What Is the State and Shape of an Electron?

[JohnBarchak]

Hi elas
I think that Koltick has something there, but I don't think anyone has changed quantum mechanics yet.

 

[elas]

Ambitwistor

All Koltick has measured is vacuum polarization screening in quantum electrodynamics, the so-called "running" of the fine structure coupling constant. This does not contradict QFT's picture of the electron as a point particle; in fact, it is predicted by point-particle quantum field theory.

I read that Koltick et al found that an electron consists of a nucleus surrounded by 'quantum pairs'. How does this equate to a point?

Can a point exist without a radius?

No two electrons in the same atom are exactly equal to each other, how can this be so if they are dimensionless points?

Are fractionally charged electrons larger, smaller or the same size as the 'point' electron?

If a particle is a point is its 'fine structure' within or without and does it have three dimensions?

From a purely particle structure viewpoint QP seems to raise more questions than it answers.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by elas
The fractions found in fractional charged electrons are exactly the same as those that can be found on the cosmic scale in wave form. I have not yet replaced the wave page on my website (at present under revision). But if you measure the rings around Halle-Boppe, the distances between planets and the distance between the arms of a theoretically ideal spiral galaxy; then the outer distance is always 1/3 of the whole. The next gap in is 2/5 of the remaining distance and so on, 3/7, 4/9 5/11 etc.
Although this is a very crude way of accounting for interplanetary distances, it is surprisingly, the most accurate and the only one to predict the positions of all planets including the asteroids.
This suggest that somehow fractional charges are related to the wave structure and leads me to suggest that all natural waves contain the same total force or force carrier.

Do you mean the comet Hale-Bopp? If so, what rings (please post a link)? Let us know when you've updated your website with data on the relationship between planetary distances, the theoretically ideal spiral (whose theory by the way?), and ... If you have time, you might check the orbital parameters of the known minor planets (asteroids, EKB objects, trojans, NEOs, SDOs, ...) from the Minor Planet Center website, and plug in the actual values into your formulae.

 

[elas]

Ambitwistor

Thank-you for taking the time to give a detailed and very interesting reply. I have to check my facts but I think I am correct in saying the explanation in Scientific American was considerably different, perhaps because it was written for the layman, or perhaps I have misread it.

However your definition of the dimensions of a 'point' is precisely that which I place on a (Newtonian) Zero Point. To which I add that the point is a vacuum force well. That is to mean that for each different fundamental particle the Zero Point holds a different vacuum force and it is the interaction of the vacuum force on the surrounding force carrier that is responsible for the existence of the particles. The force carrier cannot be drawn into the ZP because it is something (matter) and therefore must always have three dimensions.

It is interesting to note that in my explanation of movement I make the point that it is the vacuum force that is detected not the force carrier, hence the detection of an electron as a ZP. I also make the point that it is the retreat of vacuum into ZPs that is responsible for creation. It follows that if the fundamental force is vacuum then the creation of names for the other forces is misleading because they are no more than the interaction of vacuum and vacuum force carrier as determined by the vacuum wave structure.

 

[elas]

Nereid

Please go to-

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/waves.htm

 

[Nereid]

WHICH NASA 'photograph of the comet'?

elas,

I'm sorry to say that the Hale-Bopp reference is not very helpful; you say:
"On the NASA photograph of comet I took the measurements of the dust bands (white) shown in red marks on fig W-2, these are listed as 'actual' distances in the table below. Removing the fraction shown in blue type gives a predicted distance for the next dust band towards the centre; these can be compared with the next row of actual distances. (The actual photograph cannot be reproduced for reasons of copyright. In all cases measurements are taken to the centre of the white bands)."

However, going to the official NASA website and searching on Hale-Bopp gives hundreds of hits, nearly all of which have images. Here's one which has some resemblence to your diagram:
http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970414.html

Can you please give a link to "the NASA photo of [the] comet"? BTW, links do not violate any copyright; the site which has copyrighted material should have the appropriate © symbol on it (along with a statement asserting the site owner's rights).