NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/3367

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 6.1 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!nec-gw!netkeeper!vivaldi!aslws01!aslss01!terry
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: terry@aslss01
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:14:32 GMT
Lines: 116

Hi folks,

I liked John's response.  He is trying to resolve some of the issues I
mentioned, vs. (say) just getting mad at me or some such reaction.

                Cheers,
                Terry

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John Logajan) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:
>
> | PLANCK'S CONSTANT GOES BYE-BYE
> ...
>
> My introductory physics text claims mvr=n(h/2pi) where m=mass, v=velocity,
> r=radius (all of the electron and its orbit) n=integer, and h=Planck's
> constant.
>
> It further states that r = (E0*h^2)/(pi*m*e^2) * n^2  where E0=permittivity
> of free space, and e=charge.
>
> Thus on the face of this incomplete formula, it seems that Planck could still
> be rescued as a constant by allowing another of the terms to change.
>
> Being bold and foolish, I'll suggest the fractionalization of the electric
> charge...

Yes, you can "farfetch" other aspects of the proposed suborbital system, but
keep in mind that the next step is to _critique yourself_ as severely as
possible_.  In particular, the self-critiquing phase should include a very
thorough search for the _full_ implications of such a change, and a comparison
of those implications with well-established experimental and everyday results.

Actually, I think you intended here to say "_multiplication_ of the electric
charges," didn't you?  Fractional electron charge would make the hypothetical
system larger, not smaller -- e.g., if there was _no_ charge left the electron
would wander off to infinity.

Interestingly enough, your (multiplication?) proposal does _not_ violate
charge parity, which was my first thought.  You are keeping an even balance
of +/- charge by increasing charge symmetrically on _both_ the proton and
the electron.

It _does_ make the behavior of very simple particles "context dependent" in a
most peculiar fashion.  E.g., you've got the electron / proton pair somehow
"agreeing" to double their likelihood of exchanging virtual photons (alpha),
but _only_ with each other.  I have no idea whether or not you could extend
that into a self-consistent extension to standard QED or not, but an very
much inclined to be dubious.

Overall, though, I'd rate your paired doubling of charges as a pretty good
farfetch.  You didn't violate Planck's or charge parity, and it suggests a
specific path for elaborating the farfetch (namely multiplication of the
alpha coupling constant for some "special" (??) case of bound +/- particles.)

But wow, you would _really_ need to do some fancy footwork to explain the
peculiar relationship between _one_ electron and _one_ proton.  Nothing in
QM or QED is known to behave that way.  Alpha is postulated to be variable
at very high (GUT) temperature ranges, but even there it would be variable
with respect to _all_ particles, not just one particular particle.

> | DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
>
> The electron orbit radius is nearly equal to the proton radius
> when n=1/210 [giving a mass loss of] about 1/16th of one percent...
>
> Not really a drastic system mass reduction...

Fair 'nuff as such things go.  You seem to be shooting for the idea that
the electron will "stop" when it gets to the proton surface.  Tell you what,
if you instead say that the positive charge of the proton is "smeared out"
over its volume (it is), then you _could_ argue for a bottom-orbital that
restes slightly within the proton, rather than on its surface.  That way
it would simply be a matter of saying that the positive charge "inside" of
your intra-proton orbital is exactly balanced by the layer of positive proton
charge just outside of the intra-proton orbital.

Historical note:  Back when neutrons were first discovered they were indeed
postulated to be very closely bound states of electrons around protons, an
idea that was quickly dismissed as soon as it was realized that they were
particles in their own right.  But you might want to try a literature search
on the very, very early days of neutrons, just to see what (if anything)
might have been proposed back then for "close" proton/electron orbitals.

.....

Final points:  Because I am a computer scientist, I treat exercises such as
the above in much the same way as I would treat alternatives for the structure
and logic of a computer program.  If you are unwilling to explore _and_ then
criticize the implications of your lates explorations, you are not overly
likely to come up with superior architectures.  It's just a type of problem
in logic from that perspective, and I see no big reason to get overly
emotional about it one way or the other.  The bottom line, after all, will
always be whether you can ever get your "program" to work on your "computer."

In software we write programs for ordinary computers.  Physicists write
programs that are called "theories," yet those theories use much the same
language of mathematics as many computer programs.  The big difference is
that these special programs are "executed" in the laboratory of experiments,
where they are either found to provide consistent prediction or turn out to
be a bit "buggy."  If it's too buggy (e.g., the pre-Michelson-Morely "ether")
you eventually chuck it out the window and start anew.  If the bugs are small
you patch it up and go on.

And if you are really, really lucky you discover a new, more elegant and more
powerful algorithm that covers a wider range of data and makes more accurate
predictions, like QED.  (What is "renormalization," after all, other than
a hacker's fix to what was previously a terribly inefficient and generally
inaccurate algorithm for how the world works at the quantum level?  :)  )

                Cheers,
                Terry