point particle vs particle with structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.4: One-Way Entanglement in Expansion-Contraction
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 12:20 On 21 July, 15:43, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:09 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > > > > > being nothing more that a point is > > > > > > untenable. > > > > > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > > > > > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > > > > Write this as: > > > > It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all > > > > circustances. > > > > How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and > > > > attributes? > > > > Why would you believe that volumetric density needs to be a property > > > of all physical things? > > > Density is a property that only applies to certain substances and > > > objects. If you'll note, those are all in the class of *composite* > > > objects. > > > You've said this before. > > To whit: just because every dog hit > > by a truck tends to be the worse > > for wear afterward doesn't mean that > > is true in *every* situation. How can > > I argue that? > > > Please supply a list of *non-composite* objects > > for our perusal, PD? > > electron, muon, tau lepton, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau > neutrino, up quark, down quark, strange quark, bottom quark, top > quark, W+ boson, W- boson, Z boson, photon, gluon. Infered in vapour trails and cloud chambers and photon detectors, so umm this proves what exactly? That bubbles spin in circles? and I suppose your fond of the Higgs boson? And not one attempt at an explination for dark matter and the dark energy, and QM with gravity.. Oh I forgot you are a regurgitator, not a theorist. > None of these have exhibited any structure. > > What experimental evidence do you have that any of these do in fact > have composite structure. And lacking experimental evidence, what God > revealed to you that absolutely everything in the universe is > composite? And what god has shown you proof of quarks? I buy mine at Tesco, you know. No sorry that's Quorn. Umm, no quarks then... And this self field experience, looking for a reply there...
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 12:23 On 21 July, 15:59, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We are talking about infinitely dense energy in a point particle that > > > we call mass. Other energy does not weigh and is not mass. > > > Of the order towards infinite energy in a very small point singularity > > warping space. It does not have to have mass, and could be called Dark > > Matter. Photons may not have mass, but they have EM attraction, and > > are captured orbitally arround singularities, even though the > > singularity has no mass. The EM between orbital light of one > > singularity to another singularity with orbital light makes a mass > > effect. This is mass. > > > Although mass may appear to warp space, it is warped space under the > > influence of light that makes mass. > > No such thing as point particle. Electron is a cloud. A point relates > to a dot. Bohr's model of atoms being like a solar system is "once > upon a Time" bull. It took you into a Quantum tunnel with no light. > I know the structure of an electron and posted it here and in > altastronomy TreBert I think you mis understood me. 'Very small point singularity' did not mean a zero D point of maths, but a very tiny of definite volume 'point'.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 12:32 Just wondered when you were going to introduce the virtual photon field desity renormalization, or say somehow the field from each point is different and so just doesn't have a self effect, or some other shite to skirt around the issue of THE singularity.
From: bert on 21 Jul 2010 19:35 On Jul 21, 12:23 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 July, 15:59, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We are talking about infinitely dense energy in a point particle that > > > > we call mass. Other energy does not weigh and is not mass. > > > > Of the order towards infinite energy in a very small point singularity > > > warping space. It does not have to have mass, and could be called Dark > > > Matter. Photons may not have mass, but they have EM attraction, and > > > are captured orbitally arround singularities, even though the > > > singularity has no mass. The EM between orbital light of one > > > singularity to another singularity with orbital light makes a mass > > > effect. This is mass. > > > > Although mass may appear to warp space, it is warped space under the > > > influence of light that makes mass. > > > No such thing as point particle. Electron is a cloud. A point relates > > to a dot. Bohr's model of atoms being like a solar system is "once > > upon a Time" bull. It took you into a Quantum tunnel with no light. > > I know the structure of an electron and posted it here and in > > altastronomy TreBert > > I think you mis understood me. 'Very small point singularity' did not > mean a zero D point of maths, but a very tiny of definite volume > 'point'.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Definite volume relating to what? How is the measurement done? etc TreBert
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 19:49
> Definite volume relating to what? How is the measurement done? The radius of the space warp singularity. Surrounded by orbital light. The definite volume would be the volume contained in the singularity radius, measured from the outside. As light would appear to be the only thing affected by a crouton, light bending would have to be detected. I'll have a think. |