A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 22 Dec 2009 18:50 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hgrhc4$1cp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> Why .. because you say so? >> > > Points have no features because they have no extent in a direction. > > The only way a point can be a place where a feature exists is if they are > the sum total of all the nearby effects on that point. Because the point > itself can be nothing. It is 0 dimensional. There isn't any internal > space in which to put anything. And even then we talk about electric > fields at a distance from the non-containing point. > > -- The Earth is clearly not a point particle, but in any model of the solar system it is treated as such. It is merely a matter of scale. When dealing with the tides the point particle model of the Earth is inadequate. The electron is a point particle on the scale of the CRT, the model works well. On the scale of the atom it is not. Same with pixels on your computer display. You cannot have a pixel that is half red and half green. It has one colour only, and is therefore a "point" of light, whatever shape or area it covers. It's position is important, its colour is important, its intensity is important, that's how a picture is built. It's area (or volume) is not.
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 19:34 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message news:UXcYm.94266$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'
From: FrediFizzx on 25 Dec 2009 01:30 "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
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Dec 2009 08:32 On 12/25/09 1:13 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > 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. Or, more simply, do not exist! > Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics can > deal with. Thus, is meaningless.
From: Androcles on 25 Dec 2009 10:16
"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? |