Does an electron have a makeup

[samalkhaiat]

At what point do you consider an electron interacting with photons to not be "free particles".

At NO point. Since it is interacting. Therefore it is NOT FREE.
Free electron is a solution of the free Dirac's equation (with zero on the right hand side)

Note that I put the word "free" in quotes in the statement that you are responding.

Why do you call it "free". Is "Free" for experimental physicists means "not free" for theoretical physicists?

Would you consider an RF radiation of 1.3 GHz to be a "EM field" while UV radiation of 5 eV to be "photons"? If that's the case, then would you like to google on laser accelerators, because I can tell you that the basic physics of this, and RF accelerating structure is almost identical.

EM-Field, when quantized, is equivalen to photon field. Your numbers does not change this fact.

The accelerating charges also radiate,

The accelerated charge is an interacting charge. Yes it does radiate.This is a classical fact proved by Maxwell's.


Without offering any reason, You said that the atomic electrons do not absorb photons.
I (like few thausands of physicits) say they do and I gave you my reasons in my last post.

So tell us, when you excite an atom by shining light on it, What are your reasons for saying that the atomic electrons do not absorb the incident photon?

regards

sam

 

[ZapperZ]

Without offering any reason, You said that the atomic electrons do not absorb photons.
I (like few thausands of physicits) say they do and I gave you my reasons in my last post.

So tell us, when you excite an atom by shining light on it, What are your reasons for saying that the atomic electrons do not absorb the incident photon?

regards

sam

Er... where did I say that??!

Zz.

 

[CarlB]

Can you please cite the journals where these papers have been published? Thanks.

The articles by Yoshio Koide and me (Carl Brannen) were only completed in late April or May of this year so it's too early to say "have been published". As of now, I believe that the only article scheduled to be published that uses my neutrino mass predictions is that by Mohapatra and Smirnov in the November 2006 Annual Review of Nuclear and and Particle Science, Vol. 56. The present version of this paper is here (look for an update in a month or so):
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0603118

That this article will include the new neutrino mass predictions is from private communication from Alexei Smirnov; maybe he will change his mind. Dr. Smirnov mentions my name, presumably with regard to the neutrino masses, at his recent seminar talk in Munich [see page 10]:
http://users.physik.tu-muenchen.de/lsoft/seminar-talks/AlexeiSmirnov06.pdf

The above link is from here:
http://users.physik.tu-muenchen.de/lsoft/seminars.html

Uh, I should mention that the acrobat file takes such a long time to download that you are better off saving it to your computer rather than trying to open it up with your browser.

Carl

 

[samalkhaiat]

Er... where did I say that??!

1) In post#13 you said;
"But an electron does NOT absorb photon! You're confusing an atom absorbing photon via electronic transition..."

In post #20, I corrected the first part of your statement by saying;

"Free electron does not absorb or emit photon."

Then, I asked you the following question about the second part;
" So what is it in the atom, other than electron, that absorbs and emits photons? "

2) Post#24, You said;
"...they are confusing an atomic transition to mean an electron absorbing that photon."
That photon? You clearly meant that the atomic electron does not absorb the transition-causing photon. Does it not?

3) In post#25 you said;

"Correct." to somebody who claimed;

"it's not the electron itself that absorbs the photon,"

4) You also made similar statements in post #32 & 35.


regards

sam

 

[ZapperZ]

1) In post#13 you said;
"But an electron does NOT absorb photon! You're confusing an atom absorbing photon via electronic transition..."

Then you've read MORE than what I wrote. I was emphasizing that someone who says that an electron can absorb a photon is often thinking of an atomic absorption, and confusing THAT phenomenon with an electron absorbing a photon, when in fact it is the whole atom that is responsible.

I believe I've made more than enough assertion on this in this and other threads that I have never ever claim that an atom cannot absorb or emit a photon. This would be silly.

I hate to think you wasted all your effort directing this at me.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

In Compton scattering there is only one electron, right? I mean, Compton shot x-rays into some material, but the theoretical description makes no mention of the material. The essential part of Compton scattering is just some free electron which at lowest order absorbs a photon and then emits another.

Indeed, the associating Feynman diagram just needs one electron. But, what i meant to say is this : Compton scattering is a , err, "dangerous" example because people who refer to electrons absorbing photons really refer to atoms aborbing photons and thereby boosting up an electron to a higher discrete energy level. I am sure you will agree on the fact that these processes are quite different in nature (for example if you compare the discrete electronic energy levels to the energylevel of a free electron).

marlon

 

[jtbell]

Indeed, the associating Feynman diagram [for Compton scattering] just needs one electron.

In addition to your accompanying remarks, one might note that the electron in the middle portion of the diagram (after absorbing the incoming photon and before emitting the scattered photon) is virtual. That's a different sort of thing from a real electron absorbing a photon and recoiling as a real electron, which is impossible.

 

[CarlB]

Can you please cite the journals where these papers have been published? Thanks.
Zz.

Apparently, my neutrino mass formula is now officially mentioned "in the peer reviewed literature" here:

http://staging.arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140534

I guess I should admit that I haven't actually read the above article. But I fairly sure I'm referenced in it because I just got my first DNS hit from someone clicking through the article to my web page. I'll drive over to the local university and see what it looks like.

By the way, I've been enjoying watching DNS hits enough that I've decided to not publish other than on my own web pages. After all, it's not like it's going to hurt my career or anything.

Carl

 

[arivero]

Apparently, my neutrino mass formula is now officially mentioned "in the peer reviewed literature" here:

http://staging.arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140534

I guess I should admit that I haven't actually read the above article.

Very expensive journal, but the article is the one of Mohapatra & Smirnov, of course:

Neutrino Mass and New Physics
R.N. Mohapatra, A.Y. Smirnov
Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science. Volume 56, Page 569-628, Nov 2006

We review the present state and future outlook of our understanding of neutrino masses and mixings. We discuss what we think are the most important perspectives on the plausible and natural scenarios for neutrinos and attempt to throw light onto the flavor...Did you got time http://www.dpf2006.org/DPF06%20Participants.pdf to go pub crawling with Yoshio?

 

[Qubix]

Ok, this might sound strange, but the electron is not neutral (like the atom for example), so if the entire electron has negative charge and no internal structure, how does it maintain it's existence as an entity. I'm imagining a sphere created out of magnets...they would repel each other and the whole particle would disintegrate. This obviously does not happen to the electron, so where am I wrong? :)

 

[mmix]

electron has no internal structure, until we prove that it isn't.
"negative charges" and "no internal structure" seems to be connected each other.
what is negative charges? don't answer to me. I knew it from what we have experimented from it.

 

[enotstrebor]

The Standard Model is the best theory that we have up till now when it comes to describing the properties of elementary particles (of which the electron is one);

The SM is a wave particle duality model. Thus in effect the wave nature (double slit expiriment-wavyness) is explained via one mathematical model the particle collisional nature via another mathematical model.

It is the best theory to date but some consider the duality of the model is a weakness and some hope for a wave particle unity model, since the electron is only itself (singular) and not a split personality (duality).

The electron does not have an internal structure for several reasons in this model. No experimental verification,

From coulombic collisional analysis, using a particular mathematical model, the electrons collision appears mathematically point like. Interestingly, Compton's himself analysed non-coulombic scattering using different mathematical assumptions and resulted in an electron with a radius (I am not validating Comptons assumptions as true, just noting).

What is true is that any proposed sub-structure to the electron must explain how it can interact point like. Note that non-point spinning objects can have point like behavior. It is known as a gyroscopic reaction (about the center point of spin)

no other elementary particles to decay into,

This is not relevant to sub-structure possibilities, for example a string type substructure theory.

Also, no theory proves this possibility, in stead it is ruled out by the theory used to construct the standard model (eg field theories and group theory to govern the symmetries)...

Not true. The Standard Model does not rule out substructure. It just does not need it. but then it is a wave particle duality theory, not a wave particle unity theory so it doesn't need to have substructure to produce both the wave nature and the particle nature from a single model.

The Standard Model is not the end all and be all. Far from it. In addition to the wave particle duality nature of the SM and the singularity nature of the actuall particle, Nature is also signular, but the Standard Model has five different mathematical views (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Transactional, etc.) of what nature is, and most of these views make nature look absurd.

Finally, the SM can not even say what the photon is. It only says how it interacts! There is no model of the photon and model of matter which when the two models are "interacted'", they produce the observed behaviors. But this is what happens in Nature (at least if you believe in a reality outside onself, etc. etc.)

 

[ZapperZ]

Er.. I'm going to lock this thread because people are replying to VERY OLD posts (pay attention to the date these are posted, people!), and also to people who are ... er ... no longer with us.

Zz.