks for your suggestions.
In which case, every massive spinning particle should have a geometry.hansda said:
But "should have" and "does have" aren't the same thing.
What experimental evidence is there for electron geometry?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Did you read that before posting?
"The classical electron radius is a combination of fundamental physical quantities that define a length scale for problems involving electrons interacting with electromagnetic radiation. According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent. Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle are considered ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic."
i.e. its charge can be used to produce a usable radius when interacting electromagnetically, but the electron is a point particle.
Here's a question: if the electron has a fixed radius but is also rotating, it must be that it has a fixed axis of rotation.
Then why is the electric field of an electron not rotating about a fixed axis, since if it were, a collection of lots of electrons, say in a metal plate, would not have a definite electric field perpendicular to the plate--the field lines would point in all directions and also rotate in space. Why isn't that observed? IOW, why does a charged plate have the field lines all aligned in the same direction if all the electrons are rotating about an axis?
P.S. I note the first link you have in the previous post is from alternativephysics.org, there the author repeats the mistake of equating $$ mc^2 $$ and $$ hf $$, with no explanation.
Another question: if the electron does have a radius and is like a small sphere, why does it also have a wavelength?
Then why is the electric field of an electron not rotating about a fixed axis, since if it were, a collection of lots of electrons, say in a metal plate, would not have a definite electric field perpendicular to the plate--the field lines would point in all directions and also rotate in space. Why isn't that observed? IOW, why does a charged plate have the field lines all aligned in the same direction if all the electrons are rotating about an axis?
P.S. I note the first link you have in the previous post is from alternativephysics.org, there the author repeats the mistake of equating $$ mc^2 $$ and $$ hf $$, with no explanation.
Another question: if the electron does have a radius and is like a small sphere, why does it also have a wavelength?
Last edited:
Detail structure of an electron is not yet known. In my understanding, it must be hollow at the center, because spinning electron has a magnetic moment. Do you think, the Sun is static or spinning. Electrical field of electrons are spherical like the Sun.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is known.
They have no internal structure, no extra or hidden properties. They can't, or they would not behave as observed.
These are your own views or you have a supporting source for your views. Anyway, what you think about electron radius. It has a zero radius or non-zero radius?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is part of The Standard Model of Particle Physics. So, essentially, my source is the scientific community.
Does the Standard Model say electron has zero radius?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Don't you think - considering the prolificity of your ideas on physics - that's something you should already know? (There's a teachable moment here.)
Electron has a non zero mass. If it is having zero radius; that means it will have a zero volume. In that case, it would have been a case of singularity.
One way to overcome that is to consider the mass of the electron as being "somewhere" in a wavepacket. Which is to say, electrons (their charge, mass and spin) have the same probability of being anywhere within a localised region Δx, which defines the boundaries of wavepackets.hansda said:
The boundaries depend on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, of course (although that wasn't well understood at first).
Your $$\Delta x $$ symbolises non-zero space. This implies that electron has a non-zero radius.
Further, if you consider my equation of mass at post #14; it can be observed that as mass increases, its radius decreases. It can be checked that radius of electron is more than radius of proton.
Last edited:
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Source please.