The electron is not a point- it is a very complex structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: nearness to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality Chapter 4, Missing Mass #227 Atom Totality
Next: The search for an electric dipole moment inside electrons
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 14:54 On Jul 22, 10:13 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > > This is a religious statement. > > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > And you claim the electron *is* a point. No, not quite. A point is a mathematical abstraction whose ONLY properties are that it marked by a single location and no volume. An electron is more than a point, because it has other, physically important properties, such as electric charge, mass, lepton number, quantum spin (which has NOTHING to do with what macroscopic objects do around an axis -- it's just a word), parity, weak charge, and others. An electron apparently shares one property with a point -- lack of volume. But a cat shares the property of having four legs with lizards and this doesn't mean cats are lizards. > > Ay, but here's the rub- a point is a > mathematical object. There is no such > thing in reality. No one has ever > seen a point. A point has no structure, > no front or back. It cannot rotate. It > has no features, so it cannot be different > from any other point. (How many > 'point particles' do you list- how are > they different?) A point has no substance, obviously, > as it has no volume. > > What *is* this point you speak of? It would seem > to be an imaginary construct. No, electrons are VERY real. Sharing a property with a mathematical concept doesn't mean that it IS a mathematical concept. A wooden crate shares the property of volume with a mathematical cube. But this doesn't make a wooden crate nothing more than a mathematical abstraction, a cube. > > DM is another imaginary construct. > > If you call this physics you should be ashamed. > > john
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 14:56 On Jul 22, 10:31 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:13 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > > > This is a religious statement. > > > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > > > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > > And you claim the electron *is* a point. > > > Ay, but here's the rub- a point is a > > mathematical object. There is no such > > thing in reality. No one has ever > > seen a point. A point has no structure, > > no front or back. It cannot rotate. It > > has no features, so it cannot be different > > from any other point. (How many > > 'point particles' do you list- how are > > they different?) A point has no substance, obviously, > > as it has no volume. > > > What *is* this point you speak of? It would seem > > to be an imaginary construct. > > > DM is another imaginary construct. > > > If you call this physics you should be ashamed. > > > john > > What we are trying to do > in physics is fit everything together. Agreed. This does not mean that if a class of objects shares a property, then that property must be shared by everything outside of that class of objects, too. Some elements are metals. Others are decidedly non-metals. How do you get metals and non-metals to "fit together"? > If one of your pieces is a 'point', there is > a discontinuity. Every piece is playing a role > in the happening. This means every piece > must have *attributes*. A point can > have no attributes. Agreed. A point does not have physical attributes (other than lack of volume). But an electron DOES. It also does not exhibit volume. > It is a dead end. If you > say different points have different attributes, then > you are doing witchdoctor mumbo-jumbo. > > A 'point' in your description of things > is a failing grade. It is a dead-end. It is a science-stopper. > It is a denial of being. It is pure brainwash. Your > picture will never > make sense with points in it. > > Advice- use non-imaginary constructs to explain physics. > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Jacko on 22 Jul 2010 15:08 Smaller than Lambda = Root(4*G*h/c^3) ....
From: BURT on 22 Jul 2010 15:09 On Jul 22, 7:29 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 July, 15:00, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 1:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > > > > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > > > > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > > > > > This is a religious statement. > > > > > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > > > > > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > > > > > > And our own spectrum of photons is not > > > > > > the only one. There are both > > > > > > smaller and larger spectra at regular > > > > > > intervals as one contemplates different > > > > > > scales. > > > > > > > Guess what, interminably ego-centric > > > > > > people- ours is not the only, or best, > > > > > > *anything* > > > > > > > john > > > > > ------------- > > > > only retarded mathematician > > > > parrots -can think that > > > > any particle cam be a point!! > > > > Y.P > > > > -------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Only aging bridge engineers would think that absolutely everything > > > MUST have volume.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes, bridge engineering... Problem specification: move things from one > > side of a rift to another, bring all ideas and goods in contact with > > all others. Avoid the island mentality, remember the Hitite metal > > incident, and build all needed tools for the job.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What good is a point(Dot) in the quantum realm It don't fit TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space and time are comprised of a cintinuum of the infinitely small and the point quantum fits that. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 15:09
On Jul 22, 2:08 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Smaller than Lambda = Root(4*G*h/c^3) > > ... We don't know that yet, because we don't have that kind of experimental resolution. |