Why electrons look like points


On Jan 16, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 10:37 PM 1/15/2005, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Strong short scale warping of space is essential to explain the deep inelastic electron scattering data. You miss the boat completely ignoring warp effects in my opinion. Indeed dark energy strongly warps spacetime on a small scale (distinct from its large scale coarse grained properties.

-----------


"Hi, Jack!

I need to understand more precisely what you are referring to here.

'Way back in the early 1970s, they told me that all particle-on-electron scattering experiments were consistent with the QED model of a zero-radius electron without a need to account for other effects."

I am explaining WHY. Remember h/mc is size of the virtual electron-positron virtual photon "dressed" cloud. As soon as momentum transfer is ~ 2h/mc you get real pair creation so that you cannot tell what is what. The deep inelastic data I think has momentum transfers >> 2h/mc when the point-like structure shows up. At low energy < 1Mev/c scattering transfers the electron is a fuzzy ball of effective size 10^-11 cm - only at much higher magnification do you see it explicitly as a "point" from the effect I am describing.

"I assume this story may have been modified very slightly to say we need to account for the whole electroweak model. (By "radius" I do NOT mean where the Coulomb field exists... only the radius of the charge source. This is not the same thing as the so-called "classical radius.")."

The "classical radius" is (1/137) Compton wavelength. At low energy scattering you cannot resolve less than this Compton fog because you create real electron-positron pairs. It's only at much more powerful deep inelastic scattering transfers that you punch through and even the three quarks look like points (unified lepto-quarks).
In my model the electron is a G* ~ 10^40G from /\zpf core micro-geon of radius e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi = 10^-13 cm surrounded by virtual electron-positron screening plasma out to ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm. In deep inelastic probes by electrons of electron or hadrons via virtual spacelike photon exchange the effective size is the CIRCUMFERENCE of the micro geon at fixed physical radius e^2/mc^2 for scattering momentum transfer p

Roughly, the effective size is (1 - (8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3p/h)^1/2(e^2/mc^2)

Where the zero point exotic vacuum dark energy core of the electro-quark micro-geon of Wheeler's "Mass without mass" pure vacuum Bohm hidden variable solution is

The electron geon shrinks to a point from extreme space warping by its zero point energy core when

(1 - (8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3p/h) = 0

at p ~ h/(10^-17 cm)

This requires the exotic vacuum core parameter to be

(8pi/3)/\zpf(10^-13)^3(10^-17)^-1 = 1

/\zpf ~ (3/8pi)10^(39 - 17) cm^-2 ~ 10^23 cm^-2

i.e. roughly speaking this is the BEAUTIFUL RESULT!

/\zpf = (h/mc)^-2

which makes a lot of sense since it is the exotic vacuum virtual plasma e+e- cloud at 10^-11 cm that is CAUSING the extreme space warp! That is I DERIVE 10^-17 ~ 10^-18 cm or so from Einstein's

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

where low energy micro-geon Wheeler "Mass without mass" size is e^2/mc^2 = 1 fermi, with exotic vacuum virtual electron-positron plasma cloud out to h/mc = 10^-11 cm gives the critical scattering probe impact parameter as 10^-17 cm where the incredibly shrinking electron geon ZPF wormhole stealth cloaks itself to look like a vanishing point!


"Are you saying that more recent experiments are inconsistent with that?"

No.

"I have heard some noises about people developing "preon" models of the electron as a bound particle. I can think of good theoretical reasons to want to do that... but is there actual empirical data contradicting the zero radius model, and suggesting an actual "radius"? If so, I would very much appreciate a URL or arXiv.org reference to a really coherent review (as readable as possible) of those new experiments."

I don't read silly preon theory papers. I am only using the old SLAC data from the 70's or so.

"I have to admit I am a bit surprised. 10**13 cm would be large enough ... isn't that about what nucleons are? And weren't the scattering experiments of the 1960s plenty good enough to measure (or "see") that kind of radius?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/electron/section1/properties.asp

One curious aspect: if the upper bound on electron radius today is 10**-18, and if it all seems to follow simple linear QED rules beyond that inner core radius, then the energy in the Coulomb field outside that inner core exceeds the total mass-energy of the electron. Either the inner core has negative mass-energy, or there are additional negative terms outside the core."

The zero point energy of virtual electron-positron plasma is negative as shown by Peter Milonni in "The Quantum Vacuum". This follows from Fermi statistics - the anti-commutation rules of the Dirac theory. So it is consistently a pretty picture showing that Bohm was right and Bohr was wrong on the possibility of spacetime visualization of quantum processes. All the Peres stuff is wrong. Copenhagen is wrong.

Wheeler's old attempt to use Einstein's Vision works once the direct gravity of the dark energy is used. That was what Wheeler missed in the 1950's for obvious reasons. It took 50 years to discover dark energy - important for all scales. As Above, So Below.