Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!TERRY%LAJ.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
From: TERRY%LAJ.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Electron radius
Message-ID: <522@sri-arpa.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 11:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.522
Posted: Thu Aug 29 11:10:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 03:59:43 EDT
Lines: 33




Does anyone have a mail preprocessor which can scan my mail file and
remove any messages which contain the keywords "information", "grain",
and "frame" all in the same message?

I have seen a number of messages pleading for definitions, references,
and explanations all of which are ignored or simply full of the same
kind of statements as were originally requested to be clarified.
Please reply to these requests in a more rigorous and logical fashion.

I see no basis for the assumption that the rest mass of an electron is
due entirely to the mass of its electrostatic energy.  The following
equation is then given:

        m*c^2 = e^2/r

but a previous message by the same author says that electron radius
is ~ e^2/(m*c^2).  Where did the approximation come in?  It seems to
me that the first equation yields r = e^2/(m*c^2) as an exact equality.

The value for r is then given as ~ 3*10^15 meters.  Is this really
correct?  I can't do the calculation myself since the author states that
e is proportional to the charge, without giving the constant of pro-
portionality, so I can't come up with a number for his use of e.

However, 3 quadrillion meters is a fur piece; quite a value for a
poor little electron which has been shown by experiment to be indis-
tinguishable from a point particle (outside of wave/particle duality
effects) ...

Terry