A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 26 Dec 2009 02:42 On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7plmcjFcqsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(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. ----------------------- there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!( in a point! 2 just see above who was the first one to explain and prove it so nicely !!!...and clearly (:-) and so many parrots folowed him lately !! so there is some satisfaction in my toil !!!....... 3 th e next idea of mine -that is going to be spread widely ---- will be the 'CHAIN OF ORBITALS ' . (just a little indication but not the only one) there are a lot of others !! all chemistry is full of it !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Dec 2009 04:27 On 12/25/09 9:46 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:00:27 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > How do ylou explain what a field is, Wormey. > Answer the question, 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: zzbunker on 26 Dec 2009 08:35 On Dec 26, 12:47 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(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. Well, that's why they invented photons, to save the point. and forget about thinking and other things. Which is also why non-fools invented holographic memory, flash memory, self-assembling robots, multiplayered laser disks, multiplexed fiber optics, external emualtors, external hardisks, and Post GM Spam-A-Thons. 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: Androcles on 26 Dec 2009 17:43 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hh60nv$e05$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:16:00 +0000, Androcles wrote: > >> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >> news:hh2i4m$kl7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >>> [begin masturbation] >>> But this is all beside the point: I want to know ... [/end >>> masturbation] >>> >> What's the point? > > But this is all beside the point: What point is it beside? > I want to know what causes charge, > mass, strangeness, charm/beauty, spin; I want to know what the point is that the point is beside and what distance must be exceeded to make the points not be beside each other. That's why I asked "What's the point?" > all these descriptive terms that > have a mathematical model but lack a physical one. Mathematics is the language of physics. Unfortunately it can be lied in just like any other language. F = ma is literally and technically a lie, force does NOT equal mass times acceleration. If it did I'd be accelerating, I can feel a force on my butt as I sit in my chair not accelerating. Now I want to know what a force IS and not what it is capable of doing. A force is a force is a force, of course, but not a horse. At some point one must fall back on intuition. > For this purpose the > electron can no longer be approximated as a point particle. Ok, an electron is not a point particle ... but it CAN be approximated as one just as the Earth and Sun can. You can be approximated as a human being, as a mammal, as an animal, as a living object, as matter. Point particles are ideal mathematical models of what takes place in a CRT. Note: Anyone can say what something isn't. Saying what it is is much harder.
From: Androcles on 26 Dec 2009 23:26
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:7vndj5diqkhdvkt0mjcg7528nfhdshb9k8(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:55:11 +0000 (UTC), Anti Vigilante > <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:16:00 +0000, Androcles wrote: >> >>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >>> news:hh2i4m$kl7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>>> [begin masturbation] >>>> But this is all beside the point: I want to know ... [/end >>>> masturbation] >>>> >>> What's the point? >> >>But this is all beside the point: I want to know what causes charge, >>mass, strangeness, charm/beauty, spin; all these descriptive terms that >>have a mathematical model but lack a physical one. For this purpose the >>electron can no longer be approximated as a point particle. > > As you can see, there is no point in conversing with andro after 10 am. Then you say what the fuckin' point is, then! |