Order of Filling of Electron States again

[granpa]

We know the electrons mass and its charge and its angular momentum and from this we can calculate what it's magnetic field should be.

But the actual magnetic field is much stronger than this.

One possible explanation is that most of the electrons mass (and perhaps some of its charge) has fallen to the centre.

Perhaps even existing in a completely separate system of shells surrounding the nucleus.

 

 

This could also explain why electrons prefer to fill the 6s shell before the 4f shell. One would expect the 6s electron to fall into the 4f subshell since the 4f shell is closer to the nucleus. But it doesnt. The 6s shell is further from the nucleus but if part of the 6s electrons mass (and charge) fell further toward the center than does part of the 4f electrons mass (and charge) then it would be energetically more favorable

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by granpa

[Strange]

We know the electrons mass and its charge and its angular momentum and from this we can calculate what it's magnetic field should be.

But the actual magnetic field is much stronger than this.

 

Citation needed?

 

My understanding is that the magnetic moment is two thousandths larger than predicted by Dirac (so not "much stronger"). And the correct value is predicted by QED:

 

The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment#Electron

 

But maybe you mean something else?

[swansont]

We know the electrons mass and its charge and its angular momentum and from this we can calculate what it's magnetic field should be.

But the actual magnetic field is much stronger than this.

It is? It's approximately twice what we expect from classical physics, but this isn't classical physics.

 

One possible explanation is that most of the electrons mass (and perhaps some of its charge) has fallen to the centre.

Perhaps even existing in a completely separate system of shells surrounding the nucleus.

Fallen to the center of what? How does mass and/or charge do this?

 

How about the measurement of a bare electron, where there is nowhere for the mass (or charge) to go?

 

(like in a Penning trap http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/overviews/ElectronMagneticMoment/ElectronMagneticMoment.html)

[Sriman Dutta]

I don't see how mass can go from energy states to nuclear centre. The QM does have no law or principle which makes such weird things possible.

[granpa]

Just as a proton consists of three quarks so an electron would consist of at least two quarks, one of which forms the system of shells and subshells that we are familiar with and the other would form a system of shells much closer to the nucleus

[Mordred]

the electron is a fundamental particle. It is not comprised of quarks.

[granpa]

You state that as though there were a conflict between being a fundamental particle and being composed of quarks. I see no conflict

[Mordred]

A fundamental particle is one whos substructure is unknown. You claim that the electron has a substructure comprising of quarks. Yet you haven't shown this.

 

For one thing there are key comservation rules such as conservation of charge. Which will apply

[Sensei]

You state that as though there were a conflict between being a fundamental particle and being composed of quarks. I see no conflict

 

In Standard Model quarks have >4 MeV energy/mass, while electron/positron have 0.511 MeV energy/mass.

How can it not being conflict.. ? When there is obviously missing mass/energy.

 

For example, the lightest meson neutral pion has ~135 MeV energy/mass.

After decay it can create free electron and free positron,

and they're accelerated nearly to speed of light.

Electron or positron don't decay to neutral pion, nor any other meson or baryon.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sensei

[granpa]

Well obviously they would be two brand-new kinds of quarks

[Strange]

Then they can't be quarks. How can two spin 1/2 particles combine to create a spin 1/2 particle?

 

So you have made up two new types of particles, for which there is no evidence, as components of the electron despite the fact that there is no evidence it is a composite particle. You might be surprised to learn that that isn't how science works.

 

And you have hijacked someone else's thread to do it.

[swansont]

You state that as though there were a conflict between being a fundamental particle and being composed of quarks. I see no conflict

 

 

Then you haven't looked very hard. There's no experimental evidence, as there is for protons and neutrons. Electrons are leptons and quarks are not; conservation of lepton number is a successful part of the standard model. How do you combine quarks to get such a small mass? And you'd need an odd number to make the spin come out right.

 

Those are just for starters, but there's no point in thinking of more until these are addressed.

[granpa]

 

Then they can't be quarks. How can two spin 1/2 particles combine to create a spin 1/2 particle?

Because they don't add. They are completely independent

 

And this is my thread

Edited September 2, 2016 by granpa

[Strange]

Because they don't add. They are completely independent

 

Particles that are made of two quarks are called mesons. They have spin 0 or spin 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson

 

So you are inventing particles that combine in an invented way to solve an invented problem. And none of this has any supporting evidence. Again, that is not how science works.

 

 

 

And this is my thread

 

Oh, so it is. Sorry.

[swansont]

Because they don't add. They are completely independent

 

 

 

That's not how angular momentum works. Add it to the list of things you have to explain.

[granpa]

Thats not how angular momentum works for rigid objects. This would be 2 completely separate rigid objects in the sense that each can rotate independent of the other.

 

They couldn't move independent of each other but they could rotate independent of each other

Edited September 2, 2016 by granpa

[swansont]

Thats not how angular momentum works for rigid objects. This would be 2 completely separate rigid objects in the sense that each can rotate independent of the other.

 

They couldn't move independent of each other but they could rotate independent of each other

 

 

It's not how angular momentum works in QM. But independent rotation probably doesn't get you out of this classically, either.

[granpa]

Certainly it does. The angular momentum that you measure is just the angular momentum of one of the quarks alone. The other one is unknown

[Strange]

Certainly it does.

 

Citation needed.

[swansont]

Certainly it does. The angular momentum that you measure is just the angular momentum of one of the quarks alone. The other one is unknown

 

 

Quarks are fermions. They have half-integer spin. There is no value of half-integer spin that you can add to a spin-1/2 particle to result in spin-1/2.

 

You can't just pull this stuff out of thin air (or anywhere else).

[granpa]

Well let's not call them quarks then. Let's call them globerschmucks instead

[Mordred]

regardless of what you call them. They must follow the same rules. Conservation of spin, parity, charge, lepton number, momentum and color charge. There is a few other conservation rules under the eightfold way,

[swansont]

You also need to come up with some evidence that they have structure to them.

[granpa]

I gave the evidence and op

[Strange]

That wasn't evidence. It was just a random, baseless and non-physical guess.

 

You can't make something up and then claim it is evidence for something else you make up in order to explain the first thing. It is taking the fallacy of begging the question to a whole new level.