View Full Version : experimental verification of electromagnetic mass
Satya Das
Aug26-04, 04:32 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\nmass?\nSince the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\ncharged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\nwhat is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
mass?
Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Aug26-04, 10:05 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nSatya Das wrote:\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n> mass?\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\nI\'m sorry, but what do you mean by "elecromagnetic mass", and how does\nits existence imply a non-zero size of all charged particles?\n\n\nBye,\nBjoern\n\n\n[Moderator\'s note: This is based either on some sort of misunderstanding or on some\noverly speculative ideas. Attempts to remove the confusion are welcome. -usc]\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Satya Das wrote:
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
> mass?
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "elecromagnetic mass", and how does
its existence imply a non-zero size of all charged particles?
Bye,
Bjoern
[Moderator's note: This is based either on some sort of misunderstanding or on some
overly speculative ideas. Attempts to remove the confusion are welcome. -usc]
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Aug27-04, 02:40 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Dear Satya Das:\n\n"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\nnews:2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de...\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\nelectromagnetic\n> mass?\n\nMass is mass. Nothing "electromagnetic" about it.\n\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\nPhoton size is inclusive of zero.\nI believe electron size is also inclusive of zero, but is at least 3 orders\nof magnitude smaller than its "classical electron radius".\nURL:http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae114.cfm\nThe proton diameter is about 10^-15 meters:\nURL:http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml\nThe neuton diameter is about 10^-15 meters:\nURL:http://zyx.org/Neutron.htm\n\nDavid A. Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Dear Satya Das:
"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
electromagnetic
> mass?
Mass is mass. Nothing "electromagnetic" about it.
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
Photon size is inclusive of zero.
I believe electron size is also inclusive of zero, but is at least 3 orders
of magnitude smaller than its "classical electron radius".
URL:http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae114.cfm
The proton diameter is about 10^-15 meters:
URL:http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml
The neuton diameter is about 10^-15 meters:
URL:http://zyx.org/Neutron.htm
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
Aug27-04, 02:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Satya Das wrote:\n>\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n> mass?\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\n1) Every electron accelerator measures electron mass, rest\nmass to deeply relativistic effective mass. Ditto color TV tubes\nto mild relativistic correction.\n\nhttp://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?me|search_for=all!\nplus references at bottom of top frame\n\n2) All leptons are point particles. They are dimensionless.\n\n3)\n<http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&All+values.x=78&All+values.y=18>\n\n4) http://pdg.lbl.gov/\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Satya Das wrote:
>
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
> mass?
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
1) Every electron accelerator measures electron mass, rest
mass to deeply relativistic effective mass. Ditto color TV tubes
to mild relativistic correction.
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?me|search_for=all!
plus references at bottom of top frame
2) All leptons are point particles. They are dimensionless.
3)
<http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&All+values.x=78&All+values.y=18>
4) http://pdg.lbl.gov/
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
J. J. Lodder
Aug27-04, 06:10 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nSatya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:\n\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n> mass?\n\nOf course not, for electromagnetic mass cannot be observed:\nit is a theoretical concept. (Lorentz)\nAll that can be observed is mass.\nIt being \'electromagnetic\' is an interpretation.\n\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\nThis question perhaps made sense in the context of classical electron\ntheory (Lorentz)\nIt has become meaningless with the invention of quantum electrodynamics.\n\nBest,\n\nJan\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Satya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
> mass?
Of course not, for electromagnetic mass cannot be observed:
it is a theoretical concept. (Lorentz)
All that can be observed is mass.
It being 'electromagnetic' is an interpretation.
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
This question perhaps made sense in the context of classical electron
theory (Lorentz)
It has become meaningless with the invention of quantum electrodynamics.
Best,
Jan
Andr? Michaud
Aug27-04, 06:10 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n>\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n> electromagnetic mass?\n\nAbsolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.\n\nWalter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the\nturn of the 20th century.\n\nSee for example\n\nUber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:\nhttp://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026\n\nOr\n\nDie magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen\nund die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen\nhttp://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-\nid=2025&hlinfo=640\n\nHe wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as\nhe corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably\nlocate in the Göttingen U. archive.\n\nYou can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\nanalyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\nhim that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\nse is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\nelectrodynamic origin.\n\nPoincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion\nin many of his writings.\n\nThe very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is\n9.10938188E-31 kg\n\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero\n> size of all charged particles,\n\nThis (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable\nor meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.\n\nWhat radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?\n\nEven if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant\nwave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt\ncyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that\nit would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.\n\n> then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what\n> is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\nIn the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally\nverified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no\npossibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.\n\nProtons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,\nbut protons are not elementary particles.\n\nWould you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?\n\nI am interested because I myself located no recent publication\nreferring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\nlack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\nthe past.\n\n--\nAndré Michaud\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
> electromagnetic mass?
Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.
Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the
turn of the 20th century.
See for example
Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:
http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026
Or
Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen
und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen
http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-
id=2025&hlinfo=640
He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as
he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably
locate in the Göttingen U. archive.
You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
electrodynamic origin.
Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion
in many of his writings.
The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is
9.10938188E-31 kg
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero
> size of all charged particles,
This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable
or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.
What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?
Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant
wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt
cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that
it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.
> then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what
> is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally
verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no
possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.
Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,
but protons are not elementary particles.
Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?
I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
the past.
--
André Michaud
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Aug28-04, 04:25 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:\n> Dear Satya Das:\n>\n> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\n> news:2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n>>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n>>electromagnetic mass?\n>\n>\n> Mass is mass. Nothing "electromagnetic" about it.\n\nPerhaps he means the self energy of the electron, which *has* an\nelectromagnetic origin.\n\n\n[snip]\n\nBye,\nBjoern\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Satya Das:
>
> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
> news:2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
>>electromagnetic mass?
>
>
> Mass is mass. Nothing "electromagnetic" about it.
Perhaps he means the self energy of the electron, which *has* an
electromagnetic origin.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
John T Lowry
Aug28-04, 04:26 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message\nnews:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\nnews:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> >\n> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n> > electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.\n>\n> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the\n> turn of the 20th century.\n>\n> See for example\n>\n> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026\n>\n> Or\n>\n> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen\n> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-\n\nid=2025&hlinfo=640\n>\n> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as\n> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably\n> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.\n>\n> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> electrodynamic origin.\n>\n> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion\n> in many of his writings.\n>\n> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is\n> 9.10938188E-31 kg\n>\n> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero\n> > size of all charged particles,\n>\n> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable\n> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.\n>\n> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?\n>\n> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant\n> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt\n> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that\n> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.\n>\n> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what\n> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n>\n> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally\n> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no\n> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.\n>\n> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,\n> but protons are not elementary particles.\n>\n> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> the past.\n>\n> --\n> André Michaud\n\nI don\'t know if it qualifies as "recent," but Dyson discusses electron\nelectromagnetic mass in Section IV of his famous paper "The Radiation\nTheories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman," Phys. Rev. 75, p. 486\n(1949). It\'s in the Dover book Selected Papers on Quantum\nElectrodynamics.\n\nJohn.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
news:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
> > electromagnetic mass?
>
> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.
>
> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the
> turn of the 20th century.
>
> See for example
>
> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:
>
http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026
>
> Or
>
> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen
> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen
>
http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-
id=2025&hlinfo=640
>
> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as
> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably
> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.
>
> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> electrodynamic origin.
>
> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion
> in many of his writings.
>
> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is
> 9.10938188E-31 kg
>
> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero
> > size of all charged particles,
>
> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable
> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.
>
> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?
>
> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant
> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt
> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that
> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.
>
> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what
> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
>
> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally
> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no
> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.
>
> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,
> but protons are not elementary particles.
>
> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?
>
> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> the past.
>
> --
> André Michaud
I don't know if it qualifies as "recent," but Dyson discusses electron
electromagnetic mass in Section IV of his famous paper "The Radiation
Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman," Phys. Rev. 75, p. 486
(1949). It's in the Dover book Selected Papers on Quantum
Electrodynamics.
John.
Satya Das
Aug28-04, 04:27 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message\nnews:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\nnews:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> >\n> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n> > electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.\n>\n> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the\n> turn of the 20th century.\n>\n> See for example\n>\n> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026\n>\n> Or\n>\n> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen\n> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-\n\nid=2025&hlinfo=640\n>\n> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as\n> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably\n> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.\n>\n> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> electrodynamic origin.\n>\n> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion\n> in many of his writings.\n>\n> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is\n> 9.10938188E-31 kg\n>\n> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero\n> > size of all charged particles,\n>\n> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable\n> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.\n>\n> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?\n>\n> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant\n> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt\n> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that\n> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.\n>\n> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what\n> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n>\n> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally\n> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no\n> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.\n>\n> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,\n> but protons are not elementary particles.\n>\n> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> the past.\n\nThe site that you mentioned is in German of which I do not know a bit. :(\nI read about electromagnetic mass in Fynmann\'s Lectures on Physics.\nIt is a wonderfull book on physics and I guess everybody who has interest in\nPhysics read this.\nIf you have not read this, then read it. I am sure you will love it.\n\n> André Michaud\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
news:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
> > electromagnetic mass?
>
> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.
>
> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the
> turn of the 20th century.
>
> See for example
>
> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:
>
http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026
>
> Or
>
> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen
> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen
>
http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-
id=2025&hlinfo=640
>
> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as
> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably
> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.
>
> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> electrodynamic origin.
>
> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion
> in many of his writings.
>
> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is
> 9.10938188E-31 kg
>
> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero
> > size of all charged particles,
>
> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable
> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.
>
> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?
>
> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant
> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt
> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that
> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.
>
> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what
> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
>
> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally
> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no
> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.
>
> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,
> but protons are not elementary particles.
>
> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?
>
> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> the past.
The site that you mentioned is in German of which I do not know a bit. :(
I read about electromagnetic mass in Fynmann's Lectures on Physics.
It is a wonderfull book on physics and I guess everybody who has interest in
Physics read this.
If you have not read this, then read it. I am sure you will love it.
> André Michaud
Andr? Michaud
Aug28-04, 04:27 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n> mass?\n> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n\nOops! I forgot the link to the Abraham paper:\n\nDynamik des Elektrons\nhttp://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52993&startpage=26&endpage=47&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=26&imageset-id=2026\n\nAndré Michaud\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
> mass?
> Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
Oops! I forgot the link to the Abraham paper:
Dynamik des Elektrons
http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52993&startpage=26&endpage=47&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=26&imageset-id=2026
André Michaud
Rob Woodside
Aug28-04, 04:28 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting.google. com>...\n>\n> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> electrodynamic origin.\n>\nAs another poster pointed out that "Mass is Mass". What did Kaufmann\nand Abraham mean by "mechanical mass" and mass "exclusively of\nelectromagnetic origin"?\n\nIn those days there was only gravity and electromagnetism and Lorentz\nhad a wonderful program to describe all matter electromagnetically. In\nthat sense all mass would be electromagnetic in origin.\n\nYou aren\'t referring to the rubric of "classical radius", where by the\nmass that the electron responds with is equated to the coulomb field\nenergy (divided by c^2) OUTSIDE the electron?\n\nRob Woodside\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting.google.com>...
>
> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> electrodynamic origin.
>
As another poster pointed out that "Mass is Mass". What did Kaufmann
and Abraham mean by "mechanical mass" and mass "exclusively of
electromagnetic origin"?
In those days there was only gravity and electromagnetism and Lorentz
had a wonderful program to describe all matter electromagnetically. In
that sense all mass would be electromagnetic in origin.
You aren't referring to the rubric of "classical radius", where by the
mass that the electron responds with is equated to the coulomb field
energy (divided by c^2) OUTSIDE the electron?
Rob Woodside
J. J. Lodder
Aug28-04, 04:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n[Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]\n\n> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\nnews:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> >\n> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n> > electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.\n>\n> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the\n> turn of the 20th century.\n>\n> See for example\n>\n> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:\n>\n<http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&star=tpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsf=ly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id==2026\n>\n>\n> Or\n>\n> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen\n> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen\n> <http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975=\n&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fc=gi %2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenu=mber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-id=2025&hlinfo=640>\n>\n> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as\n> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably\n> locate in the G=F6ttingen U. archive.\n>\n> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> electrodynamic origin.\n\nAnd you can judge what Kaufmann\'s work was worth\nfrom the fact that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula\nfor the electromagnetic mass\n(the same which we now call the relativistic masss formula)\nwas definitely in disagreement with his experimental results.\nSomebody else\'s (now forgotten by all but historians of science)\ndifferent formula agreed with Kaufmann\'s results.\nLorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,\nEinstein concluded that Kaufmann\'s experiments must be in error.\n(Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself\nto prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)\nEinstein was right in this.\n\nFor a description and analysis of the situation\nthe book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord\ncan be highly recommended.\n\n> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> the past.\n\nOf course you can\'t find anything:\nAfter Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.\nThe theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence\nof the electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,\nunrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.\nThis killed the whole subject,\nonce understanding of what Einstein had achieved\nspread in the physics community.\n\nBest,\n\nJan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
[Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]
> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
> > electromagnetic mass?
>
> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.
>
> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the
> turn of the 20th century.
>
> See for example
>
> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:
>
<http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&star=tpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsf=ly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id==2026
>
>
> Or
>
> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen
> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen
> <http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975=
&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fc=gi %2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenu=mber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-id=2025&hlinfo=640>
>
> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as
> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably
> locate in the G=F6ttingen U. archive.
>
> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> electrodynamic origin.
And you can judge what Kaufmann's work was worth
from the fact that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula
for the electromagnetic mass
(the same which we now call the relativistic masss formula)
was definitely in disagreement with his experimental results.
Somebody else's (now forgotten by all but historians of science)
different formula agreed with Kaufmann's results.
Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,
Einstein concluded that Kaufmann's experiments must be in error.
(Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself
to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)
Einstein was right in this.
For a description and analysis of the situation
the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord
can be highly recommended.
> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> the past.
Of course you can't find anything:
After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.
The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence
of the electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,
unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.
This killed the whole subject,
once understanding of what Einstein had achieved
spread in the physics community.
Best,
Jan
Satya Das
Aug28-04, 04:35 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message\nnews:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message\nnews:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> >\n> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of\n> > electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.\n>\n> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the\n> turn of the 20th century.\n>\n> See for example\n>\n> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026\n>\n> Or\n>\n> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen\n> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen\n>\nhttp://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-\n\nid=2025&hlinfo=640\n>\n> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as\n> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably\n> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.\n>\n> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> electrodynamic origin.\n>\n> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion\n> in many of his writings.\n>\n> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is\n> 9.10938188E-31 kg\n>\n> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero\n> > size of all charged particles,\n>\n> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable\n> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.\n>\n> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?\n>\n> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant\n> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt\n> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that\n> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.\n>\n> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what\n> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n>\n> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally\n> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no\n> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.\n>\n> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,\n> but protons are not elementary particles.\n>\n> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?\n>\n> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> the past.\n\nThe site that you mentioned is in German of which I do not know a bit. :(\nI read about electromagnetic mass in Fynmann\'s Lectures on Physics.\nIt is a wonderfull book on physics and I guess everybody who has interest in\nPhysics read this.\nIf you have not read this, then read it. I am sure you will love it.\n\n> André Michaud\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
news:562f286c.0408261312.4acee41e@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> "Satya Das" <srdas@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:<2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > Does any one have a result of experimental verification of
> > electromagnetic mass?
>
> Absolutely. We have had them for more than 100 years.
>
> Walter Kaufmann has exhaustively explored the subject at the
> turn of the 20th century.
>
> See for example
>
> Uber die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons:
>
http://134.76.163.65/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=53031&startpage=325&endpage=330&image-path=http://134.76.176.141/cgi-bin/letgifsfly.cgi&image-subpath=/2026&image-subpath=2026&pagenumber=325&imageset-id=2026
>
> Or
>
> Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen
> und die scheinbare Masse der Elektronen
>
http://134.76.163.65:80/servlet/digbib?template=view.html&id=52975&startpage=154&endpage=166&image-path=http%3A%2F%2F134%2E76%2E176%2E141%3A80%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fletgifsfly%2Ecgi%3Fimageset%3D%2F2025&image-subpath=2025&pagenumber=154&zoom-factor=null&imageset-
id=2025&hlinfo=640
>
> He wrote many other successive papers as he explored this subject, as
> he corrected and refined his experimental setup, that you can probably
> locate in the Göttingen U. archive.
>
> You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> electrodynamic origin.
>
> Poincaré totally agreed with them and quotes their conclusion
> in many of his writings.
>
> The very precise experimentally measured mass of electrons is
> 9.10938188E-31 kg
>
> > Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero
> > size of all charged particles,
>
> This (electrodynamic origin) does not mean that a stable measurable
> or meaningful "size" can be assigned to elementary particles.
>
> What radius would you assign to an eagle in full flight?
>
> Even if the electron physically was a localized standing EM compliant
> wave (or event) as was hypothesized by de Broglie, it would no doubt
> cyclically vary its local physical configuration in such a way that
> it would be impossible to assign a fixed radius.
>
> > then it must give the radius of charged particles. So what
> > is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
>
> In the state of our current knowledge, electrons are experimentally
> verified to behave as point-like particles with apparently no
> possibility of assigning a meaningful radius to them.
>
> Protons on the other hand have a radius in the 10E-15 meter range,
> but protons are not elementary particles.
>
> Would you tell me where you read about electromagnetic mass?
>
> I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> the past.
The site that you mentioned is in German of which I do not know a bit. :(
I read about electromagnetic mass in Fynmann's Lectures on Physics.
It is a wonderfull book on physics and I guess everybody who has interest in
Physics read this.
If you have not read this, then read it. I am sure you will love it.
> André Michaud
Andr? Michaud
Aug28-04, 11:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nnospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj6o9i.xf6dz1td1d32N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...\n> Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n> [Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]\n\n[snip]\n\n> > You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> > analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> > him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> > se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> > electrodynamic origin.\n>\n> And you can judge what Kaufmann\'s work was worth from the fact\n> that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula for the\n> electromagnetic mass (the same which we now call the\n> relativistic masss formula) was definitely in disagreement\n> with his experimental results.\n\nOf course not.\n\nKaufmann was pure experimentalist, so like most if not all\nexperimentalists, he of course trusted more his experimental\nresults than any theory that he perceived as being however\nslightly at odds with them, even if he had no alternate\nexplanation to offer.\n\nHis personal opinion is not really relevant. But his data is and\nthe direct conclusions that can be drawn from it are.\n\nIn the community at large, the real dispute was more a matter\nof interpretation as to which theory was validated by Kaufmann\'s\ndata.\n\nTo my knowledge there was a furious debate that opposed Einstein\n(and followers) to Abraham (and followers), as to which between\nthe Lorentz-Einstein theory and Abraham\'s theory was validated by\nKaufmann\'s data on electron deflection, and from what I know of\nhim, Abraham was widely disliked to start with in the community\nfor his open disrespect and impatience for theories or opinions\nhe didn\'t share, which did not help any his ideas being considered\nobjectively in the community.\n\nHeated arguments assigned various values to a factor "k" that\nKaufmann used in his equations, some of which favored Abraham\'s\nmodel, others favoring Lorentz-Einstein\'s.\n\n> Somebody else\'s (now forgotten by all but historians of science)\n> different formula agreed with Kaufmann\'s results.\n\nNot forgotten by all. It was Abraham\'s.\n\n> Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,\n> Einstein concluded that Kaufmann\'s experiments must be in error.\n\nBut referring to your first remark, how surprising is it that Einstein\nwould have held an opinion contrary to that of Kaufmann. It is a\nhistorical fact that they had contrary opinions on the matter.\n\nBut despite the fact that the bulk of physicists of the period chose\nto give more credit to the values of k that favored the Lorentz-Einstein\nmodel, and notwithstanding the debate regarding the value that should\nbe assigned to factor "k", nothing can change the fact that Kaufmann\'s\nexperimental data regarding the transverse and longitudinal masses of\nmoving electrons was considered sufficiently widely not to be completely\nexplained by Special Relativity for this to be brought as an argument\nthat was instrumental in preventing Einstein from obtaining the Nobel\nfor the SR Theory.\n\nThis is precisely what got my attention on the case and got me to start\ndigging into the transverse-longitudinal mass angle to make my own\nopinion.\n\n> (Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself\n> to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)\n> Einstein was right in this.\n\nMatter of opinion.\n\nIsn\'t completely explaining experimental results precisely what\ntheories are supposed to be about?\n\nWhat theory can be complete if it does not explain all experimental\nresults?\n\nAll through history the temptation was rampant of trying to fit data\nto theories, simply because we like the theories. But we are getting\ninto philosophies here.\n\n> For a description and analysis of the situation\n> the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord\n> can be highly recommended.\n>\n> > I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> > referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> > lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> > the past.\n>\n> Of course you can\'t find anything:\n> After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.\n\nMatter of opinion again. The direct dispute between Kaufmann and\nEinstein lasted well into the 1910\'s; interestingly right up to\nthe point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection\nangle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that\nwhich he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation\nuntil 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.\n\nI am positive that Kaufmann was directly instrumental in causing\nEinstein to finally understand the need for a deflection angle larger\nthan classical because if mass really is of electromagnetic origin,\nas his data seems to indicate, his findings on transverse-longitudinal\ninertia directly demonstrate that transverse gravitational\ninteraction can only cause a deflection angle larger than classical\nfor any electromagnetic energy, which light had been proven to be\nfor a few decades already, without any need to invoque the spacetime\ncurvature concept.\n\nI think he gave up because Einstein\'s Theories had gained so much\nmomentum in the community on mere authority on top of Abraham\'s\npersonal unpopularity that he felt powerless to counter them\nanymore.\n\n> The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence of the\n> electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,\n> unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.\n> This killed the whole subject, once understanding of what Einstein\n> had achieved spread in the physics community.\n\nYes. But when Abraham\'s theory was dumped, not only his theory\nwas abandoned. A very promising baby was also thrown out with\nthe bath\'s water: Kaufmann\'s real experimental data.\n\nInterestingly (in my humble opinion of course) my analysis led me\nto conclude that it is precisely this nick in SR that caused Einstein\nnot to be granted the Nobel, that widened into a crack that zigzagged\nunnoticed across time on the thick skin of SR and now GR right up to\nthe Pioneer 10/11 so-called "anomaly", despite widespread opinions that\nthis "anomaly" is minor and will eventually be ironed out without\ninvolving the foundations.\n\nThe Kaufmann data is real experimental data, and to this day, it\nstill has not been integrated.\n\nNo theory can be complete until it is, and at some point, it is bound\nto be.\n\nThe future will tell.\n\nAndré Michaud\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj6o9i.xf6dz1td1d32N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...
> Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> [Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]
[snip]
> > You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> > analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> > him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> > se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> > electrodynamic origin.
>
> And you can judge what Kaufmann's work was worth from the fact
> that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula for the
> electromagnetic mass (the same which we now call the
> relativistic masss formula) was definitely in disagreement
> with his experimental results.
Of course not.
Kaufmann was pure experimentalist, so like most if not all
experimentalists, he of course trusted more his experimental
results than any theory that he perceived as being however
slightly at odds with them, even if he had no alternate
explanation to offer.
His personal opinion is not really relevant. But his data is and
the direct conclusions that can be drawn from it are.
In the community at large, the real dispute was more a matter
of interpretation as to which theory was validated by Kaufmann's
data.
To my knowledge there was a furious debate that opposed Einstein
(and followers) to Abraham (and followers), as to which between
the Lorentz-Einstein theory and Abraham's theory was validated by
Kaufmann's data on electron deflection, and from what I know of
him, Abraham was widely disliked to start with in the community
for his open disrespect and impatience for theories or opinions
he didn't share, which did not help any his ideas being considered
objectively in the community.
Heated arguments assigned various values to a factor "k" that
Kaufmann used in his equations, some of which favored Abraham's
model, others favoring Lorentz-Einstein's.
> Somebody else's (now forgotten by all but historians of science)
> different formula agreed with Kaufmann's results.
Not forgotten by all. It was Abraham's.
> Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,
> Einstein concluded that Kaufmann's experiments must be in error.
But referring to your first remark, how surprising is it that Einstein
would have held an opinion contrary to that of Kaufmann. It is a
historical fact that they had contrary opinions on the matter.
But despite the fact that the bulk of physicists of the period chose
to give more credit to the values of k that favored the Lorentz-Einstein
model, and notwithstanding the debate regarding the value that should
be assigned to factor "k", nothing can change the fact that Kaufmann's
experimental data regarding the transverse and longitudinal masses of
moving electrons was considered sufficiently widely not to be completely
explained by Special Relativity for this to be brought as an argument
that was instrumental in preventing Einstein from obtaining the Nobel
for the SR Theory.
This is precisely what got my attention on the case and got me to start
digging into the transverse-longitudinal mass angle to make my own
opinion.
> (Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself
> to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)
> Einstein was right in this.
Matter of opinion.
Isn't completely explaining experimental results precisely what
theories are supposed to be about?
What theory can be complete if it does not explain all experimental
results?
All through history the temptation was rampant of trying to fit data
to theories, simply because we like the theories. But we are getting
into philosophies here.
> For a description and analysis of the situation
> the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord
> can be highly recommended.
>
> > I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> > referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> > lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> > the past.
>
> Of course you can't find anything:
> After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.
Matter of opinion again. The direct dispute between Kaufmann and
Einstein lasted well into the 1910's; interestingly right up to
the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection
angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that
which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation
until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.
I am positive that Kaufmann was directly instrumental in causing
Einstein to finally understand the need for a deflection angle larger
than classical because if mass really is of electromagnetic origin,
as his data seems to indicate, his findings on transverse-longitudinal
inertia directly demonstrate that transverse gravitational
interaction can only cause a deflection angle larger than classical
for any electromagnetic energy, which light had been proven to be
for a few decades already, without any need to invoque the spacetime
curvature concept.
I think he gave up because Einstein's Theories had gained so much
momentum in the community on mere authority on top of Abraham's
personal unpopularity that he felt powerless to counter them
anymore.
> The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence of the
> electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,
> unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.
> This killed the whole subject, once understanding of what Einstein
> had achieved spread in the physics community.
Yes. But when Abraham's theory was dumped, not only his theory
was abandoned. A very promising baby was also thrown out with
the bath's water: Kaufmann's real experimental data.
Interestingly (in my humble opinion of course) my analysis led me
to conclude that it is precisely this nick in SR that caused Einstein
not to be granted the Nobel, that widened into a crack that zigzagged
unnoticed across time on the thick skin of SR and now GR right up to
the Pioneer 10/11 so-called "anomaly", despite widespread opinions that
this "anomaly" is minor and will eventually be ironed out without
involving the foundations.
The Kaufmann data is real experimental data, and to this day, it
still has not been integrated.
No theory can be complete until it is, and at some point, it is bound
to be.
The future will tell.
André Michaud
Gregory L. Hansen
Aug29-04, 01:38 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Satya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:\n>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n>mass?\n>Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n>charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n>what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n>\n\nI forget the numbers, but I remember the conclusion. The classical radius\nof the electron the electron was calculated by finding the self-energy of\na spherical distribution of charge, and setting the radius so that the\npotenial energy E=m/c^2. And experimentally, that\'s too big. The\nelectron looks like a point particle. The proton has a finite size, but\nit\'s composed of point particles.\n\n--\n"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to\nfurnish a nominative case to the verb \'to undulate\'."\n-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Satya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:
>Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
>mass?
>Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
>charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
>what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
>
I forget the numbers, but I remember the conclusion. The classical radius
of the electron the electron was calculated by finding the self-energy of
a spherical distribution of charge, and setting the radius so that the
potenial energy E=m/c^2. And experimentally, that's too big. The
electron looks like a point particle. The proton has a finite size, but
it's composed of point particles.
--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
Van Jacques
Aug29-04, 12:55 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter\'s magnetosphere to set\nan upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of this\nfrom long ago (30+ years).\n\nVan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter's magnetosphere to set
an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of this
from long ago (30+ years).
Van
J. J. Lodder
Aug30-04, 03:57 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nVan Jacques <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote:\n\n> Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter\'s magnetosphere to set\n> an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of this\n> from long ago (30+ years).\n\nThe photon mass sets the range of the electomagnetic field.\nIt seems unlikely that Jupiter\'s magnetic field\ncan set a more stringent range limit\nthan the solar magnetic field arriving near the earth.\n\nOn the other hand there are periodic astronomical structures\nin some nebula which seem to be MHD waves.\n-If- this interpretation is correct\nthis sets the most stringent limit of all:\nOrder (10^6 lightyears)^-1\n\nIf the limit gets to be much lower,\nOrder (10^{10} lightyears)^-1\nthe inverse photon mass\nwill no longer fit in our universe.\n\nOnly 4 decades to go,\n\nJan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Van Jacques <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter's magnetosphere to set
> an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of this
> from long ago (30+ years).
The photon mass sets the range of the electomagnetic field.
It seems unlikely that Jupiter's magnetic field
can set a more stringent range limit
than the solar magnetic field arriving near the earth.
On the other hand there are periodic astronomical structures
in some nebula which seem to be MHD waves.
-If- this interpretation is correct
this sets the most stringent limit of all:
Order (10^6 lightyears)^-1
If the limit gets to be much lower,
Order (10^{10} lightyears)^-1
the inverse photon mass
will no longer fit in our universe.
Only 4 decades to go,
Jan
Franz Heymann
Aug30-04, 03:57 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Van Jacques" <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:cgsemv\\$bmt@odah37.prod.google.com. ..\n> Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter\'s magnetosphere to set\n> an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of\nthis\n> from long ago (30+ years).\n\nChibisov SPU 19 624\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Van Jacques" <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cgsemv$bmt@odah37.prod.google.com...
> Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter's magnetosphere to set
> an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of
this
> from long ago (30+ years).
Chibisov SPU 19 624
Van Jacques
Aug30-04, 07:54 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nFranz Heymann wrote:\n> "Van Jacques" <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:cgsemv\\$bmt@odah37.prod.google.com...\n> > Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter\'s magnetosphere to set\n> > an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of\n> this\n> > from long ago (30+ years).\n>\n> Chibisov SPU 19 624\n\nI found a paper on the subject.\n\narXiv:hep-ph/9304250 v1 13 Apr 93\n\n"Bounding the Photon Mass with Solar Probes"\nTalks about using Jupiter to set an upper bound.\n\nVan\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Franz Heymann wrote:
> "Van Jacques" <calccurve-test23@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cgsemv$bmt@odah37.prod.google.com...
> > Does anyone recall papers on using Jupiter's magnetosphere to set
> > an upper limit on the photon mass? I have a vague recollection of
> this
> > from long ago (30+ years).
>
> Chibisov SPU 19 624
I found a paper on the subject.
arXiv:http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9304250 v1 13 Apr 93
"Bounding the Photon Mass with Solar Probes"
Talks about using Jupiter to set an upper bound.
Van
J. J. Lodder
Aug30-04, 02:24 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n[newsgroups header trimmed]\n\n> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj6o9i.xf6dz1td\n1d32N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...\n> > Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n> > [Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]\n>\n> [snip]\n>\n> > > You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who\n> > > analyzed and integrated Kaufmann\'s work and concluded with\n> > > him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per\n> > > se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of\n> > > electrodynamic origin.\n> >\n> > And you can judge what Kaufmann\'s work was worth from the fact\n> > that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula for the\n> > electromagnetic mass (the same which we now call the\n> > relativistic masss formula) was definitely in disagreement\n> > with his experimental results.\n>\n> Of course not.\n>\n> Kaufmann was pure experimentalist, so like most if not all\n> experimentalists, he of course trusted more his experimental\n> results than any theory that he perceived as being however\n> slightly at odds with them, even if he had no alternate\n> explanation to offer.\n\nPure experimentalists (or theoreticians) didn\'t exist at the time.\nAnd Kaufmann\'s measurements depended on a lot of theory\nfor their interpretation.\n"Kaufmann was not only an excellent experimenter,\nbut also an able theorist." (Helge Kragh)\n\n> His personal opinion is not really relevant. But his data is and\n> the direct conclusions that can be drawn from it are.\n\nSure, he falsified the theory of relativity.\nOnly fools like Einstein refused to accept after Kaufmann\'s verdict\nthat the theory of relativity was dead.\nExcept that real physics doesn\'t work that way.\n\n> In the community at large, the real dispute was more a matter\n> of interpretation as to which theory was validated by Kaufmann\'s\n> data.\n\nKaufmann left no room for that.\nHe stated clearly that the Lorentz-Einstein formula\n(and hence the theory of relativity)\nwas not compatible with his data.\n\n> To my knowledge there was a furious debate that opposed Einstein\n> (and followers) to Abraham (and followers), as to which between\n> the Lorentz-Einstein theory and Abraham\'s theory was validated by\n> Kaufmann\'s data on electron deflection, and from what I know of\n> him, Abraham was widely disliked to start with in the community\n> for his open disrespect and impatience for theories or opinions\n> he didn\'t share, which did not help any his ideas being considered\n> objectively in the community.\n\nAnd Einstein was competent enough about experiments and their\ninterpretation (pure theoreticians didn\'t exist at the time)\nto see that Kaufmann\'s experiments were too uncertain\nto justify K\'s sweeping conclusion.\n\n> Heated arguments assigned various values to a factor "k" that\n> Kaufmann used in his equations, some of which favored Abraham\'s\n> model, others favoring Lorentz-Einstein\'s.\n>\n> > Somebody else\'s (now forgotten by all but historians of science)\n> > different formula agreed with Kaufmann\'s results.\n>\n> Not forgotten by all. It was Abraham\'s.\n\nAnd Bucherer-Langevin\'s.\nThey had a constant-volume electron, Lorentz-contracted in the direction\nof motion, and expanded to compensate in the perpendicular direction.\nIronically, it was the same Bucherer, by refining Kaufmann\'s work,\nwho (somewhat later) falsified his own theory. (and Abraham\'s),\nwhile confirming Lorentz-Einstein.\n\n> > Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,\n> > Einstein concluded that Kaufmann\'s experiments must be in error.\n>\n> But referring to your first remark, how surprising is it that Einstein\n> would have held an opinion contrary to that of Kaufmann. It is a\n> historical fact that they had contrary opinions on the matter.\n\nIf you insist on irrelevant ad-hominem: (please don\'t reply)\nhow surprising do you consider it that Kaufmann\nwould support his personal friend and direct collegue Abraham?\n(both Goettingen)\n\n> But despite the fact that the bulk of physicists of the period chose\n> to give more credit to the values of k that favored the Lorentz-Einstein\n> model, and notwithstanding the debate regarding the value that should\n> be assigned to factor "k", nothing can change the fact that Kaufmann\'s\n> experimental data regarding the transverse and longitudinal masses of\n> moving electrons was considered sufficiently widely not to be completely\n> explained by Special Relativity for this to be brought as an argument\n> that was instrumental in preventing Einstein from obtaining the Nobel\n> for the SR Theory.\n\nIn 1906, at the Stutgartt meeting, the majority still favoured\nAbraham/Kaufmann over Lorentz/Einstein.\n(Planck saved the day by stalling,\nclaiming that more experiments were needed.)\nYour suggestion that the issue was settled by a majority vote\non basis of (im)popularity instead of experimental data is simply false.\n\n> This is precisely what got my attention on the case and got me to start\n> digging into the transverse-longitudinal mass angle to make my own\n> opinion.\n>\n> > (Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself\n> > to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)\n> > Einstein was right in this.\n>\n> Matter of opinion.\n>\n> Isn\'t completely explaining experimental results precisely what\n> theories are supposed to be about?\n\nNot in my book. Showing which experiments must be wrong\nas also what theories are about.\n\n> What theory can be complete if it does not explain all experimental\n> results?\n\nNo theory will ever explain incorrect experimental results.\n\n> All through history the temptation was rampant of trying to fit data\n> to theories, simply because we like the theories. But we are getting\n> into philosophies here.\n\nSure, the wrong philosophies even.\nBut indeed, let\'s stop about philosophy.\n\n> > For a description and analysis of the situation\n> > the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord\n> > can be highly recommended.\n> >\n> > > I am interested because I myself located no recent publication\n> > > referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for\n> > > lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of\n> > > the past.\n> >\n> > Of course you can\'t find anything:\n> > After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.\n>\n> Matter of opinion again. The direct dispute between Kaufmann and\n> Einstein lasted well into the 1910\'s; interestingly right up to\n> the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection\n> angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that\n> which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation\n> until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.\n\nThe general theory has nothing to do with this issue.\n\n> I am positive that Kaufmann was directly instrumental in causing\n> Einstein to finally understand the need for a deflection angle larger\n> than classical because if mass really is of electromagnetic origin,\n> as his data seems to indicate, his findings on transverse-longitudinal\n> inertia directly demonstrate that transverse gravitational\n> interaction can only cause a deflection angle larger than classical\n> for any electromagnetic energy, which light had been proven to be\n> for a few decades already, without any need to invoque the spacetime\n> curvature concept.\n\nUnderstanding isn\'t involved: once given the right theory\nthere is nothing but computation.\n\n> I think he gave up because Einstein\'s Theories had gained so much\n> momentum in the community on mere authority on top of Abraham\'s\n> personal unpopularity that he felt powerless to counter them\n> anymore.\n\nOr more simply: he may have understood he was wrong.\n\n> > The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence of the\n> > electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,\n> > unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.\n> > This killed the whole subject, once understanding of what Einstein\n> > had achieved spread in the physics community.\n>\n> Yes. But when Abraham\'s theory was dumped, not only his theory\n> was abandoned. A very promising baby was also thrown out with\n> the bath\'s water: Kaufmann\'s real experimental data.\n\nThe data were real, but in error, like Miller\'s a generation later.\nIf you insist on retaining all erroneuos experimental results\nno progress in physics is possible.\n\n> Interestingly (in my humble opinion of course) my analysis led me\n> to conclude that it is precisely this nick in SR that caused Einstein\n> not to be granted the Nobel, that widened into a crack that zigzagged\n> unnoticed across time on the thick skin of SR and now GR right up to\n> the Pioneer 10/11 so-called "anomaly", despite widespread opinions that\n> this "anomaly" is minor and will eventually be ironed out without\n> involving the foundations.\n\nEinstein was given the Nobel for the wrong subject because the Nobel\ncomittee (to its disgrace) was too afraid of nationalistic noises from\nGermany. (from what eventually became the \'Aryan Physics movement)\nThey chose a \'safe\' subject to award the prize to Einstein instead.\nIn consequence there has never been a Nobel prize\nfor the greatest developments in physics (neither the special, nor the\ngeneral theory) since the prize was established.\n\n> The Kaufmann data is real experimental data, and to this day, it\n> still has not been integrated.\n\nOf course it has been integrated: he was in error.\n\n> No theory can be complete until it is, and at some point, it is bound\n> to be.\n>\n> The future will tell.\n\nThere is no future, for Kaufmann, or more generally,\nfor particle structure from mass/velocity data,\n\nJan\n\n--\n"No experimental result should be believed\nuntill it has been confirmed by a reliable theory." (Eddington)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
[newsgroups header trimmed]
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj6o9i.xf6dz1td
1d32N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...
> > Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> > [Followup-To: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.research]
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You can also have a look at this paper from Max Abraham who
> > > analyzed and integrated Kaufmann's work and concluded with
> > > him that his experiments established that mechanical mass per
> > > se is null and that the mass of electrons is exclusively of
> > > electrodynamic origin.
> >
> > And you can judge what Kaufmann's work was worth from the fact
> > that he concluded that the Lorentz-Einstein formula for the
> > electromagnetic mass (the same which we now call the
> > relativistic masss formula) was definitely in disagreement
> > with his experimental results.
>
> Of course not.
>
> Kaufmann was pure experimentalist, so like most if not all
> experimentalists, he of course trusted more his experimental
> results than any theory that he perceived as being however
> slightly at odds with them, even if he had no alternate
> explanation to offer.
Pure experimentalists (or theoreticians) didn't exist at the time.
And Kaufmann's measurements depended on a lot of theory
for their interpretation.
"Kaufmann was not only an excellent experimenter,
but also an able theorist." (Helge Kragh)
> His personal opinion is not really relevant. But his data is and
> the direct conclusions that can be drawn from it are.
Sure, he falsified the theory of relativity.
Only fools like Einstein refused to accept after Kaufmann's verdict
that the theory of relativity was dead.
Except that real physics doesn't work that way.
> In the community at large, the real dispute was more a matter
> of interpretation as to which theory was validated by Kaufmann's
> data.
Kaufmann left no room for that.
He stated clearly that the Lorentz-Einstein formula
(and hence the theory of relativity)
was not compatible with his data.
> To my knowledge there was a furious debate that opposed Einstein
> (and followers) to Abraham (and followers), as to which between
> the Lorentz-Einstein theory and Abraham's theory was validated by
> Kaufmann's data on electron deflection, and from what I know of
> him, Abraham was widely disliked to start with in the community
> for his open disrespect and impatience for theories or opinions
> he didn't share, which did not help any his ideas being considered
> objectively in the community.
And Einstein was competent enough about experiments and their
interpretation (pure theoreticians didn't exist at the time)
to see that Kaufmann's experiments were too uncertain
to justify K's sweeping conclusion.
> Heated arguments assigned various values to a factor "k" that
> Kaufmann used in his equations, some of which favored Abraham's
> model, others favoring Lorentz-Einstein's.
>
> > Somebody else's (now forgotten by all but historians of science)
> > different formula agreed with Kaufmann's results.
>
> Not forgotten by all. It was Abraham's.
And Bucherer-Langevin's.
They had a constant-volume electron, Lorentz-contracted in the direction
of motion, and expanded to compensate in the perpendicular direction.
Ironically, it was the same Bucherer, by refining Kaufmann's work,
who (somewhat later) falsified his own theory. (and Abraham's),
while confirming Lorentz-Einstein.
> > Lorentz was shattered by this (for him and Einstein) disastrous outcome,
> > Einstein concluded that Kaufmann's experiments must be in error.
>
> But referring to your first remark, how surprising is it that Einstein
> would have held an opinion contrary to that of Kaufmann. It is a
> historical fact that they had contrary opinions on the matter.
If you insist on irrelevant ad-hominem: (please don't reply)
how surprising do you consider it that Kaufmann
would support his personal friend and direct collegue Abraham?
(both Goettingen)
> But despite the fact that the bulk of physicists of the period chose
> to give more credit to the values of k that favored the Lorentz-Einstein
> model, and notwithstanding the debate regarding the value that should
> be assigned to factor "k", nothing can change the fact that Kaufmann's
> experimental data regarding the transverse and longitudinal masses of
> moving electrons was considered sufficiently widely not to be completely
> explained by Special Relativity for this to be brought as an argument
> that was instrumental in preventing Einstein from obtaining the Nobel
> for the SR Theory.
In 1906, at the Stutgartt meeting, the majority still favoured
Abraham/Kaufmann over Lorentz/Einstein.
(Planck saved the day by stalling,
claiming that more experiments were needed.)
Your suggestion that the issue was settled by a majority vote
on basis of (im)popularity instead of experimental data is simply false.
> This is precisely what got my attention on the case and got me to start
> digging into the transverse-longitudinal mass angle to make my own
> opinion.
>
> > (Mere experimental result cannot be a sufficient reason by itself
> > to prefer inferior theories to inherently better ones)
> > Einstein was right in this.
>
> Matter of opinion.
>
> Isn't completely explaining experimental results precisely what
> theories are supposed to be about?
Not in my book. Showing which experiments must be wrong
as also what theories are about.
> What theory can be complete if it does not explain all experimental
> results?
No theory will ever explain incorrect experimental results.
> All through history the temptation was rampant of trying to fit data
> to theories, simply because we like the theories. But we are getting
> into philosophies here.
Sure, the wrong philosophies even.
But indeed, let's stop about philosophy.
> > For a description and analysis of the situation
> > the book: Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord
> > can be highly recommended.
> >
> > > I am interested because I myself located no recent publication
> > > referring to the subject. Fallen in to momentary oblivion for
> > > lack of referencing, like so many other valuable research of
> > > the past.
> >
> > Of course you can't find anything:
> > After Einstein 1905 it was clear that it was all nonsense.
>
> Matter of opinion again. The direct dispute between Kaufmann and
> Einstein lasted well into the 1910's; interestingly right up to
> the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection
> angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that
> which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation
> until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.
The general theory has nothing to do with this issue.
> I am positive that Kaufmann was directly instrumental in causing
> Einstein to finally understand the need for a deflection angle larger
> than classical because if mass really is of electromagnetic origin,
> as his data seems to indicate, his findings on transverse-longitudinal
> inertia directly demonstrate that transverse gravitational
> interaction can only cause a deflection angle larger than classical
> for any electromagnetic energy, which light had been proven to be
> for a few decades already, without any need to invoque the spacetime
> curvature concept.
Understanding isn't involved: once given the right theory
there is nothing but computation.
> I think he gave up because Einstein's Theories had gained so much
> momentum in the community on mere authority on top of Abraham's
> personal unpopularity that he felt powerless to counter them
> anymore.
Or more simply: he may have understood he was wrong.
> > The theory of relativity shows that all mass dependence of the
> > electron (or any other particle) is a purely kinematic effect,
> > unrelated to any internal structure of the electron at all.
> > This killed the whole subject, once understanding of what Einstein
> > had achieved spread in the physics community.
>
> Yes. But when Abraham's theory was dumped, not only his theory
> was abandoned. A very promising baby was also thrown out with
> the bath's water: Kaufmann's real experimental data.
The data were real, but in error, like Miller's a generation later.
If you insist on retaining all erroneuos experimental results
no progress in physics is possible.
> Interestingly (in my humble opinion of course) my analysis led me
> to conclude that it is precisely this nick in SR that caused Einstein
> not to be granted the Nobel, that widened into a crack that zigzagged
> unnoticed across time on the thick skin of SR and now GR right up to
> the Pioneer 10/11 so-called "anomaly", despite widespread opinions that
> this "anomaly" is minor and will eventually be ironed out without
> involving the foundations.
Einstein was given the Nobel for the wrong subject because the Nobel
comittee (to its disgrace) was too afraid of nationalistic noises from
Germany. (from what eventually became the 'Aryan Physics movement)
They chose a 'safe' subject to award the prize to Einstein instead.
In consequence there has never been a Nobel prize
for the greatest developments in physics (neither the special, nor the
general theory) since the prize was established.
> The Kaufmann data is real experimental data, and to this day, it
> still has not been integrated.
Of course it has been integrated: he was in error.
> No theory can be complete until it is, and at some point, it is bound
> to be.
>
> The future will tell.
There is no future, for Kaufmann, or more generally,
for particle structure from mass/velocity data,
Jan
--
"No experimental result should be believed
untill it has been confirmed by a reliable theory." (Eddington)
Andr? Michaud
Sep1-04, 03:23 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj8yz8.yji16cbau2ypN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...\n> Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n> [newsgroups header trimmed]\n\n[snip]\n\n> > interestingly right up to\n> > the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection\n> > angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that\n> > which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation\n> > until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.\n>\n> The general theory has nothing to do with this issue.\n\nI suggest you recheck how the double angle is dealt with in GR.\n\nAs for all the other points, total disagreement also.\n\nAs I said, the future will tell.\n\nAndré Michaud\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in message news:<1gj8yz8.yji16cbau2ypN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>...
> Andr? Michaud <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> [newsgroups header trimmed]
[snip]
> > interestingly right up to
> > the point when Einstein finally calculated correctly the deflection
> > angle of light by the Sun from his GR theory as being double that
> > which he had assumed and calculated from classical gravitation
> > until 1914, at which point Kaufmann gave up.
>
> The general theory has nothing to do with this issue.
I suggest you recheck how the double angle is dealt with in GR.
As for all the other points, total disagreement also.
As I said, the future will tell.
André Michaud
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<cgprbp\\$rnl\\$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...\n > In article <2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Satya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:\n> >Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic\n> >mass?\n> >Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all\n> >charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So\n> >what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?\n> >\n>\n> I forget the numbers, but I remember the conclusion. The classical radius\n> of the electron the electron was calculated by finding the self-energy of\n> a spherical distribution of charge, and setting the radius so that the\n> potenial energy E=m/c^2. And experimentally, that\'s too big. The\n> electron looks like a point particle. The proton has a finite size, but\n> it\'s composed of point particles.\n\nHere\'s a link that has basics of subatomic particles:\nhttp://hyperphysics.phys-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html#c1\n\nWhat bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the\nflow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the\npositive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it\ndoesn\'t seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons\ntravel thru the wire. It\'s like light-\nlight is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy\nwave/particle\nwhich has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because\nelectricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as\nlight, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and\nelectricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.\nSo therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or\nfundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative\ncharge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a\n"photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<cgprbp$rnl$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
> In article <2p2t7kFg5h1kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Satya Das <srdas@adobe.com> wrote:
> >Does any one have a result of experimental verification of electromagnetic
> >mass?
> >Since the existence of electromagnetic mass means a non-zero size of all
> >charged particles, then it must give the radius of charged particles. So
> >what is the size of electron, proton, and other particles?
> >
>
> I forget the numbers, but I remember the conclusion. The classical radius
> of the electron the electron was calculated by finding the self-energy of
> a spherical distribution of charge, and setting the radius so that the
> potenial energy E=m/c^2. And experimentally, that's too big. The
> electron looks like a point particle. The proton has a finite size, but
> it's composed of point particles.
Here's a link that has basics of subatomic particles:
http://hyperphysics.phys-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html#c1
What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the
flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the
positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it
doesn't seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons
travel thru the wire. It's like light-
light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy
wave/particle
which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because
electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as
light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and
electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.
So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or
fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative
charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a
"photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.
tadchem
Sep13-04, 03:16 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Guck" <marcus4767@canada.com> wrote in message\nnews:e97cd51a.0409111417.594510f6@posting .google.com...\n\n<snip>\n\n> What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the\n> flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the\n> positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it\n> doesn\'t seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons\n> travel thru the wire.\n\nBut they do. If electronics courses still taught vacuum tube operation,\nthat would be a more obvious fact. The fact that electrons *physically*\ntravel down the wire was demonstrated by Hittorf:\nhttp://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CathodeRay.html\nusing a variation of the Cathode Ray Tube:\nhttp://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CathodeRayTube.html\n\n> It\'s like light-\n> light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy\n> wave/particle\n> which has no mass ,\n\nRemember this: PHOTONS HAVE NO MASS. PHOTONS HAVE NO CHARGE. PHOTONS MOVE\nAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.\n\n> so it must be the same with electricity, because\n> electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as\n> light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and\n> electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.\n\nELECTRONS HAVE MASS. ELECTRONS HAVE CHARGE. ELECTRONS MOVE SLOWER THAN\nPHOTONS.\n\nPhotons and electrons are NOT the same.\n\n> So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or\n> fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative\n> charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a\n> "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.\n\nELECTRONS CANNOT "DISSOCIATE."\n\nIn a wire, the electrical *energy* is carried by the *motion* of electrons\nthrough the wire in much the same manner as sound *energy* is carried by the\n*motion* of atoms and molecules in a material medium - the energy travels\nMUCH faster than the component carriers.\n\nEach carrier (atom, molecule, or electron, as the case may be) moves at its\nown velocity (which is a function of the temperature!) until it bumps into\nanother and transfers its momentum to the next at a much higher speed.\nBecause of the difference in the positions of the centers of the two\ncarriers (they are not infinitesimally small) this means the momentum gets a\nboost of one particle diameter every time there is a collision .\n\nIn 8th grade science class we set up three lines of dominoes side-by-side:\nthey were all the same length - about 5 meters. The first line was set up\n"normally" with a spacing of about 2 domino thicknesses between each pair,\nand represented the open spacing of a "gas." The second line was set up\nwith a spacing of one domino thickness, and represented the closer spacing\nof a solid or liquid. The third line was set up with the dominos touching\neach other, and represented the close packing of the unbound ("valence")\nelectrons in a solid crystal of a metal. (Yes, they understood about bound\nand unbound electrons in metals back then.)\n\nAll three were started at the same time in the same way - one domino\nstanding a domino\'s-width away from the end of the line was tipper over onto\nthe first domino in line. The first domino line took about 3 seconds to\nfall (according to the "official timer" - a student with a stopwatch). The\nsecond string fell so fast that the timing was not very reliable, but all\nobservers agreed that it was a lot faster than the first. The third string\nfell so fast that the timer couldn\'t even get the stopwatch started before\nit was over.\n\n\nTom Davidson\nRichmond, VA\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Guck" <marcus4767@canada.com> wrote in message
news:e97cd51a.0409111417.594510f6@posting.google.c om...
<snip>
> What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the
> flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the
> positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it
> doesn't seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons
> travel thru the wire.
But they do. If electronics courses still taught vacuum tube operation,
that would be a more obvious fact. The fact that electrons *physically*
travel down the wire was demonstrated by Hittorf:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CathodeRay.html
using a variation of the Cathode Ray Tube:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CathodeRayTube.html
> It's like light-
> light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy
> wave/particle
> which has no mass ,
Remember this: PHOTONS HAVE NO MASS. PHOTONS HAVE NO CHARGE. PHOTONS MOVE
AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
> so it must be the same with electricity, because
> electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as
> light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and
> electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.
ELECTRONS HAVE MASS. ELECTRONS HAVE CHARGE. ELECTRONS MOVE SLOWER THAN
PHOTONS.
Photons and electrons are NOT the same.
> So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or
> fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative
> charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a
> "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.
ELECTRONS CANNOT "DISSOCIATE."
In a wire, the electrical *energy* is carried by the *motion* of electrons
through the wire in much the same manner as sound *energy* is carried by the
*motion* of atoms and molecules in a material medium - the energy travels
MUCH faster than the component carriers.
Each carrier (atom, molecule, or electron, as the case may be) moves at its
own velocity (which is a function of the temperature!) until it bumps into
another and transfers its momentum to the next at a much higher speed.
Because of the difference in the positions of the centers of the two
carriers (they are not infinitesimally small) this means the momentum gets a
boost of one particle diameter every time there is a collision .
In 8th grade science class we set up three lines of dominoes side-by-side:
they were all the same length - about 5 meters. The first line was set up
"normally" with a spacing of about 2 domino thicknesses between each pair,
and represented the open spacing of a "gas." The second line was set up
with a spacing of one domino thickness, and represented the closer spacing
of a solid or liquid. The third line was set up with the dominos touching
each other, and represented the close packing of the unbound ("valence")
electrons in a solid crystal of a metal. (Yes, they understood about bound
and unbound electrons in metals back then.)
All three were started at the same time in the same way - one domino
standing a domino's-width away from the end of the line was tipper over onto
the first domino in line. The first domino line took about 3 seconds to
fall (according to the "official timer" - a student with a stopwatch). The
second string fell so fast that the timing was not very reliable, but all
observers agreed that it was a lot faster than the first. The third string
fell so fast that the timer couldn't even get the stopwatch started before
it was over.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Cecil Moore
Sep13-04, 03:17 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Guck wrote:\n> What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the\n> flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the\n> positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it\n> doesn\'t seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons\n> travel thru the wire. It\'s like light-\n> light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy\n> wave/particle\n> which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because\n> electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as\n> light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and\n> electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.\n> So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or\n> fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative\n> charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a\n> "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.\n\nThe charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly\nin the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles\nemitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.\nA cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).\n\nConsider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.\n--\ncheers, Cecil\n\n\n-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----\nhttp://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!\n-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Guck wrote:
> What bothers me is that old-fashioned idea of electricity being the
> flow of electrons thru a wire from a negative terminal of EMF to the
> positive terminal. Obviously electricity is a flow of energy, it
> doesn't seem realisitic to imagine that actual physical electrons
> travel thru the wire. It's like light-
> light is carried by photons, light is carried by an energy
> wave/particle
> which has no mass , so it must be the same with electricity, because
> electricity is supposed to be the same wave/particle composition as
> light, simply at a different frequency or wavelength. Light and
> electricty are both the same- they are both radiation energies.
> So therefore electrons should not be considered as leptons or
> fundamental particles because in electricity flow, the negative
> charge component of the electron must be able to disassociate into a
> "photon" type energy component which is what travels through the wire.
The charge carriers are the free electrons traveling relatively slowly
in the surface area of the wire. The RF photons are the wave-particles
emitted by accelerated electrons and travel at the speed of light.
A cloud of photons make up the RF EM fields surrounding the wire(s).
Consider the energy in an ocean wave Vs the water molecule carriers.
--
cheers, Cecil
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.