My paternal grandfather, Walter Nichols Trulock, Jr, was born in 1898, in Pine Bluff. When I was born, he was the age I am now.
Just as I was writing this I realized I completed my master's thesis and got my master of science in physics at Southwest Texas State University (now Texas State University-San Marcos) one hundred years after my grandfather was born. I'm still researching the subject of my thesis, which I called "The Binding Energy of the Classical Electron." Now the "classical electron" is complete nonsense but there is much nonsense in physics! So-called dark matter and dark energy currently are nonsense, or at least a groping in the dark. Also the electron as a mathematical point, with no structure, is nonsense, but then so is an electron with a finite diameter. Lots of room for improvement!
The electron was discovered in 1897, which was when my grandfather was conceived (his birthday is February 7, 1898). In my thesis, I say the electron was discovered "100 years ago." Really, it was 101 as of 1998. I could have called my thesis "Electron 101", not a bad name considering I was trying to take a new elementary look at the electron. Why don't I just post the first and last paragraphs of the thesis? First:
I don't know how old he is in this photo, but would guess two or three.
The electron was discovered in 1897, which was when my grandfather was conceived (his birthday is February 7, 1898). In my thesis, I say the electron was discovered "100 years ago." Really, it was 101 as of 1998. I could have called my thesis "Electron 101", not a bad name considering I was trying to take a new elementary look at the electron. Why don't I just post the first and last paragraphs of the thesis? First:
Last paragraph, not including the appendix:In the 100 years since the discovery of the electron, no one has produced a satisfactory answer to the most elementary questions about this first inhabitant of what has been called[1] the subatomic particle zoo. Although it has been defined by precise measurements of its charge, charge-to-mass ratio, and magnetic moment, and even though the experimental value of magnetic moment fits very snugly into the calculational confines of quantum electrodynamics, the electron is still a mystery. Why does it have the charge and mass it has? Why is the charge precisely the same as the proton’s charge (but opposite in sign), and why do the electron and proton have the charge-to-mass ratios they have? Until these conceptual questions are answered and the mass and charge of the electron are predicted by a theory, rather than inserted as parameters in quantum electrodynamics as they are now, we cannot say we understand what an electron is.
There are two ways to look at the problems posed by the classical electron model. Why not just say that an electron is given to us as a point charge and there is no sense in asking what its structure is? That is the working assumption of quantum electrodynamics. The answer to that question--the other way to look at the classical model of the electron--is contained in the questions about the electron’s (and proton’s) charge and mass posed in the Introduction. An improved classical relativistic theory of the electron could lead to an improved quantum theory, and that could lead to a theory that explains and relates the charges and masses of the elementary particles.[1] Cindy Schwarz, A Tour of the Subatomic Zoo: A Guide to Particle Physics , 2nd ed. (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1997).
