Re: [Phys-L] Particle physics

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:20 PM, John Denker wrote:

>   ... b) Even when it comes to the most structureless thing we 
>   know, the electron, there has to be more to the story.
>   The electrostatic self-energy of the electron is still
>   an issue.  People have gotten reeeeally good at sweeping
>   this under the rug, but there's still a lump in the rug,
>   if you know where to look. ...

There is no experimental evidence, as far as I know, that an electon is made of many negatively charged components (for example 10 particles of tiny charge, q=e/10, and tiny mass, each). Therefore the idea of "electrostatic self-energy of an electron" belongs to logic (mathematics), not to physics. Each new axiom creates new problems to solve. 

That above-mentioned idea would belong to physics if tiny negative sub-particles were shown to exist in nature. In physics we do not say that electrons are made from negative subparticles. They are usually introduced as point-like particles. Sorry if this comment does not make any sense; I have been away from such topics for many years. 

Ludwik Kowalski

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html