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 23 Jul 2010 08:39 In order to understand evolution of a theorectical model using assumption randomization as opposed to maximal entropy tenant reduction, one must admit the mutogenisis is the lesser effect copared to hybridization, but it is necessary.
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 08:56 On Jul 22, 6:12 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > 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. Not as open as you think. Substructure leaves a pretty unambiguous signal. We were able to see substructure in the proton in the 1960's. > > 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? I'm actually not insisting that. What I'm telling you is only what we have evidence for. So far, we have different classes of objects, some things for which we have clear evidence of structure, and other things for which we have absolutely no evidence for structure. So I'm just telling you what the evidence in hand is telling us. This doesn't mean that FUTURE evidence won't tell us something different. But we don't have any evidence of the kind. So speculations about things for which we have no evidence is really just making statements of faith about the unknown. That is called religion. It's fine if you want to have an article of faith about the unknown, but the fact is that it is scientifically unsound to claim to KNOW anything about the unknown. This is what marks the difference between religion and science. When you say you KNOW that things are composite at all levels, you are making a religious statement, not a scientific one. > > It would be nice if you would > bring forward your description of this non-composite > (which is so far only a word). > > Describe it. I have. I've given you a number of properties that these things have. I gather that you don't know what lepton number or quantum spin or parity are, and so when I tell you about these properties, they don't mean anything to you. In return, you ask me about other properties, like their density or shape, which are properties of composite things only. And here's the problem: you ONLY UNDERSTAND properties of composite things, and so a description of a noncomposite thing just does mean anything to you. It's as though someone were trying to explain these things in Sanskrit to you. > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 08:59 On Jul 22, 10:42 pm, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Well, I see your point, but I consider a field to be something that DOES have extent throughout the space considered. The field has a *value* at a point in space. As you said, this is a quibble. But there may be more to the quibble than it appears, for an electron is a quantum field, as far as we can tell. It still does not exhibit volume. > > -o
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:00 On Jul 23, 1:11 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Owen Jacobson" <angrybald...(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. Actually, no, I'm saying just the opposite. Mass and volume are NOT mandatory properties of physical objects. > 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....
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jul 2010 09:46
On 7/21/10 1:26 AM, john wrote: > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > infinitely complex at no matter what > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > 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 John, sometime you perspective can become confused as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cm1r3d2Qw4&feature=youtube_gdata |