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 09:53 Lat's take a simple one like a single electron in a field from a 'point' coulomb well made by something which is not a point (the proton). This implies a very good match for spectral lines, but not a perfect match. In this sense it is not even a 2 body problem. Ans I'm sue I'd have seen lots of convolution integrals. Now gravity at the quantum level would imply a maximal photon energy and so a minimal length to any structure external to the weightless or light singularity. Any rest mass (of the high momentum type ;-)) would serve to expand this singularity. So the implications are general relatiity is wrong, or quantum mechanics is wrong. Gravity relativity is a model of gravity similar to general relativity, but not in a reimann space, and an invariant but changable speed of light. It also has a singularity radius. Now photons bigger in wavelength to a singularity may 'refract' of a sort, but gravity not applying at the small scale is what the search for 'quantum gravity' is about. And all that experimentation evidence saying protons have structure but electrons don't is missing the point, that firing point charges at the detected 'not a point charges' is circular, as it could be that the electon structure just as easily appeared in the result. (see previous : not a two body problem).
From: michael michalchik on 25 Jul 2010 15:24 On Jul 21, 11:37 pm, "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 > ------------------- Electrons are not points they are probability fields localized around a point that interact with other objects through virtual particle fields in ways that transfer quanta of energy the way a point particle would if it could collide with something.
From: BURT on 25 Jul 2010 16:53 On Jul 25, 12:24 pm, michael michalchik <michael.michalc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:37 pm, "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 > > ------------------- > > Electrons are not points they are probability fields localized around > a point that interact with other objects through virtual particle > fields in ways that transfer quanta of energy the way a point particle > would if it could collide with something.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Electrons are points of energy that quantum mechically vibrate by being pushed by their immaterial quantum waves. Mitch Raemsch
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Aug 2010 04:13 On Jul 21, 7:05 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 isnot a pointis also an article of > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. Nothing is infinite, or infinitesimal. This is not a matter of faith but maths and fýsiceis. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Aug 2010 04:27
On Jul 22, 11:56 am, 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 isnot a pointis 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. You are a shyster cretin. Every mote (of ended weiht, inworkhead, and swiftness--or finite mass, energhy, and velocitude) has a bulk in 3D bounded by inner dýnamic/potential radius r and emmer cinètic/motional radius ct. (I used to say outter instead of emmer, but the comparisons after Englisc, meseems, go as at|out and in|em (or æt|ut and in|ymb) rather than at|(nothing) and in|out.) For a ground-state elèctròn, r is r_e and ct is cγT_Ω, or about a femtometre and 47 gigalihtyears. -Aut |