robinpike

But what you are doing here is rather like this... You and I are discussing what a tiger looks like. I produce a picture of an elephant and say this is what a tiger looks like. You reply, no it doesn't, a tiger doesn't look anything like that picture. So I ask, in that case what does a tiger look like... You produce a blank piece of paper and add: this is an accurate picture of a tiger, since, as you can see, it has no discrepancies with what a tiger looks like!? (I know... an electron has no size and shape, therefore a blank picture of an electron is correct!) So back to the the electron and positron... You argue that the electron is not made of "stuff", it is "what it is". Fair enough, so I note: The electron is what it is, and the positron is what it is; and my referring to "what it is" as being "stuff" is incorrect, since "stuff" has shape and size, whereas "what it is" has no shape and no size. I originally asked what is the physical difference between the electron and the positron. The answer given was that they have opposite electric charge, with the proviso that it is incorrect to think of charge as having a physical shape (or "form" as I used). So, have I got this correct... The electron and positron are both made of "what it is" - cannot argue with that. The "what it is" in the electron is different to the "what it is" in the positron?

Hi Swansont, In the above Wikipedia article, it defines electric charge as: "Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when close to other electrically charged matter. There are two types of electric charges, called positive and negative." And defines matter as: "Matter, generally is a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass and (usually) also volume. The volume is determined by the three-dimensional space it occupies, while the mass is defined by the usual ways that mass is measured. Matter is also a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects. ... However, not all particles with rest mass have a classical volume, and fundamental particles such as quarks and leptons (sometimes equated with matter) are considered "point particles" with no effective size or volume. Nevertheless, quarks and leptons together make up "ordinary matter," and their interactions contribute to the effective volume of the composite particles that make up ordinary matter." The Standard Model states that the electron and positron are elementary particles - that is the electron is not made of smaller parts. So, whatever the electron is made of, it must be just one substance - because if it were to be made of several substances, then it would have parts to it - would you agree? The Standard Model also states that the down quark is an elementary particle - that is the down quark is not made of smaller parts. The electron has a -1 electric charge and the down quark has a -1/3 electric charge. How is the down quark's electric charge able to be smaller than the electron's electric charge, if both particles are elementary? Similarly, the electron has a mass of of 0.511 MeV (9.10938291 × 10-31 kilograms), whereas the down quark has a (bare) mass of 4.1–5.7 MeV/c2. How is the down quark's (bare) mass able to be different to the electron's mass, if both particles are elementary?

Hi Swansont, I'm reading though the D.M. Kara's thesis on the electron dipole moment experiment, to try and understand why the toroid model raises issues. In his thesis, Kara defines a dipole as: "The usual definition of a dipole is that of two charges, +q and −q, separated by a vector, ~r, producing a moment, ~d = q ~r, where ~r originates at the negative charge. For a single particle a more general description is used: that the dipole originates from a displacement between the particle’s centre of charge and its centre of mass." If the above general description of a dipole is used, then the toroid will have no dipole, since the centre of mass and centre of charge are in the same position. Is this relevant to remove your objection on the toroid shape? As I'm still struggling to see why the toroid shape will oscillate in an electric field.

Yes, true the model has the electric field emitted mainly in the plane of the electron’s ring and in the direction that the electron is moving, so it is not emitted spherically. But what are the examples that show that the electron’s field is spherical? In atoms, the electrons are in cyclic orbitals and the atoms themselves are constantly tumbling, so atoms will show spherical fields even if the fields from the electrons are not spherical. In the model, when atoms move, the atoms contract in the direction of movement because the fields from their nuclei change to be more forward facing. Here is a video that shows the electron’s field inside the electron... And here is a video that shows the repulsion and attraction forces produced by the model (the attraction force is shown about half way through). The video also includes a bit at the end that shows the attraction force slightly stronger than the repulsion force, could this be the reason for gravity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiC1p4BEn0

That was in reply to this point: If you consider the toroid shown in the video, it can move off in any direction that is in the plane of its ring, that is, it can move off in any horizontal direction. However, for it to move in any other direction, such as upwards, the ring has to twist itself so that the plane of the ring is in that vertical direction. Here is an animation of an experiment called the Quantum spin and the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Could this be an example of the electron only being able to move forward in a direction that is in the plane of its ring? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_spin_and_the_Stern-Gerlach_experiment.ogv When electrons are used, they only ever hit the top and bottom of the rear screen, never the middle of the screen (unlike when normal magnets are used). This result could be explained by using the toroid model for the electron. When electrons are fired between the magnets in the experiment, the electrons have their spins orientated in any direction. Because of the shape of of the top and bottom magnets, the electrons cannot be deflected sideways by the magnets, only up or down. This means that the electron has to align itself so that the plane of its ring is vertical - giving it only two possible orientations for every electron: its spin is 'up' or its spin is 'down'. Since all electrons have the same, fixed amount of spin, they then are always deflected by the same amount, hitting the same spot at the top or the bottom of the screen, but not in the middle. Swansont, what do you think? Is this a reasonable explanation of the results of this experiment using the toroid model to describe the electron's spin? Is this evidence for the toroid model?

That is the heart of the model, and is as follows... The model uses strands of movement to construct the electron, proton and photon. Each strand is the same as every other strand, and so for the model, it is the elementary particle. The tail of the strand has a fixed speed, as does the head of the strand, but the head moves faster than the tail. This stretches the strand until the head breaks free, the freed head becoming the force conveying strand in the model. After the head breaks free, the original strand repeats the process again and again. The model uses the strands of movement to construct the electron, proton and photon, and the force conveying strands to produce the electric force, magnetism and gravity. So, does the model produce all the different phenomena that we observe? Well, I don't know, but the model does appear to be successful in basic things. In the model, a magnetic field is different to an electric field, and so it does not necessarily follow that there is a contradiction within the model. I have had a look at Larmor precession, but it is too complicated for me to follow through with the model and give you an answer (sorry). In the model, magnetic fields are a lot more complicated than electric fields, and the best I have done so far with regards to magnetism, is to produce the deflection of two wires carrying currents. Of course I would like to say that the model can produce all magnetic phenomena, but at the moment, it is beyond me to know whether the model can do that. To keep it to what I can do, I can discuss some other basic properties of this model of the electron, as well as its spin? Such as mass, inertia, momentum, absorption / emission of a photon, energy of motion, electric charge, movement in an electric field, movement in a gravitational field. In the model, these phenomena are all connected to the spin of the electron. (But for the moment, can we leave out aspects of relativity, as there are many scenarios to relativity, yes, many of which the model can do, but as an example, not sure about the relativistic Doppler shift of light.)

Thanks Swansont, that is a good starting point for me to consider. The toroid is made up of strands of movement, whose heads and tails move at fixed speeds. This means that, for the toroid to move, the strands have to bunch up on one side of the ring, and thin out on the other side. The toroid will then move forwards in the plane of its ring. (There are some other points to consider, such as inertia and momentum of this forward movement, but those points are not necessary for this discussion.) If you consider the toroid shown in the video, it can move off in any direction that is in the plane of its ring, that is, it can move off in any horizontal direction. However, for it to move in any other direction, such as upwards, the ring has to twist itself so that the plane of the ring is in that vertical direction. So the toroid is not like a macro gyroscope of circular movement (which can be moved in any straight line direction without changing the plane of the gyroscope). So to the example of the toroid in a field from a point charge. First off, is it possible to perform the experiment using a field from a point charge? To me, that means a field from another electron, which I don't see how that is achieved, as electrons tend to move all over the place and not stay in one place, especially when approached by another electron? Is it the case, that these experiments are done in a macro electric field, such as that between two plates of charge? What exactly is the set up for me to consider? For example,is a stream of electrons passed between, say horizontal plates, with one plate above and the other below the path of the electrons? Can you give me a fuller description of the experiment for me to consider what oscillation is expected?

Wouldn't that also be true for the sphere? I'm trying to visualize how the toroidal shape would behave differently to the sphere. After all, it's not as if the charge on the toroidal shape is lop-sided?

Still not sure on how the dipole experiments are measuring the dipole moment of the electron. What experiments I have found seem to be measuring the movement of molecules in electric fields. Those are too complicated for me to apply the principal of the experiment to the toroidal shape. However, what the experimenters do say is that the electron's shape must be perfectly spherical for it to have no dipole moment. So perhaps it would be easier to approach this problem the other way around. In what way would the toroidal shape with negative charge on its surface behave differently to a sphere with negative charge on its surface, when both are in an electric field? Thanks

Thanks Uncool, Is that the accepted explanation for magnetism - that it involves the positive charges from the nucleus as well as the electrons? For example, if an electron is moving on its own in space, would it generate a magnetic field, or just a negative electric field?

Hi Swansont, I've had a look on the web about experiments that measure the electron dipole moment (if there is a dipole moment to find), and some of those mention how its presence would cause CP violation. I found an article which, in its discussion, shows an example of uneven charge across a sphere which would give a dipole moment. I can't paste the diagram from the article (it was on page numbered 3, quite a few pages in, which can be found by searching for "Figure 1.2:" in the following pdf file http://jila.colorado.edu/bec/CornellGroup/theses/stutz_thesis.pdf [ Figure 1.2: If an electron EDM exists, the orientation between the electron’s electric (de) and magnetic (µ) dipole moments will change under a parity (P) or time-reversal (T) transformation. ] The toroidal shape that I am using for the electron, does not in itself have any uneven charge distribution across its surface, but the shape as a whole is obviously not a sphere. The experiments that measure the electron's dipole moment are complicated - can you describe a basic example of how the electron's dipole moment would show up? I can then look at the toroidal model to see if it would contradict that example or not? Also, the aspect of an electron's dipole moment causing CP violation, can that be explained in a simple example for me to consider as well? Thanks, Robin

Hi Swansont, Can you expand in what way a bit more please... As not sure in what way you are asking? I've had a quick look at some examples of dipoles, for example as in a molecule of sodium chloride, and the examples discuss a charge separation between positive and negative charges. Do you mean, because the toroidal shape has negative charge spread around the ring? Thanks Hi Mike, Hi Mike, Yes that would be good if you could tell me a bit more about those ideas. A lot of the principles may be the same. Note that the model I use doesn't require hidden dimensions, so as for the topology side of things, it is easy to describe their properties in pictures and videos. Thanks, Robin

Hi Mike, Ok, I'll have a go... 1) The core feature of the model is constant movement in the shape of a strand of movement. 2) The electron, proton and photon are all constructed from the strands of movement. 3) Meaning that every explanation is visual, as the electron, proton and photon all have a shape and form (note, although maths is not the starting point, there is nothing to prevent the model being tested using maths). 4) The electron's properties of mass, inertia, momentum, spin, electric charge, electric field are all properties that come about from how the electron is constructed. 5) All electrons end up with the same amount of movement inside them, which means that they all have the same amount of mass, the same amount of inertia, the same amount of spin, the same amount of electric charge. 6) Without knowing how the electron is constructed, it would be nigh on impossible to explain how those properties have arisen - the best you could do would be to find those properties through experiment and state the results as equations. 7) All the explanations come about because of topology, I don't see how any theory which does not use topology as its basis could ever explain why the electron, proton and photon behave as they do - for example, the model shows how the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics behavior are formed using Newtonian rules. Ok, so I've used 7 sentences - but hope the above is clear and helps. Robin

To be honest, I wish I could see the goal posts on this one! My question was whether we knew what the physical difference was between the electron and positron. I am trying to understand the replies. We have that the difference in behavior of the electron and positron, cannot be down to their shape, as they have no size, and therefore have no shape. It is charge that makes the electron behave differently from the positron, and that charge is something that has no physical 'form', in the sense of shape or size. So I guess the question has migrated to: how is the electric charge of the electron different to the electric charge of the positron? To prevent further responses describing what the electron and positron do differently, or in what situations they behave differently, can we keep the replies to answering: How is the electric charge of the electron different to the electric charge of the positron? Is it possible to answer this question without saying it is like 'this' or 'that', giving an example such as it is like two objects that have different colors, the example relying on the objects being different physically in shape and size (as in the atoms are different), and then saying, but charge is not like that because charge has no shape or size - and therefore making the explanation not appropriate?

The reason for thinking that the difference is physical, is because the electron and positron do different things in a physical way. For example, electrons don't do much if they get near to each other, similarly, positrons don't do much if they get near to each other. But an electron and a positron do - they change into photons. How is any difference in behavior between the electron and positron explained, if not by a difference in a physical quality? This could be down to a difference in shape of their substance, or an actual difference in substance, etc. If their difference in behavior is not down to a difference in physical form of some sort or other, then how is their different behavior to be explained? But you have used physical qualities in your example of how they can be different: size of 1 cm, different material. Since point-like particles cannot be different in size, then are you saying that the electron and positron behave differently because they are made of different materials?

Yes, you could say I should be asking "What is charge", as this is something that electrons and positrons differ on, but that has come from the more general question of how is the electron different from the positron, if they are not different in some physical way as well? Swansont, the key question here is: How can two point-like particles differ from each other? I don't understand how this possible. The reason for asking being: If that cannot be explained, then perhaps the starting premise that the electron and positron are point-like is incorrect. I can't think of an example, can you give an alternative one to color? (The analogy of color does not work, for example, an atom of red paint is physically different to an atom of blue paint.)

Those articles are interesting, and taking them in order... Because calculations outside of the electron produce the same result, regardless how small the size of the electron is set in the equations, should not be used as evidence that the electron has no size. That would be like saying that the effect of the moon on the tides in the oceans does not alter, regardless what size the mass of the moon is put into. Therefore it is valid to set the moon as being a black hole? Now to the positron... The article does not explain how the positron is different to the electron. And please don't suggest that the positron is an electron going backwards in time!? The last one on the electron says that the electron has no known size or sub-structure. That does not mean that the electron has no size or sub-structure. Indeed, since the electron and positron are equivalent particles, with some properties the same and some properties equivalent but opposite, this suggests that the electron and positron do have a size and shape in order for them to be different! How would point-like particles be different? If charge is like the color of a car (metaphorically speaking), then please explain how a non physical quality makes electrons and positrons behave physically differently?

Magnetism is a good example of why physics should also be about why things happen, and not just be about what happens. What is the explanation of why two wires next to each other with currents moving in the same direction, move towards each other? How is this explained when electrons normally push each other apart?

I don't understand what you mean by opposite charges have no difference in physical form. Can you explain how this is possible please. To help, here is an example of one type of opposite form: My left hand is constructed in an opposite way to my right hand - they are both made of the same substance but one is constructed as a mirror image of the other - as such they have opposite physical forms. You have replied to my question of: How are they different? by giving yet another example confirming that they are different. Thanks, but I already know that they are different: I would like to what it is that makes them different? Saying that the difference is charge, is just a statement, it is not adding anything as an explanation. it is a bit like answering the question: How does gravity work? by saying: Gravity works by pulling you to the ground!

You see in the above picture, how the electron has got a dash character drawn on it, and the positron has got a plus character drawn on it. They have been drawn differently, they have been given a different form in the diagram. But the above is a diagram, not a picture, it is not a physical representation of the electron and positron. If they are point like particles, fair enough, but then how is the electron different from the positron, how is their physical form different from each other? If you say that they have no physical differences, then that is the same as saying that they are identical particles. In which case, how do you explain their different behaviour? (By the way, it was useful to have the replies with examples of what they do differently - thanks - but no need to give any more examples of what they do differently, I am asking how they are able to behave differently.)

Thanks, but what I meant is: What is the physical difference between the two particles in the sense of their form.

If they are both point-like particles, do we know what the physical difference is between the electron and the positron?

Hi Mike, Here is a video model of an electron spinning - does this help you at all? Robin

True, but electrons can absorb and emit photons - for example photocells and electric light bulbs. How does the electron do this if it is a fundamental particle... where does the photon go / appear from?

Without drifting off topic, is there any experiment that shows that the electron is not fundamental? What about when an electron emits a photon or absorbs a photon?