In the last discussion,I suggested“QED uses other particles(like γ) to explain intrinsic properties(Magnetic moment ) of the eletron family is not reasonable”,but Mr. Olaussen didn’t think so, he thought I had“confuse the procedure of mathematically constructing real particles by a quantum superpositions of some idealised "bare" particles (f.i. bare electrons, positrons and photons) with stringent philosophical views about nature”
After a week of reflection，I think we could explore the topic in a different way.
In the past week,I had collected the intrinsic properties of the electron family,and found two questions about anomalies:
- I.POINT STRUCTURE PROBLEM;
- II.MAGNETIC MOMENT ANOMALY(AS shown in the picture“Analysis of anomalies”)
Well,to summarize,my point of view is “The electron family is transformed from point structure to meson or positronium structure by neutrino decay,and change the mass of the electrons,then affect the value of magnetic moment.”(Please refer to the paper “https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327339331_Cause_Analysis_of_Magnetic_Moment_Anomaly_of_Electron_Family_----_Divergence_between_Electromagnetic_Force_and_Weak_Nuclear_Force”for details)
If some people also wants to know the details of strong interaction,Please refer to the paper“https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322761467_A_Strong_Force_Potential_Formula_and_the_Classification_of_the_Strong_Interaction”for details.
Dear Mr.Guynn,
I don't know how you read that"Your first view was correct in that labeling the complex characteristics of particles as "intrinsic" is not a scientific explanation".I'd never said that!
Well, I'm not totally against qed,just think it's a little bit of a problem in solving the magnetic moment anomaly.On other issues, I agree with it!
The inconsistent between QED and my understanding is I think "the electron family is transformed from point structure to meson or positronium structure by neutrino decay,and change the mass of the electrons,then affect the value of magnetic moment".But qed don't care about the effects of decay.so I challenged it and gave my own calculation.
I had read your paper,but I didn't see what I wanted.
Thank you for your reply!
Yours sincerely,
Zhengdong Huang
Dear Zhengdong Huang,
Mr. Olaussen is well known to disagree with any unorthodox view.
Maybe you may find pertinent information for your research in this paper, that proposes a solution to the electron magnetic moment anomaly grounded on a possible inner electron electromagnetic structure, coupled with an also electromagnetic inner structure of its carrying energy, grounded on an important discovery made by Paul Marmet in 2003 about the magnetic field of a moving electron.
The paper is titled "On The Electron Magnetic Moment Anomaly":
http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue3/E0703021025.pdf
Thanks to Marmet's discovery, the electron carrying energy can now be separated from the electron rest mass energy, this allows, on top of being able to calculate any relativistic velocity of the electron from this separation: v=sqrt(λc(4λ+λc))/( 2λ+λc), it also allows calculating the electron g-factor with the same value that Schwinger derived by other means in 1948:
sqrt(λc(4λ+λc))/2π( 2λ+λc) = α/2π=1.161386535E-3
...if the exact carrying energy induced at mean ground orbital distance in the hydrogen atom λ= 4.556335256E-8 m is used.
Best Regards, André
Dear André Michaud,
At first,Our opinions should be based on facts,Otherwise it's a pipe dream.The electron are point particles in experiment,where is the“inner electron electromagnetic structure"？Could you provide experimental evidence for its existence?
Dear Zhengdong Huang,
You wrote: "At first, Our opinions should be based on facts,Otherwise it's a pipe dream."
I absolutely agree.
You wrote: "The electron are point particles in experiment".
Definitely.
You wrote: "where is the“inner electron electromagnetic structure?"
Since the energy making up the rest mass of the electron is electromagnetic in nature, it can only have an inner electromagnetic oscillating structure, which is impossible to understand from the Lorenz interpretation perspective, but which is easy to understand from the Maxwell interpretation.
Maxwell's interpretation is that both E and B fields have to mutually induce each other by being dephased by 180 degrees, but the Lorenz interpretation is that both E and B have to peak at maximum synchronously, which is the interpretation on which electrodynamics is grounded. The Lorenz interpretation does not allow reconciling electromgnetism with the concept of localized point-like behaving rest mass, but Maxwell's does.
The whole concept grounded on Maxwell's interpretation is summarized in this paper, that refers to all supporting other papers:
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067
You wrote: "Could you provide experimental evidence for its existence?"
Yes. if you have the patience of reading and integrating the analysis carried out in this paper, you will then understand how and why the two following experiments confirm the conclusions of the analysis:
This experimental account was published in 2013
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf
One year later, this direct confirmation of the inverse cube magnetic relation between two electrons interacting as two timewise magnetic monopoles was published:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1
Best Regards, André
Dear André Michaud ，
I had read your reply ,I have two questions to ask you.
1.If you also agree with " the electron are point particles in experiment ",how do you creat Another structure“ inner electron electromagnetic structure ”？how do these two structures coexist？
2.I have read the links you provided.Two of them are your own articles，Another is“ Measurement of the magnetic interaction between two bound electrons of two separate ions ”，I don't think they have anything to do with the "experimental evidence" .Well,if you don't have enough experimental evidence to prove your" inner electron electromagnetic structure "is the fact,I think our discussion is not meaningful!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics