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: Michael Moroney on 19 Jul 2010 14:40 Jacko <jackokring(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 19 July, 19:11, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> 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? >But crutons don't have to have mass therefore have no momentum, and so >what's your point? Without mass or momentum, delta-x would have to be infinite to satisfy HUP, therefore the croutons couldn't be confined within an electron diameter, and therefore wouldn't be part of an electron. Besides, how could all those sun-like croutons radiate energy without any mass of their own to produce that energy in the first place?
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 14:54 This state upon the road to GUT where warp is factored away from mass is called the singular threshold. Many limit sums later, and cruton soup theory will come to pass the GUT, it will lead to Brown's motion theory. God is foo kin fun e ya dan tine fink.
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 16:01 On Jul 19, 6:50 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 19, 3:44 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > john 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 > > > You can't show us a clue either, does that mean you don't have one? > > No, I'm not talking about your head, Eric. > > Show me a point- where is this real-life point? An electron has no volume that we've been able to measure just yet. Yet it has physical properties. > > john
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 16:03 On Jul 19, 1:17 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > 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. > 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. That's fine. Now what you need to do is what EVERY OTHER proponent of a physical model must do: Do some calculations with your model to produce a unique, testable prediction. Can't do it? Then as far as physics is concerned, your idea is just idle cocktail- napkin speculation and not ready to be treated at all seriously. > > These would be photons and neutrinos, > but much, much smaller, but much, much > more of them. > > As for violating Heisenburg, if subparticles re-occur > infinitely, there's a lot of movement out there, bud. > > john
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 16:04
On Jul 19, 1:26 pm, 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? What makes you think that if something doesn't have mass it doesn't have momentum? You're not one of those people that think that momentum is always m*v, are you? |