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: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:27 On Jul 22, 1:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 5:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:20 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No, I'm an experimental physicist, by training and experience, > > actually. > > > Indeed, cloud chambers haven't been used in decades. Have you looked > > recently at how particles are measured? > > > > > 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? > > > No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked > > at something from the last 35 years... > > > > 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...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -------------- > last 35 years mean very little > as for me !! Well, then you've missed out on a great deal of experimental information. If you aren't aware of those *measurements*, then you'll be well behind the times. > those years are one of the darkest age of physics !! > in wich dumb mathematicians > that call themselves physicists took over physics !!! > with incredible nonsens physics > like Higgs bosons > and mass less particles > each particle has a dfeinite geometric structure > that fact that we dont know it > IS OUR FAULT ALONE !! > and should not let us give up > with it !! > > 'GOD DINNT PLAY THE DICE '' > iow > the amount of probability > IS OUR AMOUNT OF (pompous-vane ) IGNORANCE !!! > Y.P > ------------------------ > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:29 On Jul 22, 6:52 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked > > at something from the last 35 years... > > No, oddles of model fitting, and still no GUT gravity. Still no > individual quarks, still no CMBR integration into the theory, still > lovingly implying 'we got the matter worked out, but without gravity, > and without dark matter and well really it's only about non > gravitating real matter, I mean Fred over on the other side of the > plush office wanted square bosons, but I told him they had to be a > point to all this.' Well, you don't need to hold an individual quark in your hand to know that one exists. Do you have to hold an individual gene in your hand to know that it exists? I see the problem you have is that you think everything should be worked out by now. PD
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:32 On Jul 22, 1:17 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:43 am, 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. > > > None of these have exhibited any structure. > > Before we fly quickly off to your next > stuff, .....about these non-composites; what makes > them different from each other? Their properties: electric charge, strong charge, quantum spin number (which has NOTHING to do with spinning around an axis -- it's just a word), parity, lepton number, baryon number, isospin, mass, etc. > Are they all different shapes? No, shape is a property that is ONLY shared by composite objects. It is not a property that is exhibited by every single object in the universe. It's a little like asking "These 'fish' you talk about... what color is their fur?" Not every animal HAS fur. > Or are some of them the same shape but follow different paths? > Why would the same shapes move differently? Are there density > gradients in the non-composite, single-entity 'stuff'? Density is a property that is ONLY shared by composite objects. See comments above. > What is this stuff? If it is one thing, how can it assume > different shapes and have other different attributes? > > PD? > > Can you clarify this non-composite thing further? > > john > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Jacko on 22 Jul 2010 12:27 Existance is infered, if not alone the it is not apart-icle. It's tugegericle.
From: cjcountess on 23 Jul 2010 10:34
Hi Jacko You are correct I cant believe we are still stuck on this point particle, probability wave model of the electron. Overwhelming evidence that speaks for itself, clearly shows that electron is a backward spinning (-1 charge ), standing spherical wave, making two rotations to complete one wave cycle (spin1/2), with angular momentum of (h/2pi/2). This came about in part because of geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), which shows that c^2 is not just mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no geometrical structure, but is in fact c in the linear direction times c in the 90 degree angular direction, creating a 90 degree arc trejectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy = (cx2pi) with angular momentum (h/2pi), and if amplitude is constant will make 2 rotations to complete 1 wave cycle (spin ½) , will have angular momentum of (h/2pi/2), and if spin is counter to trajectory, will have (-1 charge). As these are same as empirically verified dimensions of electron, it is highly improbable that this geometrical interpretation of c^2 does not correspond to that of electron as well, and as such, deBroglie's, E=hf=mc^2, which indicates a smooth transition of photons to electrons, along the same EM spectrum, which may also be called the (energy/matter) as well as the electromagnetic spectrum as well as E=mc^2 is given a geometrical form. And as a geometrical picture is worth a thousand words and equations. This geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains and conveys much more info that the equations alone as it does indeed give these equations physical form. PD, inertia, artful and the like have some vested interest in the point particle model. But this model in on its way out and so are its proponents if they dont get in step with the time. SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf Conrad J Countess |