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 19 Jul 2010 16:09 On Jul 18, 10:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > being nothing more that a point is > untenable. I don't think it's untenable at all. > How can a point have any attributes at all? Easy. Something that has no measurable volume also has momentum and electric charge and baryon number. Done. Where did you get the idea that somethng with no volume MUST ONLY HAVE attributes of [x, y, z] location? > Why would one point be any different from another point? Because they would have different values of momentum and electric charge and baryon number and other properties. > > 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'. > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? Please don't confuse the babbling that your doing with a statement that flies in the face of your expectation. It is YOUR expectation that EVERYTHING that has physical meaning MUST have structure and therefore MUST have volume and MUST be composite. You've just got it in your head that it MUST be that way. You do this by looking at things that are familiar to you, like pieces of wood, and plastic checkers, steel balls, and then saying, well if it's true for them, then it MUST be true for EVERYTHING. This is a mistake called overgeneralization. You've overgeneralized to the point where even the concept of a physical thing with no volume just makes no mental sense to you. > > john > galaxy model for the atom
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 17:50 On 19 July, 19:40, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > Jacko <jackokr...(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. If the light orbiting a crouton provides the mass, and all the uncertainty, The v.x >= h/2m relates to the m. the central crouton is not a wave, it has within it many absorbed ultra-gamma photons within the event horizon. These photons are moving at an extreamly low speed of light. So this high velocity your on about does not add up relativistically. These photons are warping the space, making a crouton. From the external prospective a crouton is time dilated static and so may be black an a non EM emitter. As spacewarp only bends light (by making the path intergral of the sine vs. the straight line) and this does not mean it has mass or is a wave. It is a singularity of a sort. Now the light orbiting arround a cruton is a wave, and the spacewarp of the cruton (the torsion path integral on the event horizon) slows down the photons in orbit, and tilts then out of the plane (->3D) under torsion. This twist or phase lag is the gravity mass effect generated by photons orbiting a crouton. The crouton is not itself necessarily of mass that could be observed. > Besides, how could all those sun-like croutons radiate energy without > any mass of their own to produce that energy in the first place? I do not think croutons radiate energy, they just warp space.
From: Jacko on 19 Jul 2010 17:59 > 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?- Not something, CROTONS in particular. How much momentum is there to a time dilated photon hiting an event horizon? And No. m0c^2+mp^2+mp^4+... and root(1-v^2) are not unknown to me. http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring go to bottom of page download pdf file uncertain-geo<version number>.pdf and read at least the equations till you get to the one starting 1 kg = Cheers Jacko
From: gulaman on 20 Jul 2010 00:36 Some advice 1. Study more elementary physics to appreciate that the point particle representation is only for convenient solving of physics problems where some factors affecting the "particle" are not considered. 2. Study complex analysis and your math to know that x/0 is a singularity
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 00:53
On 20 July, 05:36, gulaman <regala...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Some advice > > 1. Study more elementary physics > to appreciate that the point particle representation is only for > convenient solving of physics problems where some factors affecting > the "particle" are not considered. > > 2. Study complex analysis and your math > to know that x/0 is a singularity 1. Simplyfying the PDE situation is often a fast engineering solution. 2. i.e. a/uno/eine/singular/1of - NOT 0. |