a) The spatial extent of the atom wavefunction?
Unlimited, in line with its gravitational field.
Unlimited is right, but nothing to do with gravity. Rather, you can construct experiments where the wavefunction is compact or extended, as you please. If I shoot a beam of atoms through a vacuum chamber 6" in diameter, the wavefunction of the beam is confined to a region smaller than 6".
b) The size scale of the atom's internal structure?
In the above analogy, your left hand is circling your right hand at a distance of 5.29 × 10ˉ¹¹ m, and the circumference of your left hand is 2.42 x 10ˉ¹² m. The circumference of your right hand is 1.32 x 10 ˉ¹5. It's wobbling a little.
Except for your citation of the Van der Mark "electron radius", fine. You identified 5e-11m as a size scale associated with the atom itself, and you did not get confused by other physical quantities, like the fact that the atom wavefunction can be much larger than this.
c) The Compton wavelength of the whole atom?
You can define it as the photon wavelength equivalent to the mass od the hydrogen atom, which is a little less than the proton mass plus electron mass, but the whole atom doesn't really have a wavelength like the electron does.
Wrong. Whole atoms are seen to diffract, just like everything else, exhibiting a wave nature exactly like that of the electron. The relevant wavelength is called the de Broglie wavelength. (Compton was my typo/thinko)
You're right, you dont. For example:
That's not a scalar quantity. The greyscale is just to show the twist. See
vector fields for something you'll be more familiar with.
Your link goes to a vector plot, but one in which the streamlines are
circular, not twisted. (The vaguely-visible "twist" is an artifact of the
artistic choice to make longish arrows, not of the vector field. Note that at the *base* of any arrow the arrow is pointing straight circumferentially.)
Seriously, greyscale is
by definition a scalar quantity. If your graph is not a graphical depiction of an actual scalar quantity, on some actual physical axes, then
it's just a scribble that looks like a spiral. Seriously, is there
any aspect of that plot which we interpret as actual data from an actual electron model? The number of spiral lines, their angle, the sinusoidal form of the dark/light variation? No? Do the darker bands represent regions of space where something is different than in the light bands? If so what? If not, why are they there? You have no idea, do you?
The only piece of physics we can derive from this plot is "Farsight has a mental picture of something (don't know what) being a spiral somehow (don't know in what sense)". You produced a graphic showing something being a spiral. Done. Congratulations on seven years of hard work.
No, think frame-dragging around a dynamical spinor. Think vorticial attraction and repulsion. Think cyclones. With no initial relative motion, two similar cyclones move apart, two opposite cyclones move together. It takes two to tango.
Those are different things. Can't you describe an electron?
They depict the frame dragging around a dynamical spinor. If you throw an electron through a solenoid, its path is helical because it's a dynamical spinor moving through non-isotropic space.
Your graph does not depict a solenoid, stop bringing up solenoids just because
they're a random thing from physics that includes spirals.
You previously labeled this graph as showing "fields", which you derived from your idiosyncratic reading of Maxwell's and Faraday's words. Now suddenly it's "frame dragging", a general-relativistic effect Maxwell never knew about, doesn't occur in Van der Mark's crackpot paper, etc. etc.? I don't know which part of your prior discussion you were lying about, Farsight: were you lying about
this not being your own theory? (It clearly is.) Were you lying about this being
the electromagnetic field, applying Maxwell's unification to the radial E and circular B fields to obtain the spiral? (It clearly isn't.)
So they aren't point-particles, are they? Hoist by your own petard, ben.
No, QFT allows a point particle (in the standard sense I've explained) to have a magnetic moment. I believe this is true because I
derived it on a blackboard in front of a roomful of 19-year-olds. The magnetic moment popped out of this derivation
without requiring me to make the electron a non-point-particle (in the standard sense I've explained). You have not provided a counterargument to this derivation.
You're just quoting your disbelief over and over.
"Three pages of proof based on the Dirac Equation" is more convincing to me than "A random guy in Poole who doesn't know quantum mechanics doesn't believe it." You are welcome to learn some physics and find an error, if there is one, in my QFT-based conclusion.
The moot point is that the field concerned is the electromagnetic field, and you have to combine depictions of "the electric field" and "the magnetic field" to visualize it, whereafter you can understand it.
Did you combine depictions of the electric field and the magnetic field? Where? So far I have seen (a) three plots---a bullseye, some radial lines, and a spiral and (b) a greyscale drawing of a spiral. None of these plots were made using any input from Maxwell's Equations, none of them are "visualizations" of any quantity you can identify from those equations.
In fact, I think you're doing it backwards. You are
pretending to start with Maxwell, then visualize something, then use the visualization to understand. In fact, you dreamed that you understood something---you had a daydream involving a spiral and a particle. You sought for a visualization that corresponded to
the thing you thought you understood ("the important thing is it's a spiral like in my daydream"). Then you tried to scratch up a reason why this spiral had to have come from Maxwell's Equations. It's backwards.
!
!
