Sizing Up the Electron

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Sizing Up the Electron

Postby Pivot on January 6th, 2020, 11:10 am 

The CODATA radius of the electron (, which represents “classical electron radius" (, is 2.82 ×10−15 m, and the corresponding CODATA value for the proton’s radius is 0.877 ×10−15 m. In 2010 the latest estimate of the proton’s radius ( was made using pulsed laser spectroscopy to measure a muonic (a muon can be considered to be a short-lived energised electron) Lamb shift further down-sized its radius to 0.842 ×10−15 m. This is an amazingly small size and results in a proton radius about 1/3rd of that claimed for an electron. The possibility of (relatively) large electrons whizzing around the diminutive nucleus of an atom creates a huge dilemma for Physics world, and these classical radii are unrealistically too small in terms of the measured size of atoms and atomic bonds.

M MacGregor (‘The Enigmatic Electron’: Klurer Academic, 1992) estimated the radius of an electron to be in the range 4 x 10-13 to 7 x 10-13 m. R Gauthier considered that an electron to be a charged helical-form photon and developed equations supporting the notion that the electron’s radius varied with its speed. D Bowen and R Mulkern considered that an electron to be a photon that has closed on itself (i.e. a head-to-tail wrap-around) to form a torus loop with its photon-like charge rotating in a circle at the speed of light. In their 2015 paper 'An Electron Model Consistent with Electron-Positron Pair Production' ( Bowen and Mulkern estimated the diameter of the electron torus to be 7.72318492 x 10-13 m resulting in a radius estimate of 3.86 x 10-13 m which is at the lower end of MacGregor’s estimate.

Should the Bowen and Mulkern estimate be correct, it is 100 times larger than the classic electron radius and some 200 times larger than the classic proton radius, which makes the classical proton radius even more out of whack. However since 2005 neither the classical electron or proton size estimates have been withdrawn or revised upwards. The obvious problems with the estimates would seem to have been swept under the carpet and forgotten.

The electron size estimate of the Bowen and Mulkern is more in keeping with the measured size of atoms and length of atomic bonds, but an estimate to 9 significant digits seems too precise to be accurate; a safer approach would be to use the radius (because the classical approach is to refer to an electron’s radius) rounded up to 4 x 10-13 m, Also, the Bowen and Mulkern photon torus electron model is quite similar to the STEM electron model, with the main difference being that the STEM electron consists of a solid torus ( of concentrated energy that flows fluid-like at close to the speed of light, resulting in the effect of a spinning core. In spite of this not insignificant difference, their 4 x 10-13 m estimate of the radius is considered to also represent a reasonable estimate of the radius (R) of the core energy of a STEM electron.

The 4 x 10-13 m radius estimate has been used by the STEM approach to infer the dimensions, volumes and energy/mass estimates of electrons (and thus positrons), CESs, nucleons and an atom of Oxygen as listed in the provided 'Atomic Particle Statistics Table'.

The bond length between two oxygen atoms within the O2 molecule has been determined in a laboratory situation to be 1208 x 10-13 m, which has been combined with the estimates in the above table to create the 'Close-To-Scale Oxygen Molecule' graphic provided.

Similarly, the measured bond length between the oxygen atom and each hydrogen atom within a water molecule is approximately 96 pm, which has been rounded up to 100pm (or 1000 x 10-13 m) to create the 'Close-To-Scale Water Molecule' graphic provided.

Note that the hydrogen atoms are shown to have a T-shaped form because they consist of a rapidly spinning L-form foot-out proton. The oxygen atom could well be represented by a less detailed but more aesthetically pleasing 165-170 x 10-13 m diameter sphere and the hydrogen atoms by 50 x 10-13 m diameter spheres for comparison with conventional Science stick-and-ball graphics for the water molecule (which are usually not to scale). It would, however, be remiss to represent the torus-shaped electron by a sphere.

The classical electron and proton radii have been available for over 10 years now, so the big question is: where are the equivalent close-to-scale models incorporating the classical electron and proton radii? An even more pointed question is when are those determining the classical electron and proton radii going to get their act together?
Physics Forum Water Molecule.png
Close-To-Scale Water Molecule
Physics Forum Oxygen Molecule.png
Close-To-Scale Oxygen Molecule
Physics Forum Table.png
Atomic Particle Statistics Table
Posts: 65
Joined: 14 Apr 2016

Re: Sizing Up the Electron

Postby Pivot on January 8th, 2020, 1:30 am 

OOps. Looks as if I grabbed an incorrect version of the statistics table: the quark size is 32 x 32 x 32 x 10-13 m rather than the 16 x 16 x 16 shown. The volume remains the same as it was calculated using the 32^3 figure. Not every day do you halve the size of a quark, but does open the door to a new way of splitting the atom.
Posts: 65
Joined: 14 Apr 2016

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests