Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: White Holes?
Message-ID: <1003@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1003
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:11:04 EDT
References: <3656@decwrl.UUCP> <166@prometheus.UUCP> <490@talcott.UUCP> <937@oddjob.UUCP> <171@prometheus.UUCP> <966@brl-tgr.ARPA> <175@prometheus.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 12

> Assume that the energy of a "still" electron is ~ due to its electro- 
> static energy.  ...

Aw, I was hoping for something new.  If you're going to assign a radius
to an electron based on having pure electrostatic energy (== mass by
special relativity), then you need to explain why its parts don't repel
each other (in other words, why it is a single cohesive entity).  The
only semi-classical explanation for that seems to be that it has no
parts, which is tricky if it has nonzero radius...

This idea was dropped early in the 20th century.  That doesn't prove
that it's wrong, but people weren't happy with it.