A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 18:16 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:cbd932e1-2668-4f7b-ad81-f205437d9cfb(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 25, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg >> charge. > > That's because "at a point' is entirely different than "in a point". "In" a point is meaningless. A point can have a charge if there is a charge at that point.
From: Y.Porat on 29 Dec 2009 05:50 On Dec 29, 1:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:cbd932e1-2668-4f7b-ad81-f205437d9cfb(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 25, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg > >> charge. > > > That's because "at a point' is entirely different than "in a point". > > "In" a point is meaningless. A point can have a charge if there is a charge > at that point. ------------------ imbecile ----------------------
From: Inertial on 29 Dec 2009 05:55 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f271c4b3-b06c-4c87-8908-e8f5b3400291(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 29, 1:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> news:cbd932e1-2668-4f7b-ad81-f205437d9cfb(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 25, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg >> >> charge. >> >> > That's because "at a point' is entirely different than "in a point". >> >> "In" a point is meaningless. A point can have a charge if there is a >> charge >> at that point. > > ------------------ > imbecile > ---------------------- Yes you are. Nice of you to advertise that by signing your post that way.
From: cjcountess on 29 Dec 2009 12:35 The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than equation alone, including electron structure. (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors explain it. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html This geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), shows exactly how energy equals, and turns to matter by showing that c^2, is not just a mathematical conversion factor with no physical structure, but is an actual conversion frequency / wavelength, where energy turns to, and gets trapped inside of matter, by acquiring a circular, and or spherical configuration. It also shows that (c = the natural unit, square root, of the natural unit -1), and that (h/2pi/2) is no longer the limit of uncertainty of position and momentum, of particle, because it is the actual measure of the position and momentum, both of which can be measured simultaneously geometrically. Just as (square root -1), can not be derived by regular linear equation, because there is no number that when multiplied by itself gives -1, but can be derived geometrically, so too (h/2pi/2), as measure of both position and momentum, although may not be derived at by regular means, because regular equations do not commute according to: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uncertainty+principle+equation+non+commutation&aq=f&oq=&aqi= But the geometrical structure of electron, how energy gets trapped inside of and equals matter at c^2, how (c = the natural unit sqrt of the natural unit -1) and how both position and momentum of particle can be derived geometrically, is demonstrated at :http://docs.google.com/View? docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest and collaborating there as well as below . ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Collaboration that "Uncertainty Principle", can be explained Geometrically See: arXiv:physics/0404044 [pdf] Title: What is rest mass in the wave-particle duality? A proposed model Authors: Donald C. Chang Comments: 14 pages, 2 figures. Comments welcome Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph) "pages 8, 9 1. It provides a simple explanation for the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. When one regards the particle as a point-like object, as in the traditional concept of quantum physics, it is very difficult to explain the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. We were usually told that this principle is an observation of nature, and we have not found any a priori 8 explanation behind it [12]. If the particle is indeed a wavepacket representing the excitation of a real physical field, as suggested in this model, we can explain the âUncertainty principleâ in a straight forward way based on the wave nature of the âparticleâ. As shown in Eq. (16), the longitudinal component of the wave function has a phase angle (k·x â Ït). Because the particle is a wavepacket, it must have certain widths in the spatial and temporal dimensions, Îx and Ît, which can be linked to the linewidths of the wave number and frequency by the following relations, Îk·Îx ~ 2Ï , (31A) and ÎÏ·Ît ~ 2Ï . (31B) Substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) into the above relations, we have Îp·Îx ~ h , (32A) and ÎE·Ît ~ h , (32B) Thus, one cannot simultaneously determine the values of position and momentum (or time and energy) of a free particle more precisely than what is described in Eqs. (32A) and (32B), which are basically the âUncertainty principleâ of Heisenberg. page 11 5. "It implies a consistent geometrical relationship between mass, energy and momentum. In the study of theoretical physics, it is not uncommon to consider some of the physical relationships in term of geometry. We would like to explore if the result of our model makes good sense based on a geometrical consideration. Using the natural unit in which c = 1, the well established mass-energy relation (i.e., Eq. (26)) can be written as E2=P2 + m2 which appears as a geometrical relationship that E is the vector sum of two perpendicular vectors with amplitudes equal to p and m. (See Fig. 2a). Since m (or E) is a scalar instead of a vector, Eq. (39) cannot be regarded as a real vectorial relationship. Instead, it may suggest that m is associated with some sort of âintrinsic momentumâ that characterizes the spatial variation of the wave function in directions orthogonal to p." ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ According to my evidence, rest mass is a real vector product of two perpendicular vectors of c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, creating a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle, and a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces. This is how E or energy = m or rest mass at (c^2) = to (G), because of the gravity mass/inertia mass equivalence, and also because both are measured (L/T2), and = to (h/2pi), which is also energy in circular motion or more precisely (h/2pi/2) which is also energy in circler motion, making two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, and also explains the, "Einstein mass/energy relation", and "The Uncertainty Principle" and the backward spin eplains the -1 charge. And last but not least, Einstein and Minkowski's, (c) or (ct) = (E=mc^2) v^2 = c^2, (which is the highest velocity squared), c^2 = r^2, because c in the linear direction and /or the 90 degree angular direction which creates the 90 degree arc, (which is foundation for circle) = radius of circle, and c = h because c is constant speed of light which gives it its constant kinetic energy/mass of h. Therefore (E=hf /c^2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its own constant, and (F=mv^2), the equation of force or energy of mass in motion = (E=mc^2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the quantum level and (a=v^2/r) = (a=c^2/c). And so the same force that compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c^2) = (E=mc^2) pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r^2) = (F=Gmm/r^2). They are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro level. (c^2 = G = h/2pi/2) and (c = h = r = ) Collaboration that sqrt-1 can be explained geometrically which supports my idea that (c = natural unit square root of, natural unit -1)? 1) First of all, because c x c, or c^2, leads to backward spinning (-1 charged), standing spherical wave, making 2 rotations, to complete 1 wave cycle, or (spin 1/2), which geometry of Electron (-1 charged ). Refer to geometrical illustrations above. 2) Second, because of the description referenced below: An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1  by Paul J. Nahin page 53 paragraph 2: âsquare root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing straight up along the vertical axis or at long last, [i = = 1 â 90 degree angle]. This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in the entire book that I have enclosedâ page 54 paragraph 2: âmultiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.â If c^2 or c in linear direction x, c pointing straight up in 90 degree angular direction, creates 90 degree counter clockwise rotation or arc, which if constant creates a circle, and if this is also what creates a backward spinning, standing spherical wave, such as electron, of -1 charge, than (c = ), and Einstein's and Minkowski's, (ct x ) or (c x ) = energy in circular and /or spherical rotation with rest mass and also = (E=mc^2) And so if [i = = 1 â 90 degree angle] , than [i = = c â 90 degree angle] (by convention c=1), and is the natural unit, square root of, the natural unit -1. 3) And last but not least, because, (square root -1), works so well in solving, "otherwise intractable situations", in electronics problems, which involve electrons, Square root-1 must be intimately connected to the electron, which is the natural unit -1, and so c, must be the "natural unit" square root of "the natural unit -1", which is the electron itself. See: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 29 Dec 2009 17:39
When you see And last but not least, Einstein and Minkowski's, (c) or (ct) = (E=mc^2) than (c = ), and Einstein's and Minkowski's, (ct x ) or (c x ) = energy in circular and /or spherical rotation with rest mass and also = (E=mc^2) it should read: And last but not least, Einstein and Minkowski's, (ci) or (cti) = (E=mc^2) than (c = i ), and Einstein's and Minkowski's, (ct x i ) or (c x i) = energy in circular and /or spherical rotation with rest mass and also = (E=mc^2) I used (square root of -1) symbol, but it did not translate into this browser, so I will now use i which means same thing. Conrad J Countess |