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: artful on 19 Jul 2010 09:15 On Jul 19, 11:14 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:51 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. > > > Show me a point. > > > john > > ---------------- > John > why do you bother to answer > a pigshit psychopath anonymous with > 3 anonymous names ??!! Do you have three anonymous names?
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 10:39 On 19 July, 14:15, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:14 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 7:51 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. > > > > Show me a point. > > > > john > > > ---------------- > > John > > why do you bother to answer > > a pigshit psychopath anonymous with > > 3 anonymous names ??!! > > Do you have three anonymous names? Points have been proven to be invisible. They are a mathyematical throwback to the use of the sigularity a 0. x/0 is a singularity. x*0 is an information destroying process of the greatest order. No information conservative model of anything can be modelled using it without the concept of irremovable uncertainty.
From: Michael Moroney on 19 Jul 2010 14:11 john <vegan16(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: >On Jul 18, 9:03 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: >> >Yet when I suggest an electron has >> >structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on >> >involving energy radiation and absorption >> >at a much smaller scale, I am accused of >> >'word salad'. >> >> Try posting something that actually makes more sense than random words of >> physics thrown together at random (word salad). If you're going to create >> new ideas or whatever, at least make it so that it matches current >-> reality. Heisenberg-violating subparticles that magically radiate >away >-> without losing energy/evaporating away certainly don't do that. >-> Especially when you say they radiate neutrinos, but neutrinos >aren't even >-> bosons. >-> - >OK, the sun radiates neutrinos. Yes it does. You may also notice that many references mention the sun converts 4 million tons of matter to energy per second. Now consider that a neutrino has a mass estimated at a few eV. Call it 1 eV. An electron has a mass of 511,000 eV. From that, tell us how long an electron would last if it kept radiating 1 eV neutinos. Tell us why we don't see 510,000 eV mass electrons, 509,000 eV electrons, etc. >I am saying that electrons are >made up of multiple sun-like bodies >on a much smaller scale radiating >sun-like radiation on a much smaller scale. Add a few slices of cucumbers, some cherry tomatoes, Dee-Lish! >These would be photons and neutrinos, >but much, much smaller, but much, much >more of them. Then they wouldn't be photons or neutrinos, would they? >As for violating Heisenburg, if subparticles re-occur >infinitely, there's a lot of movement out there, bud. OK, let's do some actual math estimates. Consider that the radius of an electron has been measured to be smaller than our ability to measure. (as if it were a point, however this by itself doesn't mean it's a point any more than the inability to measure the length of a bacterium with a yardstick makes it a point). Anyway, that's less than 10^-18 m. So, all of these "sun-like bodies" croutons must be within that 10^-18 m diameter, so there's your delta-x. Now since delta-x * delta-p must be greater than hbar/2, you can calculate a minimum value of momentum. Now, what does one of your crunchy croutons have for a mass? A millionth of an electron? A billionth of an electron? From there, can you tell me what the velocity of a crouton would have to be for a crouton to have that momentum uncertainty? Does such a velocity even make sense? Now, given this velocity, and the previously defined crouton mass, come up with the energy per crouton. 1/2 mv^2. Does *that* make sense? Multiply it by a million or a billion, or however many croutons per electron, and we have the internal energy of an electron. Does *that* make sense? Now divide each crouton into crumbs and repeat the process. What is the diameter of a crouton? Notice that the numbers make even less sense?
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 14:26 On 19 July, 19:11, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: > >On Jul 18, 9:03 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: > >> >Yet when I suggest an electron has > >> >structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > >> >involving energy radiation and absorption > >> >at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > >> >'word salad'. > > >> Try posting something that actually makes more sense than random words of > >> physics thrown together at random (word salad). If you're going to create > >> new ideas or whatever, at least make it so that it matches current > >-> reality. Heisenberg-violating subparticles that magically radiate > >away > >-> without losing energy/evaporating away certainly don't do that. > >-> Especially when you say they radiate neutrinos, but neutrinos > >aren't even > >-> bosons. > >-> - > >OK, the sun radiates neutrinos. > > Yes it does. You may also notice that many references mention the sun > converts 4 million tons of matter to energy per second. > > Now consider that a neutrino has a mass estimated at a few eV. Call it > 1 eV. An electron has a mass of 511,000 eV. From that, tell us how > long an electron would last if it kept radiating 1 eV neutinos. Tell > us why we don't see 510,000 eV mass electrons, 509,000 eV electrons, etc. > > >I am saying that electrons are > >made up of multiple sun-like bodies > >on a much smaller scale radiating > >sun-like radiation on a much smaller scale. > > Add a few slices of cucumbers, some cherry tomatoes, Dee-Lish! > > >These would be photons and neutrinos, > >but much, much smaller, but much, much > >more of them. > > Then they wouldn't be photons or neutrinos, would they? > > >As for violating Heisenburg, if subparticles re-occur > >infinitely, there's a lot of movement out there, bud. > > OK, let's do some actual math estimates. Consider that the radius of > an electron has been measured to be smaller than our ability to measure. > (as if it were a point, however this by itself doesn't mean it's a point > any more than the inability to measure the length of a bacterium with a > yardstick makes it a point). Anyway, that's less than 10^-18 m. So, all > of these "sun-like bodies" croutons must be within that 10^-18 m diameter, > so there's your delta-x. Now since delta-x * delta-p must be greater than > hbar/2, you can calculate a minimum value of momentum. Now, what does > one of your crunchy croutons have for a mass? A millionth of an electron? > A billionth of an electron? From there, can you tell me what the velocity > of a crouton would have to be for a crouton to have that momentum > uncertainty? Does such a velocity even make sense? Now, given this > velocity, and the previously defined crouton mass, come up with the > energy per crouton. 1/2 mv^2. Does *that* make sense? Multiply it by > a million or a billion, or however many croutons per electron, and we have > the internal energy of an electron. Does *that* make sense? > > Now divide each crouton into crumbs and repeat the process. What is > the diameter of a crouton? Notice that the numbers make even less sense?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But crutons don't have to have mass therefore have no momentum, and so what's your point?
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 14:33
On 19 July, 19:26, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 July, 19:11, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: > > >On Jul 18, 9:03 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: > > >> >Yet when I suggest an electron has > > >> >structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > > >> >involving energy radiation and absorption > > >> >at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > > >> >'word salad'. > > > >> Try posting something that actually makes more sense than random words of > > >> physics thrown together at random (word salad). If you're going to create > > >> new ideas or whatever, at least make it so that it matches current > > >-> reality. Heisenberg-violating subparticles that magically radiate > > >away > > >-> without losing energy/evaporating away certainly don't do that. > > >-> Especially when you say they radiate neutrinos, but neutrinos > > >aren't even > > >-> bosons. > > >-> - > > >OK, the sun radiates neutrinos. > > > Yes it does. You may also notice that many references mention the sun > > converts 4 million tons of matter to energy per second. > > > Now consider that a neutrino has a mass estimated at a few eV. Call it > > 1 eV. An electron has a mass of 511,000 eV. From that, tell us how > > long an electron would last if it kept radiating 1 eV neutinos. Tell > > us why we don't see 510,000 eV mass electrons, 509,000 eV electrons, etc. > > > >I am saying that electrons are > > >made up of multiple sun-like bodies > > >on a much smaller scale radiating > > >sun-like radiation on a much smaller scale. > > > Add a few slices of cucumbers, some cherry tomatoes, Dee-Lish! > > > >These would be photons and neutrinos, > > >but much, much smaller, but much, much > > >more of them. > > > Then they wouldn't be photons or neutrinos, would they? > > > >As for violating Heisenburg, if subparticles re-occur > > >infinitely, there's a lot of movement out there, bud. > > > OK, let's do some actual math estimates. Consider that the radius of > > an electron has been measured to be smaller than our ability to measure.. > > (as if it were a point, however this by itself doesn't mean it's a point > > any more than the inability to measure the length of a bacterium with a > > yardstick makes it a point). Anyway, that's less than 10^-18 m. So, all > > of these "sun-like bodies" croutons must be within that 10^-18 m diameter, > > so there's your delta-x. Now since delta-x * delta-p must be greater than > > hbar/2, you can calculate a minimum value of momentum. Now, what does > > one of your crunchy croutons have for a mass? A millionth of an electron? > > A billionth of an electron? From there, can you tell me what the velocity > > of a crouton would have to be for a crouton to have that momentum > > uncertainty? Does such a velocity even make sense? Now, given this > > velocity, and the previously defined crouton mass, come up with the > > energy per crouton. 1/2 mv^2. Does *that* make sense? Multiply it by > > a million or a billion, or however many croutons per electron, and we have > > the internal energy of an electron. Does *that* make sense? > > > Now divide each crouton into crumbs and repeat the process. What is > > the diameter of a crouton? Notice that the numbers make even less sense?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But crutons don't have to have mass therefore have no momentum, and so > what's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - More to my point... Is your QM model dark matter compliant? |