Classical Physics

   

The Projection Theory Part I Supplement 2: The Mystery of the Electron Size

Authors: Norbert Buchholz

The size of the electron is still mysterious. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) requires a radius of 0, projection theory gives a radius of 0.66943 10^(-16) m and the classical electron radius calculated via the electron's self-energy is given in the literature as 2.82794 10^(-15)m. The main subject of this work was a decided analysis of the equation system for the calculation of the classical electron radius. The following important points could be worked out: a) The factor f42, which was derived in the context of the projection theory, appears in a system of equations from the established physics. b) The classical electron radius is not 2.82794 10-15m but 1.3214098 10-15m (= λCP = smin), and this finding finds a simple explanation in the projection theory. c) The equations for the calculation of the classical electron radius or for the calculation of the Compton wavelength are, after minor transformations, completely congruent with the formulae developed in projection theory for the calculation of the electrostatic field constant ε0 or Planck's quantum of action h. These new findings clearly show that the projection theory is not an abstruse idea resp. exotic physics, but is already inherent in the existing equations of established physics and these only have to be reinterpreted to recognize the true core of our physical reality.

Comments: 6 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2023-03-10 02:30:37

Unique-IP document downloads: 145 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus