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: Jacko on 22 Jul 2010 15:12 Minimum Volume = (Pi)/6*(4Gh/c^3)^(3/2)
From: Jacko on 22 Jul 2010 15:42 On 22 July, 20:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. All things smaller are dark matter.
From: john on 22 Jul 2010 19:12 On Jul 22, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > At the size scale of the electron, our vision is extremely limited and very much open to interpretation. Every item around us down to that level, where we have limited vision, has been shown to be a composite. Why do you keep insisting that if we look far enough we will see a non-composite? It would be nice if you would bring forward your description of this non-composite (which is so far only a word). Describe it. john
From: Owen Jacobson on 22 Jul 2010 23:42 On 2010-07-22 14:56:54 -0400, PD said: > On Jul 22, 10:31�am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > >> 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). Doesn't that depend on the mathematical model you're using? For example, a vector field is a function which assigns a vector to every point in some space; this maps rather well to a few physical phenomena (gravity, for example). You can quibble on whether it's the field that has the vector property or the points in the field, but mathematically (and experimentally) the two stances appear to be indistinguishable. What am I missing? -o
From: Androcles on 23 Jul 2010 02:11
"Owen Jacobson" <angrybaldguy(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2010072223425288904-angrybaldguy(a)gmailcom... | On 2010-07-22 14:56:54 -0400, PD said: | | > On Jul 22, 10:31 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: | > | >> 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). | | Doesn't that depend on the mathematical model you're using? For | example, a vector field is a function which assigns a vector to every | point in some space; this maps rather well to a few physical phenomena | (gravity, for example). You can quibble on whether it's the field that | has the vector property or the points in the field, but mathematically | (and experimentally) the two stances appear to be indistinguishable. | | What am I missing? | | -o You haven't yet realised the pyramid of bigotry in this newsgroup, even though built on shifting sand, cannot be broached or toppled. Thompson having given cathode rays the property of being a stream of particles, it naturally follows in the minds of Phuckwit Duck and the herbivore john, that his electrons MUST have mass and volume. If we all agree the head of a pin is a dance floor, there must be angels to dance upon it. Now all we need do is find a way to count them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F |