A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Dec 2009 18:00 On 12/25/09 4:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > 'Fields' for instance are explainable in terms of other dimensions that we don't > know about. > Henri, can you cite anything that claims field are explained by other dimensions that we don't know about... or is this another figment of your imagination?
From: Androcles on 25 Dec 2009 18:01 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:wu-dnfPdbsWR2ajWnZ2dnUVZ_oli4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 12/25/09 4:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >> 'Fields' for instance are explainable in terms of other dimensions that >> we don't >> know about. >> > > Henri, can you cite anything that claims field are explained > by other dimensions that we don't know about... or is this > another figment of your imagination? > He needn't prove it, he's not a mathematician.
From: Inertial on 25 Dec 2009 22:24 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:46p8j55mljvasv963jtqnft8easrthmsr4(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:30:35 -0800, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>news:034152e8$0$1333$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> >>> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message >>> news:UXcYm.94266$iW.22499(a)newsfe30.ams2... >>>> >>>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hgrhc4$1cp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> >>>>>> Why .. because you say so? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Points have no features because they have no extent in a direction. >>>>> >>>>> The only way a point can be a place where a feature exists is if >>>>> they are >>>>> the sum total of all the nearby effects on that point. Because the >>>>> point >>>>> itself can be nothing. It is 0 dimensional. There isn't any internal >>>>> space in which to put anything. And even then we talk about electric >>>>> fields at a distance from the non-containing point. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> The Earth is clearly not a point particle, but in any model >>>> of the solar system it is treated as such. It is merely a >>>> matter of scale. When dealing with the tides the point particle >>>> model of the Earth is inadequate. >>>> >>>> The electron is a point particle on the scale of the CRT, >>>> the model works well. On the scale of the atom it is not. >>>> Same with pixels on your computer display. You cannot >>>> have a pixel that is half red and half green. It has one colour >>>> only, and is therefore a "point" of light, whatever shape >>>> or area it covers. It's position is important, its colour is >>>> important, its intensity is important, that's how a picture is built. >>>> It's area (or volume) is not. >>> >>> For a change Androcles has it right. Clearly 'anti' doesn't >>> understand the mathematical notion of a 'point particle' >> >>??? Actually, Anti is right as far as the mathematical notion goes. I >>think you perhaps mean the "physical" notion of a point particle. That >>is what the droc is talking about. >> >>Best, >> >>Fred Diether >>moderator sci.physics.foundations > > I explained this some tme ago. > > A 'point' has zero length in the three known spatial dimensions. It has no > volume. > However, it can have coordinate lengths in other dimensions which we > humans are > not yet equipped to detect. Wrong . in that case it is not (by definition) a point. It is a line (or plane or volume) in those other dimensions. > Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics > can > deal with. There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
From: FrediFizzx on 26 Dec 2009 00:47 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge. At a mathematical point, no charge. Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron? The charge would disappear. I believe it is called the zero charge problem of QED. Besides all that, there is absolutely no way for us to tell if something like a mathematical point really exists in nature. Another problem is that you are getting down to where space and time are emergent. Best, Fred Diether moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: Inertial on 26 Dec 2009 00:56
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7plmcjFcqsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge. > > At a mathematical point, no charge. There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge. > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron? > The charge would disappear. No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point. > I believe it is called the zero charge problem of QED. Besides all that, > there is absolutely no way for us to tell if something like a mathematical > point really exists in nature. Of course it can't .. a mathematical point is an abstraction .. a concept .. a thought. > Another problem is that you are getting down to where space and time are > emergent. Who knows below planck length. |