However if you take Schrodinger’s idea of the “smeared out” charge and stipulate that the electron is a massless superconducting current, then it moves at c. The current must flow in such a way that it resembles a triaxial rotation. Then it is possible to find the electron’s spatially extended (large) dimensions, and using the fundamental constants it actually “plugs in” to the conventional electron-proton scenario (but no quarks please). Additionally it makes plain what is going on with “spin”.

Change in surface area means change in circumference, meaning change in frequency/wavelength. The change in frequency of an electron during one rotation (I think) is the reason why measurements cannot guarantee the value. So the probability approach becomes a measurement of the position of the electron (in its oscillation cycle) at the time of the measurement.

The change in frequency is interpreted in quantum mechanics as a wave packet, ultimately a statistical ensemble (Einstein’s words, not mine). But really there is just this oscillating rotating sphere of rotating space.

The equation in #13 is also awesome. I never saw it before. Where does it come from?

R^2*CC = {lp/R}^4 = 1.08E-81 ,

where R = alpha* lambda, is the Lorentz radius of the electron, lambda the electron Compton wavelength, & lp the Planck length.

I’m not used to replying to comments on *other* blogs, but since I’m here I thought I’d join in on the discussion.

@#5 David: Hi! This is mostly my fault for not writing things more clearly, I apologize. The point is that there are four particles: the electron, the anti-electron, the positron, and the anti-positron. The electron and anti-electron interact with the W-boson. Meanwhile, the positron and anti-positron do not interact with the W boson.

You’re right that the electron and the anti-positron have the same spin, but they have totally different interactions with the other particles in the theory.

Ultimately, the thing which I call a “physical electron,” i.e. the thing which most people mean when they say “electron,” is a combination of the electron and anti-positron. This mixing occurs because of a [Dirac] mass. Note that this one “physical electron” is really the combination of *two* chiral particles: the electron and the anti-positron.

@#6 James: I agree, it’s not optimal. And again, this is a problem with nomenclature. Most physicists call these things eL and eR. But this is the thing which is rather subtle because at first glance one can’t tell if the “left” and “right” refer to helicity or chirality. I wanted to use “electron” and “positron” to refer to the states of different chirality so that I could try to emphasize that these are two different particles (i.e. they have different Standard Model quantum numbers). Of course, this requires that one momentarily lets go of the conventional nomenclature that the electron and positron are mass basis Dirac fermions and are anti-partners of one another.

I’ll see if I can add some remarks to help clarify this (giving credit to both of you for pointing out the confusion.)

Thanks!
Flip