Point particles cannot anihilate themselves
Y.Porat
'point particles'
that means 'final particles'
if they are 'final' then nothing can anihilate them
a point cannot be anihilated.
'point like ' is another evasion of the real problem
-not a real answer.
the fact that they anihilate to em waves
means that electron and positron are *composed*!!
of the same matter as em waves!!
anything other is human entanglement product theories
(holes in the theory)
that has to be revised and fixed.
and the sonner the betetr
--------------------------
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
>
> the fact that they anihilate to em waves
> means that electron and positron are *composed*!!
> of the same matter as em waves!!
This can mean two things:
1) Leptons have no mass.
2) Light has mass.
Interesting.
OsherD
Y. Porat wrote:
>a point cannot be anihilated
This is an interesting question, and I am happy to see somebody
examining it. Euclid, who many believe summarized previous Ancient
Greek knowledge as well as his own, defined a point as:
1) That which has neither breadth, nor width, nor length
and that's all he essentially said about it. Now comes the interesting
part. If we don't want a point to be annihilated, then we really are
adding something to (1) such as:
2) Axiom: A point cannot be annihilated.
On the other hand, the pro-annihilation crowd, whomever they may be,
might want:
3) Axiom: A point can be annihilated.
So there's no getting around adding axioms unless you want to forget
annihilation, which I assume that you don't. You might also add the
definition of annihilation as simple hopefully as Euclid's definition
of point.
This brings to mind another point (no pun intended). The Ancient
Greeks used simple definitions. Maybe we're sometimes unhappy with
them, but it turned out that Lebesgue Measure which is the basis of
Measure and Integration which is a key to Real Analysis (what graduate
calculus/analysis becomes when it grows up so to speak) shows the
wisdom of the Ancient Greeks' simpicity in defining a point, line,
plane, etc. On the other hand, if we compare typical algebraic
geometry and algebraic topology proliferated definitions, it may not
only be a point which has been annihilated :>)
Osher
Old Man
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115190350.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Silly. None of the above. Instead:
3) Two photons can have invariant mass.
[Old Man]
OsherD
I typed an additional reply after the above, but Google Beta claimed
that there was a server error or something like that.
Anyway, "final point particle" contains 3 words that need definitions
and axioms in my opinion, plus "irreducible" which is meant in "final".
However, there's more. I don't think that anybody has an intuition
about irreducibility, so it would be nice to have an explanatory axiom
giving some plausible intuitive reason or even any intuitive reason why
anything should be indivisible.
Osher Doctorow
gmichael
and the "anihilation" for a moment, then there is the small matter of where
or why the "matter" disappears, when a positron and a electron meet.
Maybe they are composed of ...........(not matter) ?
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1115188277.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Y.Porat
before i read your post i aldeady
prepaired my gun ....
but you surprised me !! (:-)
btw is my abovwe claim something new??
my guess was that it cant be that no one before
thought about it ......
keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
ivariant mass is afaik rest mess!!
if yess then ... waht happened to you??
'a photon with rest mass' *acording to Old man* ??
ami missing something ??
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
conservation of matter or mass??
anyway my main poit is to indicate
that *th e electron is ----- divisible *!!!!
am i right ??
and divisible means being composed of sub substance
or sub --- something smaller. but matter
because 'no matter' cannot compose matter
it seems to me at least just
some methamorphosys of the same more basic substance!!
am i right ??
and the simplest suggestion i have in mind :
is simple as that
'*photons has rest mass*!!
and you will ask: if so why can it move with the velocity of light
(while acording to the lorantz factor no matter can move
at the velocity of light ??
here is my asnswer
common 'stiffies' thake in your paradigmatic mind that
th e photon is an exception to the Lorentz rule!
ie its excepction is that
it can has mass and still move with C !!
may be just because its mass is th esmallest possible in our universe??
how about that ?
TIA fo r apposite responses.
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Old Man
news:1115190366.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >From Osher Doctorow
>
> Y. Porat wrote:
>
>>a point cannot be anihilated
>
>
> This is an interesting question, and I am happy to see somebody
> examining it. Euclid, who many believe summarized previous Ancient
> Greek knowledge as well as his own, defined a point as:
>
> 1) That which has neither breadth, nor width, nor length
Unlike a geometric point, an elementary particle has a
field of finite extent and is uniquely identified by its
quantum numbers: charge, mass, spin, parity, lepton
number, baryon number, ect. Each quantum number is
separately conserved.
> If we don't want a point to be annihilated, then we really are
> adding something to (1) such as:
>
> 2) Axiom: A point cannot be annihilated.
Silly. Because a geometric point has no quantum numbers
to be conserved, anihilation, anti-point, and negative-point
have no meaning.in geometry.
In physics, "annihilation" is distinct from "disappearance".
For annihilation, total energy is positive and conserved;
total angular momentum can be finite and is conserved;
rest mass is positive and invariant (and yes, two photons
can have invariant mass).
> Osher
[Old Man]
Y.Porat
and if divisible then divisible to What ?????
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Old Man
"gmichael" <gmic...@gmd-home.com> wrote in message
news:d5a008$m9$1...@online.de...
>I think you have a point. ......... if we can forget that "point particle"
>and the "anihilation" for a moment, then there is the small matter of where
>or why the "matter" disappears, when a positron and a electron meet.
> Maybe they are composed of ...........(not matter) ?
A center-of-momentum being definable, a system of
two or more photons has invariant mass. In the case of
electron-positron annihilation, the two final state photons
invariably have invariant mass.
[Old Man]
Old Man
Silly. OsherD hasn't a clue. The point is "elementary".
> Osher Doctorow
[old Man]
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
Old Man
> common man
> ivariant mass is afaik rest mess!!
>
> if yess then ... waht happened to you??
> 'a photon with rest mass' *acording to Old man* ??
> ami missing something ??
Photon(s), not photon. A center-of-momentum being
definable, a system of TWO OR MORE photons has
invariant mass.
For TWO photons, one with momentum, + p, and
the other, - p, (traveling in the opposite direction), the
center-of-momentum velocity is zero, and the system's
invariant mass, M, is given by M c^2 = 2 |p| c
That is, in the center-of-momentum, a systems rest
energy is equal to its total relativistic energy.
> Y.Porat
[Old Man]
Old Man
> so the electron is an elementry particle *but divisible?*
"Elementary" means indivisible, but the properties of two
or more elementary particles are additive.
Before annihilation, an electron-positron pair is a boson of
spin = 0 or 1, lepton number = 0, with invariant mass =
2*m_e*c^2. After annihilation, the system of two or three
photons has exactly the same characteristics.
Nothing is destroyed in annihilation.
[Old Man]
> Porat
Old Man
> and how about th e conclusion that th e electron is ... divisible!!
>
> and if divisible then divisible to What ?????
????? Additive but not divisible.
> Y.Porat
>
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115202335.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>so the electron is an elementry particle *but divisible?*
>
>
> "Elementary" means indivisible, but the properties of two
> or more elementary particles are additive.
With the exception of invariant mass, as you just showed for
two photons.
> Before annihilation, an electron-positron pair is a boson of
> spin = 0 or 1, lepton number = 0, with invariant mass =
> 2*m_e*c^2.
The last is wrong in general.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
and if you like additive
as far as i can undersatnd you additive is to build up from soemthing?
if building up - why not building 'down' ie destroy it ??
then aditive from what ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
ica
Isn't it that electron is composed of strings. Then when electron and
positron annihilate, the strings simply stop vibrating and get back to
the ambient stock in the vacuum. So the liberated energy came from
the vibrating energy.
What makes the above impossible?
ica
Y.Porat
youare getting closer
its a good idea
yet just give me a break with all the 'vacum bussiness'!!
for me (imho) space has no properties but hosting particles!!
so we have to look in th eparticles themselves about waht makes
their properties
and not wonder too far from the particles themselves to some
mistic notions like 'curved spce' or anyother unknown property of space
just keep in mind the Ocams razor':
the simpler the better
once you wonder into pproerties of spce you are entangled
and entangling youself with more compexities
btw i didnt say untill now all what is in my mind
and i think i have a very simple revolusionary answer
(actually insinuating about it many times but .....
it is not wise from me to spill it all at once and too soon.
as Mau sayed:
let a thosand flowers flourish' (i am not sure he realy implemented his
theory
but at least sayed something right and nice .........)
i waht to see what others suggest
all th ebest
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
th eword anihilation is not a proper word
it should be a new *incarnation* of the same thing
ie the same thing in a different aranghement
yet you cant ignore the differences of
'before the collision and after it '
there *is some difference* so what after all is that difference and
....
what *didnt change *???
spin and lepton numbers are nice but not the whole complete story!
still you ddint exlain how is it
that electron positron differnt incarnation is not actually
deviding them to their constituencts?
do you waht to say that the em waves that poped out
and left nothing of the electron and positron
cannot be considered as destroing them deviding them ???!!!
methaphorically
do you waht to say that after blasting a building
it was nor divised just becaise nothing of it s material
was not lost ??
i wonder what is the psychlogic block to say
that the electron is divisible !!!
even after the experiment that showes it clearly??
all th e best
Y.Porat
---------------
-----------
Ranando King
news:8uidnTDlaoI...@prairiewave.com...
>
> "gmichael" <gmic...@gmd-home.com> wrote in message
> news:d5a008$m9$1...@online.de...
>
> >I think you have a point. ......... if we can forget that "point
particle"
> >and the "anihilation" for a moment, then there is the small matter of
where
> >or why the "matter" disappears, when a positron and a electron meet.
> > Maybe they are composed of ...........(not matter) ?
>
> A center-of-momentum being definable, a system of
> two or more photons has invariant mass. In the case of
> electron-positron annihilation, the two final state photons
> invariably have invariant mass.
Ok. I get that a system of 2 or more photons can have invariant mass. Now,
is that invariant mass somehow lost of the photons comprising the system are
absorbed?
R.
hanson
>
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115195311....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> common man
>> ivariant mass is afaik rest mess!!
>> if yess then ... waht happened to you??
>> 'a photon with rest mass' *acording to Old man* ??
>> ami missing something ??
>
>
> Photon(s), not photon. A center-of-momentum being
> definable, a system of TWO OR MORE photons has
> invariant mass.
>
> For TWO photons, one with momentum, + p, and
> the other, - p, (traveling in the opposite direction), the
> center-of-momentum velocity is zero, and the system's
> invariant mass, M, is given by M c^2 = 2 |p| c
>
> That is, in the center-of-momentum, a systems rest
> energy is equal to its total relativistic energy.
>
What OM presented is experimentally seen in "pair creation"
Google for it, Yehiel.
Good to hear from both you guys.
Take care
hanson
hanson
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Isn't it that electron is composed of strings.
It is a *hypothesis* that the electron *is* a string. So far, there is
not the tiniest shred of experimental evidence for that hypothesis.
> Then when electron and
> positron annihilate, the strings simply stop vibrating and get back to
> the ambient stock in the vacuum.
Huh? What "ambient stock"?
> So the liberated energy came from the vibrating energy.
>
> What makes the above impossible?
Nothing, as far as I can see. However, what makes it possible?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Yes. The total invariant mass of the system consisting of the
absorbers plus the two photons does not change. But this total
invariant mass is in general *not* the sum of the invariant mass
of the absorbers and the invariant mass of the two photons.
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
2 i dont see the point in saying that two photons can have mass
and a single photon cannot have a mass.
invariant mass i srest mass.! there is just one kind of mass
many sorts of mass is just th einventionof some people
------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Uncle Al
>
> The electron and positron are acording to the paradigma
> 'point particles'
> that means 'final particles'
>
> if they are 'final' then nothing can anihilate them
> a point cannot be anihilated.
> 'point like ' is another evasion of the real problem
> -not a real answer.
Hey stooopid - positron emission tomography via detection of paired
anti-coincident 511 eV photons. Functional PET via detection of
administered (F-18)fluoro-D-2-deoxyglucose decay in human brains and
technetium-99m sestamibi for cancer location isotope scans.
Empirical idiot. FPET flatliner.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Chris Dams
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> writes:
>no mass can be lost and no mas can be created from nothing
>2 i dont see the point in saying that two photons can have mass
>and a single photon cannot have a mass.
>invariant mass i srest mass.! there is just one kind of mass
>many sorts of mass is just th einventionof some people
However, it is possible that an electron and a positron annihilate into
two photons. The mass of the electron is very similar, if not equal to,
the mass of the positron. Also, it is known that the mass of the photon
is very small, if not zero, compared the mass of the electron. How do
you relate this to your statement that "no mass can be lost and no mas
can be created from nothing".
Best wishes,
Chris
Y.Porat
or what i s the conventional explanation to it ?
2 my guess( i must admitt i never went into those detailes)
so my guess is that ,if it is right what you say though it seems to me
strange,
that the resultant masses 'lack ' so much of the orriginal mass
so my guess is that there is still alot of it that just 'smuggled'
itself
some where without our noticing it?
is i tpossible tha tthis issue was not properly investigated??
Y.Porat
do you think that by throwing 'impressive words' into the air
you make some points ??
does anyone understand waht the man is talking about
and what that heap of data is relevant to our discussion??
do you claim that point particles *can anihilatye each other?
and did you got what i sayed that if they do anihilate each other
it means *they are not point particles ??
Y.P
--------------------------------
Traveler
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
> The electron and positron are acording to the paradigma
>'point particles'
>that means 'final particles'
>
>if they are 'final' then nothing can anihilate them
>a point cannot be anihilated.
Whose rule is that? I maintain that size is illogical, period. If
something has size, what is it composed of? And if the constituents
have size, what are they composed of, ad infinitum? Size demands an
infinite regress and is therefore illogical. Two particles interact
only if they have exact same position and there is some violation of
conservation. An interaction is a correction of a violation of a
conservation principle such as conservation of energy, mass, momentum,
etc... That is all. Size has nothing to do with it.
>'point like ' is another evasion of the real problem
>-not a real answer.
>
>the fact that they anihilate to em waves
>means that electron and positron are *composed*!!
> of the same matter as em waves!!
>
>anything other is human entanglement product theories
>(holes in the theory)
>that has to be revised and fixed.
>
>and the sonner the betetr
I agree and I understand the dilemma. Blame it on the cluelessness of
standard physics. If a particle is a point with no extent (size), how
can it be a wave with extent at the same time? It's one or the other.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
gmichael
All your ideas show me, that
mass does not exist.
the experiment goes like this:
1 electron and 1 positron , both with small, but measurable mass, are sent
on a collision course.
Invariably, they meet, and invariably they transform into an gamma quant of
measurable frequency. (the infamous anihilation)
It is very hard to imagine a simple process, which will turn particles or
even divisible particles into that simple obvservable result.
But it is very simple to imagine, if this electron (positron) just do
consist of a trapped quant (my favourite design is a donut) where the only
difference between e- and e+ is the direction of the twirling quant. Now
they just will meet and their entrapment is released, and we have the
resulting double frequency quant.
(This also works the other way round. (quant into e+ /e-))
So where comes the mass from we observe?
Well, any membrane, which encloses "empty space" will produce an
casimir-effect of shrinkage of space against the expanding unsiverse (dark
energy).
So we will measure the gravitation-well around an trapped quant and think it
is mass.
We do not need material mass to measure gravitation.
Now we need the genius of bjoern feuerbach, if the numbers add up.
yours sincerely
gmichael
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1115196410.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Chris Dams
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> writes:
>1 how do *you explain it *???
>or what i s the conventional explanation to it ?
Well, the conventional way to explain it is that mass (i.e., rest mass) is
not conserved in all processes.
>2 my guess( i must admitt i never went into those detailes)
>so my guess is that ,if it is right what you say though it seems to me
>strange,
>that the resultant masses 'lack ' so much of the orriginal mass
>so my guess is that there is still alot of it that just 'smuggled'
>itself
>some where without our noticing it?
The question would then, of course, be to where it was "smuggled".
>is i tpossible tha tthis issue was not properly investigated??
There have been decades of collider experiments and lots of different
processes that have been observed violate conservation of rest mass.
I think you should ask yourself the question what you hope to gain by
introducing conservation of rest mass when there are so many disadvantages
to it.
Best wishes,
Chris
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
whatever is doing the absorbing. And the invariant mass of this
system doesn't change.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Creighton Hogg
And just in case it isn't clear to him, the conservation of
the invariant mass is just straight equivalent to
conservation of energy in the center of momentum frame.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Y.Porat
that photons have mass and it is just
*rest mass*
AFAIR the created photons have the same mass and the electron photon
but they call it relativistic mass
so here is where the dead dog is lying
it is not relativistic mass it is rest mass
how about that
it makes i tmuch simpler dont you think so ?
all th ebest
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
energy is mass in motion (yess rest mass!!! could you beoeive it
(;-))
just as simple as that .
and we are out of the mudd!!!
Y.Porat
----------------------
Old Man
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d5abfr$pl6$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Why ? Because the kinetic energy (and electrostatic
binding energy) has been neglected ? Very well. In
the center-of-momentum, invariant energy is
M*c^2 = E = 2*m_e*c^2 + KE
> Bye,
> Bjoern
[Old Man]
Old Man
"Ranando King" <r...@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
news:4278d50b$1...@news.vic.com...
No. The absorber mass is increased.
> R.
[Old Man]
FrediFizzx
news:ar6i71h43lmca2rv9...@4ax.com...
Go'dangit, Luigi. When ya gonna get off that photon snortin' pipe? LoL
Relativistic effects! What the heck do you think a bunch of point-like
massless or nearly massless "critters" are going to do? If constrained
by their mutual interactions to circle-like trajectories, then they are
going to be string-like and cloud-like. Freakin' space-time is being
defined at the sub-quantum level. And there you have it. Particles and
waves, both they be. Everything is going bzzzzzzzzt down there. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
gmichael
i made an reply and it never appeared.
Y.Porat
energy is mass in motion just as like in macrocosm!!!
(th e inginuity in physics is to be the simplest
no mathemetic mumbling can make us more cleaver)
btw my favorite is not a donut but an 'eel model.
mor elike a string
but since it is an 'eel' than it can have *many shapes*!!!!
how about that ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
bz
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> i think that the anser is
> that photons have mass and it is just
> *rest mass*
> AFAIR the created photons have the same mass and the electron photon
> but they call it relativistic mass
> so here is where the dead dog is lying
>
> it is not relativistic mass it is rest mass
> how about that
won't work. Some things don't have 'rest mass'.
Photons don't
neutrinos don't.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Y.Porat
while you anihilate electron positron you get two photons
th e elctron and positron had nass
so you got two photons with .... no mass??
wherer di dit disappeared??
Y.Porat
----------------------
bz
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> who told you that ??
> while you anihilate electron positron you get two photons
>
> th e elctron and positron had nass
> so you got two photons with .... no mass??
> wherer di dit disappeared??
total energy is conserved. E = KE + mc^2
[quote]
When an electron and a positron collide, they annihilate to a virtual
particle, either a photon or a Z boson. The virtual particle almost
immediately decays into other elementary particles, which are then detected
by huge particle detectors.
[unquote]
http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/
20031005144616.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/large-electron-positron-collider
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node201.html
[quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation]
Electron-positron annihilation is the process that occurs when an electron
(which is matter) and a positron (which is antimatter) collide. If they are
both relatively at rest (which happens in an exotic but not uncommon form
of matter called positronium), they destroy each other upon contact, and
produce two gamma ray photons of 511 keV each which are emitted in opposite
directions. If they are moving at different relative velocities, the
energies of the photons emitted will be higher, in accordance with the
conservation of 4-momentum (see below for important details). At higher
relative velocities, other particle-antiparticle pairs can also be
produced, since there is enough kinetic energy in the relative velocities
to provide for the masses of those particles. At much higher relative
velocities, there may be enough energy to produce a single neutral Z boson.
[edit]
Photon pair production
An important point is that there must be at least two photons produced if
photons are produced, since photons are massless particles. This means that
their 4-momenta have a norm of zero. However, if there are two photons
moving in different directions, their 4-momenta are added before taking the
norm, so one ends up with a positive net 4-momentum. This 4-momentum must
be the same as the 4-momentum of the colliding electron and positron.
The opposite process is known as pair production.
[unquote]
Y.Porat
once you say virtual particles i loos my wish to go on with it
because virtual particles for me is virtual physics
so you say that the mass dis appeared for a sort time Eh???
fo rme a theory in which mass disapear fo ranytime is croockish physics
that is good for mathematical croockes not fo rreal physicists
instead of saying we have no green clue abou tthat s going on there
they invent Vittul particles that are found only .... in huge
accelerators
with the probability of one to a few billions and to trell me the truth
i am tired of that stuipd fraud!!!!!
nore can i get the stupid claim that a photon can have momentum
without having mass!!
anyone who claimmes that have no common language with me . sorry
pope cannt stick it to their mind that a photon has mass !!
to hell with that stupidity!!
a photon is an exception to the rule that no mass can reach th
evelocity pf lihgt
it can have mass *and move at the velocity of light*
so simple !! nothjing can be simpler than that
if you dont get it sorry!! i dont what to be insultive personnaly to
you .
------------
all th e best
Y.porat
------------------------
bz
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> so you say that th emasses of the e p turned to be Virtual particles ??
>
> once you say virtual particles i loos my wish to go on with it
> because virtual particles for me is virtual physics
That depends on the experiment. I showed you two different cases.
High energy interaction between electron and positron.
And low energy interaction between electron and positron.
In both cases there are photons produced.
In the LOW energy interaction, you get two very short wave length photons
with very high energy.
In the high energy case, you never get time to see the photon(s) produced
because they are such high energy that they (almost) immediatly decay into
a whole bunch of particles.
You can call the shortlived photons anything you want. Virtual, or Tom,
Dick and Harry. I don't care.
> so you say that the mass dis appeared for a sort time Eh???
No! It got stuffed into a photon with so much energy that it immediately
broke apart.
> fo rme a theory in which mass disapear fo ranytime is croockish physics
> that is good for mathematical croockes not fo rreal physicists
> instead of saying we have no green clue abou tthat s going on there
> they invent Vittul particles that are found only .... in huge
> accelerators
> with the probability of one to a few billions and to trell me the truth
> i am tired of that stuipd fraud!!!!!
You come up with a better explanation, then.
> nore can i get the stupid claim that a photon can have momentum
> without having mass!!
Well, we all have our limitations.
'argue for your limitations and they are yours' as Richard Bach said in
'Illusions'.
Again it doesn't matter what you call it. Photons act like they have
momentum. Photons certainly have energy. Photons act like they do NOT have
rest mass. (you can't stop them to measure their rest mass so why argue
about it).
>
> anyone who claimmes that have no common language with me . sorry
> pope cannt stick it to their mind that a photon has mass !!
> to hell with that stupidity!!
The math is clear. The experimental data fits. What more do you want?
If you can't wrap your mind around massless photons, how do you feel about
imaginary numbers? You can't hold those in your hand either but they sure
do make it easier to do calculations when you have to deal with phase
differences in electronics.
> a photon is an exception to the rule that no mass can reach th
> evelocity pf lihgt
> it can have mass *and move at the velocity of light*
NO NO NO.
It ONLY has mass when it moves at the speed of light.
It only exists when it moves at the speed of light.
If you could slow it down below the speed of light, it would cease to have
mass and it would cease to have energy. It would cease to exist.
It can't move at any speed slower than the speed of light(in the media that
it is passing through).
Ranando King
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns964D878EC1450WQ...@130.39.198.139...
Since I spawned this little sub-topic, how about I give a better answer.
There's no need to conserve mass since mass is itself just inertia. Since
spacetime reacts to tightly bundled packets of slow-moving energy (matter)
by warping, thus creating the appearance of both gravity and inertia (mass),
when the packet of energy is unraveled, both properties cease. The inertia
that once was can be calculated as existing between the system of photons
that was created by the anihilation process, but that's merely a
mathematical artifact.
R.
bz
>
> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns964D878EC1450WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in news:1115312806.340922.169960
>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
.....
>> > fo rme a theory in which mass disapear fo ranytime is croockish
>> > physics that is good for mathematical croockes not fo rreal
>> > physicists instead of saying we have no green clue abou tthat s going
>> > on there they invent Vittul particles that are found only .... in
>> > huge accelerators
>> > with the probability of one to a few billions and to trell me the
>> > truth i am tired of that stuipd fraud!!!!!
>>
>> You come up with a better explanation, then.
>
> Since I spawned this little sub-topic, how about I give a better answer.
> There's no need to conserve mass since mass is itself just inertia.
> Since spacetime reacts to tightly bundled packets of slow-moving energy
> (matter) by warping, thus creating the appearance of both gravity and
> inertia (mass), when the packet of energy is unraveled, both properties
> cease. The inertia that once was can be calculated as existing between
> the system of photons that was created by the anihilation process, but
> that's merely a mathematical artifact.
Sounds pretty good to me.
I assume 'unraveling' the masses produces 'yarn' called 'photons'.
Y.Porat
bz wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in news:1115312806.340922.169960
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > so you say that th emasses of the e p turned to be Virtual
particles ??
> >
> > once you say virtual particles i loos my wish to go on with it
> > because virtual particles for me is virtual physics
>
> That depends on the experiment. I showed you two different cases.
> High energy interaction between electron and positron.
> And low energy interaction between electron and positron.
untill now you just hand waved.
>
> In both cases there are photons produced.
if ther are photons produced
are they observable?
are thet measurable !
AFAIK th e clain is tha tthey have the energy of the e p particles
-----
> In the LOW energy interaction, you get two very short wave length
photons
> with very high energy.
are they observable? i mean not in a huge accelerator
but in thier natural spot ie in th elocation they are alleged
to be ?
are they measurable ?
if yess waht is their energy??
and if they have energy how do you know they have no mass/?
--------------
>
> In the high energy case, you never get time to see the photon(s)
produced
so waht is your prove tha this story is notimmaginary??
> because they are such high energy that they (almost) immediatly decay
into
> a whole bunch of particles.
i though that in that case
two witches on broomsticks ar e produced for a short time
am i wrong ???
>
> You can call the shortlived photons anything you want. Virtual, or
Tom,
> Dick and Harry. I don't care.
it makes a big difference if photons are crated first
or not created at all
and just other *particles are created
together with em radiation!!
we have to know the whole story.provided you whant to make some
advance.
>
> > so you say that the mass dis appeared for a sort time Eh???
>
> No! It got stuffed into a photon with so much energy that it
immediately
> broke apart.
'th e mass wwas stuffed into photons....etc etc .
dont you realize that you are mumbling ???
-------------
>
> > fo rme a theory in which mass disapear fo ranytime is croockish
physics
> > that is good for mathematical croockes not fo rreal physicists
> > instead of saying we have no green clue abou tthat s going on there
> > they invent Vittul particles that are found only .... in huge
> > accelerators
> > with the probability of one to a few billions and to trell me the
truth
> > i am tired of that stuipd fraud!!!!!
>
> You come up with a better explanation, then.
my first explanation is
that theory that deals with massless particles is dead by arival-
or at the good case badly crippled !!
------------
>
> > nore can i get the stupid claim that a photon can have momentum
> > without having mass!!
>
> Well, we all have our limitations.
> 'argue for your limitations and they are yours' as Richard Bach said
in
> 'Illusions'.
i5 seems that th eillusions are more your property than mine!!
and dont fo rget that 'your theory is th edominant theory
that cannot alow 'loos ends' questinable ends.
or else it dont deserve the title 'the standard model
>
> Again it doesn't matter what you call it. Photons act like they have
> momentum. Photons certainly have energy. Photons act like they do NOT
have
> rest mass. (you can't stop them to measure their rest mass so why
argue
> about it).
it is a matter of bettwer understanding physics
if there is not the righ tunderstanding ther will be no progress
just re,ember the neutrino story!!
fo r along time 'it had no mass'
and then mercifulpeople (not God) gave it a mass ???!!
you can see the trend unless you are blind:
the smaller the particle - it is more difficult to detect its mass
but there isnt a particle wihtout mass
a particle without mass is only for either dumbmathematicians
or croockes.
so abuut momentum
it is exactly as in macrocosm
anyone who denyes it being like inmacrocosm
the burdaion of proof *is on him *!!!
if you dont get it
i am wasting my time.
-------------------
>
> >
> > anyone who claimmes that have no common language with me . sorry
> > pope cannt stick it to their mind that a photon has mass !!
> > to hell with that stupidity!!
>
> The math is clear. The experimental data fits. What more do you want?
>
> If you can't wrap your mind around massless photons, how do you feel
about
> imaginary numbers? You can't hold those in your hand either but they
sure
> do make it easier to do calculations when you have to deal with phase
> differences in electronics.
an accidental succes that is worse then a failieur!!!
(because it gives th eillusion that you are on the righ tway
and blockes you from real advance)
----------
>
> > a photon is an exception to the rule that no mass can reach th
> > evelocity pf lihgt
> > it can have mass *and move at the velocity of light*
>
> NO NO NO.
tes yes yes
--------------
>
> It ONLY has mass when it moves at the speed of light.
what a nice joke !
didnt you know that no mass canreach the speed of light??
and if you start with me with 'relativistic mass'
than i am off agin because i am tired about those iresponsible ideas.
----------
>
> It only exists when it moves at the speed of light.
>
> If you could slow it down below the speed of light, it would cease to
have
> mass
see the neutrino stoty!!....and mainly the history !!!
and it would cease to have energy. It would cease to exist.
who told you that ?? what do you know about waht happemse
to a photon after being absorbed by matter ??
have you any idea??
if not say it loud and clear!mainly to yourself first.
>
> It can't move at any speed slower than the speed of light(in the
media that
> it is passing through).
see my previous question.
all the best
Y.porat
----------------
>
Y.Porat
i fuly agree
Y.Porat
Chris Dams
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> writes:
> i think that the anser is
>that photons have mass and it is just
>*rest mass*
Photons could have a (very) small mass, but even if this is the case it is
certainly much smaller than the mass of the electron.
>AFAIR the created photons have the same mass and the electron photon
>but they call it relativistic mass
>so here is where the dead dog is lying
"Relativistic mass" is a somewhat old-fashioned word. The quantity that is
the same for the photons as for the electrons is the energy. This only
differs from the "relativistic mass" by a multiplicative constant so one
of these notions is redundant. Therefore, nowadays almost everybody calls
this energy and not "relativistic mass".
Best wishes,
Chris
Y.Porat
ok listen to the new fasion and dont forget from who you heared it th
efirst time
though i paritted it agin and agin i think for years
and people go on with their parroting:
so listen carefully:
*there is jusy one kind of mass*nothing more !!!
it is *rest mass* if you like you can call it invarioable
because it i sinvariable!! go tit
if not the burdain of prove for all the other masses
is on the inventors of those masses not on me
because it was them who added it from their immaginations !!
and i explained more thna once why *it seems * that mass can 'inflate'
it is not mass tha t inflats
it is the accelerating force that is becoming 'weaker'
if you kick a football then you have to run fater inorder to kick it
further!
yet your max velocity is jsut limited C
so you cant accelerate it more then C
got tit how simple it is ??
to simple to get into the 'respectable book ' of parrotland.
because if thing are realy so simple
what will do all the farter proffesors of physics??
how are they going to fill in al those plenthy of houers
of their teaching
an dwaht will thjey do with all their prepared lessons??
and who is going ot pay them for the sjhter houers of teaching?
and may bo some of them wil be dismissed because of noneed
of so many teacing hours??
yet even so i tel them parrots , dont wory
because once you will start to learn the real physics
you will get much more real teaching hours!1
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Apparently you have not yet encountered Porat's claim that E = mc^2
is incorrect and that the only correct version of that equation is
E/c^2 = m ...
Have fun with him!
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in news:1115270889.458824.319490
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> i think that the anser is
>>that photons have mass and it is just
>>*rest mass*
>>AFAIR the created photons have the same mass and the electron photon
>>but they call it relativistic mass
>>so here is where the dead dog is lying
>>
>>it is not relativistic mass it is rest mass
>>how about that
>
>
> won't work. Some things don't have 'rest mass'.
>
> Photons don't
> neutrinos don't.
Actually, neutrinos do.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:d5abfr$pl6$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>Old Man wrote:
>>
>>>"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
>>>news:1115202335.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>so the electron is an elementry particle *but divisible?*
>>>
>>>"Elementary" means indivisible, but the properties of two
>>>or more elementary particles are additive.
>>
>>With the exception of invariant mass, as you just showed for
>>two photons.
>>
>>
>>>Before annihilation, an electron-positron pair is a boson of
>>>spin = 0 or 1, lepton number = 0, with invariant mass =
>>>2*m_e*c^2.
>>
>>The last is wrong in general.
>
>
> Why ? Because the kinetic energy (and electrostatic
> binding energy) has been neglected ?
Essentially yes.
> Very well. In the center-of-momentum, invariant energy is
>
> M*c^2 = E = 2*m_e*c^2 + KE
Let's say the electron has the four-momentum (E,p)
and the positron the four-momentum (E,-p) (center-of-momentum
frame). Thus the invariant mass of the pair is sqrt((E+E)^2
- (p-p)^2) = 2 E = 2 sqrt(p^2 + m_e^2).
This is indeed equal to 2 m_e + KE.
Bye,
Bjoern
bz
$483$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de:
Appears to be a fairly recent discovery, but thanks.
hanson
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote in news:d5iqu2$483$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> Old Man wrote:
>> Very well. In the center-of-momentum, invariant energy is
>> M*c^2 = E = 2*m_e*c^2 + KE
>
> Let's say the electron has the four-momentum (E,p)
> and the positron the four-momentum (E,-p) (center-of-momentum
> frame). Thus the invariant mass of the pair is sqrt((E+E)^2 - (p-p)^2) = 2 E =
> 2 sqrt(p^2 + m_e^2).
> This is indeed equal to 2 m_e + KE.
> Bye, Bjoern
>
... ahahaha... yes, you can always make it the hard way
if the easy way is not pleasant enough.... just like the
Pharisees or Jesuits... always busy reinterpreting the bible.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Y.Porat
Old Man wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115202335.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > so the electron is an elementry particle *but divisible?*
>
> "Elementary" means indivisible, but the properties of two
> or more elementary particles are additive.
it seems to me that you are fiddling with words:
(we what to get into the 'bones of the phenonon.'!!)
once the electron positron has been changed to something else
*much more elementry* then it i s not elemntary any more !!
do you deny that photons are more elementary than
the electron and positron ??!!
-----------------------------------------
>
> Before annihilation, an electron-positron pair is a boson of
> spin = 0 or 1, lepton number = 0, with invariant mass =
> 2*m_e*c^2. After annihilation, the system of two or three
> photons has exactly the same characteristics.
>
> Nothing is destroyed in annihilation.
i agree and even suggested that the term 'anihilation'
is improper!!
i suggested the tem 'incarnation'
yet my concern is not in the detailes of spin lepton number etc
which do not answer the presented question
it i s obvious that all the known properties will be conserved
(unless we are not jumping to different energy levels !!
in that case only energy is conserved ??)
yet it does not tell us if what we got before 'incarnatin'
is more basic than what we get after incarnation
of electron positron!!
i dont know why for me photons are more basic than electrons !
am i right ??
----------
all the best
Y.Porat
--------------------
>
> [Old Man]
>
> > Porat
Monitek
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115190350.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> the fact that they anihilate to em waves
>> means that electron and positron are *composed*!!
>> of the same matter as em waves!!
>
>
> 1) Leptons have no mass.
>
> 2) Light has mass.
>
> Interesting.
>
Therefore light has mass.
Which does not surprise me as it is a result of an oscillation in an
electron - positron (e-p) vacuum. The mass arises because the e -p vacuum
separates into real e-p's as the em wave passes and reverts to massless
vacuum after the wave has passed. It is this phenomenon which gives rise to
dark matter, the 80% of the mass of the universe which supposedly has an
unknown source. I consider that the Dark Matter is proportional to the
number of "photons" in the universe at any one time.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
i don tknow about vacum
for me Vacom is nothing beside hosting particles
fo rme th eproperties of particles is only *inthe particles*
yet i agree with your conclution
that the photon has mass
just a btw
i even defined the mass of the smallest one.
as
E (min) = h/C^2 (times 1/time unit)
(time and h has to be at the same unit system)
while h is the Planks constant
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
Monitek
> Hi Arden
>
> i don tknow about vacum
> for me Vacom is nothing beside hosting particles
> fo rme th eproperties of particles is only *inthe particles*
>
However the mass does not move at the speed of light the mass is transient
in the transmission medium. This is how gravity can attract a light wave -
it can move the medium the light travels in.
> yet i agree with your conclution
> that the photon has mass
>
I dont see the photon as a particle its more of an effect.
What is certain is that electrons dont emit mass when they create an em
wave.
> just a btw
> i even defined the mass of the smallest one.
> as
> E (min) = h/C^2 (times 1/time unit)
I am not so sure that mass is quantised.
>
> (time and h has to be at the same unit system)
> while h is the Planks constant
>
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
>
Regards,
Arden
Y.Porat
Monitek wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115699939.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi Arden
> >
> > i don tknow about vacum
> > for me Vacom is nothing beside hosting particles
> > fo rme th eproperties of particles is only *inthe particles*
> >
> Yes it is in the particles that create the em fields.
> However the mass does not move at the speed of light the mass is
transient
> in the transmission medium. This is how gravity can attract a light
wave -
> it can move the medium the light travels in.
please think about it and think about what i ssimpler:
your suggestin that some process that is not known is causing
gravity to attract photons
or somethink more simple and known ie
*gravity attracts phtons because ..... 'big surprise'....
th ephoton has mass and is attracted by gravity as other masses
so some people say that is that assumption is right than acording to
some
calculations the r is a misfit of 200 percent!!
ok 200 ppercent so what ?? it migh tbe because we dont know anything
about how to calculate the photon mass!!
so is it not simpler to think
that gravity attracts photons just because
photons has mass??
morover
once you get it than many other wieredness are abolished
like the connection between anihilation of aprticles to photons
becomes much more stright forwards??!!
----------------
>
> > yet i agree with your conclution
> > that the photon has mass
> >
>
> I dont see the photon as a particle its more of an effect.
> What is certain is that electrons dont emit mass when they create an
em
> wave.
------------------
may be because th ephoton itself is composed of the smallest mass
possible??
------
>
> > just a btw
> > i even defined the mass of the smallest one.
> > as
> > E (min) = h/C^2 (times 1/time unit)
>
> I am not so sure that mass is quantised.
btw
no one noticed that i did a mistake in that formula
i presented it as energy formula
while it should be mass formrmula
so it is not E but
m photon minimum
----------
it is reasonable that
'at the end of the day'
there is some smallest mass
and if there is the smallest- then it is quantised!!
it is rather the quantization of mass that can explain
the qm theory
am i right
Monitek
We dso not need to calculate the "photon mass" if it has any mass at all it
is
accelerated by gravity by an amount equal to any other mass.
(hammer & feather location Moon)
The photon is an electromagnetic wave. To create a magnetic field
we need charged particles in motion. I am saying that the charged particles
are in the vacuum and are not emitted by the em wave source particle
(oscillating lepton for example).
> so is it not simpler to think
> that gravity attracts photons just because
> photons has mass??
>
Yes it is simpler, but the electron does not emit any mass when a "photon"
is created. The "photon" has no mass but the medium in which it travels
has mass in the region where the em firlds exist. It is the medium which is
attracted by gravity which alters the motion of the "photon".
I thought that it was observed that the electron energy was quantised
when the electrons were orbiting the atomic nucleus, These conditions
we are discussing are not thhe same so I dont see how one can extend
quantisation to mass.
>>
>> >
>> > (time and h has to be at the same unit system)
>> > while h is the Planks constant
>> >
>> > all the best
>
>> > Y.Porat
>> > ----------------------
>
Regards,
Arden
Y.Porat
Monitek wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115799018.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Monitek wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> >> news:1115699939.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Hi Arden
> >> >
> >> > i don tknow about vacum
> >> > for me Vacom is nothing beside hosting particles
> >> > fo rme th eproperties of particles is only *inthe particles*
> >> >
> >> Yes it is in the particles that create the em fields.
> >> However the mass does not move at the speed of light the mass is
> > transient
> >> in the transmission medium. This is how gravity can attract a
light
> > wave -
acording to
> > some
> > calculations the r is a misfit of 200 percent!!
> > ok 200 ppercent so what ?? it migh tbe because we dont know
anything
> > about how to calculate the photon mass!!
>
> We dso not need to calculate the "photon mass" if it has any mass at
all it
> is
> accelerated by gravity by an amount equal to any other mass.
> (hammer & feather location Moon)
>
> The photon is an electromagnetic wave. To create a magnetic field
> we need charged particles in motion. I am saying that the charged
particles
> are in the vacuum and are not emitted by the em wave source particle
> (oscillating lepton for example).
do you say that charged aprticles are anywher in Vacum??
is there no vacum that is vacum ie nothing in it ??
can we detect the charge that is in vacum??
if not why not ??
-----
-------------
>
> > so is it not simpler to think
> > that gravity attracts photons just because
> > photons has mass??
> >
>
> Yes it is simpler, but the electron does not emit any mass when a
"photon"
> is created.
--------
how do you know that ??
may be the mass of the photon is so sm,all that you cant detect it?
acordiing to th e h/C^2 suttestion
the mass of the photon is somethng aroung 10exp - 51 kg!
can you detect such small mass??
The "photon" has no mass but the medium in which it travels
> has mass in the region where the em firlds exist.
firls ?? do you what to compete me with typing mistakes? (:-)
ie fields (it is only me that can understand the the
e on th e keyboard is next to the r letetr .....)
you waht to say that vacum has mass??
God forbid!!
from now on while i do any step of mine
i bang my had in the endless mases that are in the vacum?
----------------
It is the medium which is
> attracted by gravity which alters the motion of the "photon".
>
> > morover
> > once you get it than many other wieredness are abolished
> > like the connection between anihilation of aprticles to photons
> > becomes much more stright forwards??!!
> > ----------------
> >
> >>
> >> > yet i agree with your conclution
> >> > that the photon has mass
> >> >
> >>
> >> I dont see the photon as a particle its more of an effect.
from when di d you started to see effects ?
> >> What is certain is that electrons dont emit mass when they create
an
you might have some surprises in your life......
----------
----------
some other news for you:
the electron does not orbit all around the nuc.!!
------
These conditions
> we are discussing are not thhe same so I dont see how one can extend
> quantisation to mass.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > (time and h has to be at the same unit system)
> >> > while h is the Planks constant
> >> >
> >> > all the best
> >
> >> > Y.Porat
> >> > ----------------------
> >
>
>
> Regards,
> Arden
regards
Y.Porat
---------------
Monitek
I say that charged praticles are everywhere in the vacuum, everywhere that
em radiation can travel.
>
> is there no vacum that is vacum ie nothing in it ??
>
Perhaps the space inbetween the vacuum charged particles may constitute a
vacuum but who knows?
> can we detect the charge that is in vacum??
> if not why not ??
Yes we can. I cite muon g-2, electron g-2, SLAC e144, Lamb shift.
> -----
> -------------
>>
>> > so is it not simpler to think
>> > that gravity attracts photons just because
>> > photons has mass??
>> >
>>
>> Yes it is simpler, but the electron does not emit any mass when a
> "photon"
>> is created.
> --------
> how do you know that ??
> may be the mass of the photon is so sm,all that you cant detect it?
> acordiing to th e h/C^2 suttestion
> the mass of the photon is somethng aroung 10exp - 51 kg!
> can you detect such small mass??
>
The only time electrons lose mass is during annihilation.
>
> The "photon" has no mass but the medium in which it travels
>> has mass in the region where the em firlds exist.
>
> firls ?? do you what to compete me with typing mistakes? (:-)
Us thet Pissible?
> ie fields (it is only me that can understand the the
> e on th e keyboard is next to the r letetr .....)
> you waht to say that vacum has mass??
>
> God forbid!!
> from now on while i do any step of mine
> i bang my had in the endless mases that are in the vacum?
> ----------------
>
You may find that it is only a problem as you approach light speed.
>
> It is the medium which is
>> attracted by gravity which alters the motion of the "photon".
>>
>> > morover
>> > once you get it than many other wieredness are abolished
>> > like the connection between anihilation of aprticles to photons
>> > becomes much more stright forwards??!!
>> > ----------------
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > yet i agree with your conclution
>> >> > that the photon has mass
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I dont see the photon as a particle its more of an effect.
>
> from when di d you started to see effects ?
Since I realised that magnetic firls are only created when charged particles
move.
Thats where the whol numbers come from.
>
> These conditions
>> we are discussing are not thhe same so I dont see how one can extend
>> quantisation to mass.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > (time and h has to be at the same unit system)
>> >> > while h is the Planks constant
>> >> >
>> >> > all the best
>> >
>> >> > Y.Porat
>> >> > ----------------------
>> >
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arden
> regards
> Y.Porat
> ---------------
>
Regards,
Arden
Y.Porat
Monitek wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1115890848....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Monitek wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> >> news:1115799018.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> > >>
> >> The photon is an electromagnetic wave. To create a magnetic field
> >> we need charged particles in motion. I am saying that the charged
> > particles
> >> are in the vacuum and are not emitted by the em wave source particle
> >> (oscillating lepton for example).
> > ----------------
> > do you say that charged aprticles are anywher in Vacum??
>
> I say that charged praticles are everywhere in the vacuum, everywhere that
> em radiation can travel.
--------------
so how about the situation in our expanding universe??
we had once our universe having the volume say V0
full of chargeed particles
then the universe is expanding! and we get it to be V0 +dletaV
so what happens in that delta V volume
is it as well ful with those charges??
do they inflate as well
or may be they are new born??
--------------------
>
> >
> > is there no vacum that is vacum ie nothing in it ??
> >
> Perhaps the space inbetween the vacuum charged particles may constitute a
> vacuum but who knows?
-----
so you have two kinds of vacum
1 a vacum with charges
2 a vacum with vacum?? !!
-------------------
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------
>
Monitek
The expanding universe (or otherwise) is for matter. The Dirac vacuum
extends to everywhere EM radiation can propagate, ie as far as the eye can
see!
>>
>> >
>> > is there no vacum that is vacum ie nothing in it ??
>> >
>> Perhaps the space inbetween the vacuum charged particles may constitute a
>> vacuum but who knows?
> -----
> so you have two kinds of vacum
> 1 a vacum with charges
>
> 2 a vacum with vacum?? !!
>
> -------------------
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
No - one kind of vacuum at least 2 kinds of space between matter, namely
empty space (vacuum) and electron positron pairs (charged particles).
> >
>> The only time electrons lose mass is during annihilation.
>>
>> >
>> > The "photon" has no mass but the medium in which it travels
>> >> has mass in the region where the em firlds exist.
>> >
>> > firls ?? do you what to compete me with typing mistakes? (:-)
>>
If you know that they are spilling miss takes then why dont you correct
them?
Or is it your style and you have a sense of humour?
>>
>
Regards,
Y.Porat
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
Y.P
-------------------
charli...@hotmail.com
mass isn't zero.
bz wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in news:1115270889.458824.319490
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > i think that the anser is
> > that photons have mass and it is just
> > *rest mass*
> > AFAIR the created photons have the same mass and the electron photon
> > but they call it relativistic mass
> > so here is where the dead dog is lying
> >
> > it is not relativistic mass it is rest mass
> > how about that
>
> won't work. Some things don't have 'rest mass'.
>
> Photons don't
> neutrinos don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
bz
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Sorry porat but neutrinos do have mass. Physicist have proved that the
> mass isn't zero.
Don't blame Porat for what I said.
I think they have shown that some neutrinos may have a small rest mass.
"Proved the mass isn't zero" is probably too strong a statement.
"Disproved the theory that the rest mass must be zero" is probably more
accurate.
-bz-
Y.Porat
you missed the poster!!
i am th elast one in this world to say that neutrino does not have
mass!!
morover i say that not only neutrino but even the photon *has mass*
btw you can see the 'trend' just to show you how scince works
at the beginning everybody was parroting that the neutrino
does not have mass *listen carefully) - because if theorethical
reasons!!!
no more no less !!!! theorethical reasons
now you see waht the real value of theory is realy worth sometimes
now we can have amoral out of it:
we see that the smaller the physical entity is - the more difficult it
is
to detect it!!
but at the end of the day we come to the conclusion of my frst
postulate:
'any physical entity that can be detected directly or indirectly-
by our senses----- *has mass*
(our senses work on mas detection!!!)
th e sooner to realise it the better!
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Monitek
> ?????????????
>
> Y.P
> -------------------
>
Which bit did you not understand?
Monitek
Y.Porat
nothing new
Y.P
--------------------------
Monitek
----- Original Message -----
> Monitek wrote:
>>
>
Regards,
Monitek
Y.Porat
do you have nothing better to do??
Y.P
--------------------------
Monitek
So you can spell - you have been taking the piss for years.
Regards,
Monitek ( Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
let go the nonsense
my mispellings are
1 not being a native English speaker
2 not having an 'at hand' speller
3 fast typing
4 being by nature someone who like to concentrate on 'the main things
5 may be being a bit dislectic
(but Eddison and others were dsilectic as well (:-)
all the best
Poor rat
------------------
Monitek
Fine by me.
> so how about the situation in our expanding universe??
>
> we had once our universe having the volume say V0
> full of chargeed particles
> then the universe is expanding! and we get it to be V0 +dletaV
> so what happens in that delta V volume
> is it as well ful with those charges??
> do they inflate as well
> or may be they are new born??
>
> --------------------
>
The expanding universe (or otherwise) is for matter. The Dirac vacuum
extends to everywhere EM radiation can propagate, ie as far as the eye can
see!
> so you have two kinds of vacum
> 1 a vacum with charges
>
> 2 a vacum with vacum?? !!
>
> -------------------
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
No - one kind of vacuum at least 2 kinds of space between matter, namely
empty space (vacuum) and electron positron pairs (charged particles).
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
i eould not call 'your space i whuch there are electron positrons -
vacum.
so is it possible that once our space will expand enourmously
there will be s situation in which the elecrron positron will be too
far
from the reach of matter??
or sp deluted that 'your rulews of the game will change??
Y.Porat
--------------
Monitek
> ok so according to you there is a space in which there is nothing.
> I could not call 'your space in which there are electron positrons -
> vacuum.
>
So would a vacuum be defined as a region of space where there is no
discernable matter?
> so is it possible that once our space will expand enormously
> there will be a situation in which the electron positron will be too
> far
> from the reach of matter??
> or sp diluted that 'your rules of the game will change??
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------
>
If you mean by rules of the game will change that light and gravity can no
longer function then that is quite probably correct.
Regards,
Monitek(Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
Monitek wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1117451383....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > ok so according to you there is a space in which there is nothing.
> > I could not call 'your space in which there are electron positrons -
> > vacuum.
> >
> So would a vacuum be defined as a region of space where there is no
> discernable matter?
--------
yes i think it is reasonable to present it that way.
>
> > so is it possible that once our space will expand enormously
> > there will be a situation in which the electron positron will be too
> > far
> > from the reach of matter??
> > or sp diluted that 'your rules of the game will change??
> >
> > Y.Porat
> > --------------
> >
>
> If you mean by rules of the game will change that light and gravity can no
> longer function then that is quite probably correct.
may be
now i think we slided out of the track of this thread
do you agree that
point particles cannot anihilate themselves
and once they do
it means that the electron is not a point particle
and furtheremore
it is divisible to smaller sub particles??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
>
> Regards,
> Monitek(Arden Barker)
Monitek
I have never doubted that for one minute.
If the electron was a true mathematical point then the probability of
interaction is zero. We know there interact therefore they are not a true
point. The size of the electron is between 10 ^-18 m and not a point. The
problem is that the field interacts and separating the field effects from
the particle effects is impossible. However it is the smallest particle we
know. Isnt it a strange coincidence that quarks are the same size as
leptons, or is it?
Regards,
Monitek(Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
2 if charge is adding volume to it ...
charge is aprt and parcel of it!!
3 your remark about th esise of electron and quark is new to me
and veeeery interesting
do you know wahy/
because there is a theory of 'all electron'
it suggests that all heavier particles are composed of electron family
!!!!
in addition
one of my model findings is that
listen carefully:
all the binding energies of th e nuc are a multipplication of a basic
unit
that is
equivalent to the electron mass!!!
so do we have here something new to anounce??
ps before anouncing:
what is the credibility of that quark size that you quoted??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Monitek
>1 the elctron is not ther smallest
>
> 2 if charge is adding volume to it ...
> charge is aprt and parcel of it!!
>
>
> 3 your remark about th esise of electron and quark is new to me
> and veeeery interesting
> do you know wahy/
> because there is a theory of 'all electron'
> it suggests that all heavier particles are composed of electron family
> !!!!
>
There are many. Sternglass, Hofstadter , Dr. Robert L. Carroll, Menahem
Simhony, Joseph Larmor, you ,me.
Have all considered "all electron" theories.
> in addition
> one of my model findings is that
> listen carefully:
> all the binding energies of th e nuc are a multipplication of a basic
> unit
> that is
> equivalent to the electron mass!!!
>
Sounds promising
> so do we have here something new to anounce??
> ps before anouncing:
> what is the credibility of that quark size that you quoted??
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------
>
Get it straight from the horses mouth:
Professor Friedman, the late Professor Henry Kendall of MIT, Professor
Richard Taylor of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and a team
of researchers from MIT and SLAC performed a series of electron-scattering
experiments over seven years that provided the first direct evidence that
there are point-like objects inside the proton.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/friedman-0404.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/oct24/nobelsmain.html
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
but what is that point like
actually it i smany point like subaprticvles
that for itself is important
yet we have to go further and develop it more specificslly
so as both of us agree
the 'all electron ' posibility should be promoted!(in detailes)
btw what do you mean by righ tfrom the horse mouth?
was you involved in it ??
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Monitek
> yes i know
> but what is that point like
> actually it i smany point like subaprticvles
> that for itself is important
> yet we have to go further and develop it more specificslly
> so as both of us agree
> the 'all electron ' posibility should be promoted!(in detailes)
>
Yes I agree I do my bit to promote it every now and then but its only in the
last 10 or 15 years that its has become accepted physics to borrow matter
from the vacuum. We I say if you can borrow it for a short time why can you
not borrow it for a long time.
Actually I have some new stuff in preparation. It would appear that active
galactic neuclei are streaming electrons and positrons from their cores. The
positrons and electrons are emitted at 90 degrees to the galactic plane but
each particle is produced on opposite sides. It must be that a magnetic
field is responsible for the particle separation in this way but I can not
as yet see why there is a galactic magnetic field in the first place. The
really interesting thing is that huge clouds of hydrogen are associated with
the jets of leptons on both sides of the galaxy but the galactic plane is
relatively devoid of hydrogen. It indicates to me that the electrons and
positrons are being extracted from the matter in the black hole which forms
the centre of the active galactic nucleus and these electron and positrons
are being reformed into fresh hydrogen. Therefore there is a distict
possibility that galaxies recycle themselves producing fresh matter
continuously and destroying the old stuff in the central black holes.
> btw what do you mean by righ tfrom the horse mouth?
> was you involved in it ??
>
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
>
Right from the horses mouth.
This is an old english saying relating to gambling on horses. When a gambler
gets a good tip as to which horse is going to win the race he says he got
the information from the horses mouth ie the horse told him he was going to
win. In general usage the phrase means that the information came from a
source very close to the action. In this particlular case it was Jerome
Friedman who was part of the team which discovered the point like nature of
quark particles. The nature of the experiment is such that a multiplicity of
protons is being bombarded so the number of point particles in a particular
particle is obscured.
No I was not involved. My background is in metallurgy and in order to do
that they stuffed me full of chemistry and physics which I have enjoyed ever
since. My living is made from the commercial
application of the electromagnetic induction process as applied to heat
treating ferrous metal products.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
now if you claim that matter can be borowed from vacum-
i cant agree with you
if you say that matter can be borowed form the .near envirinment
than i can agree withyou
i can agree with you that the envirinment if ful of matter
of may be a whole 'zoo of particles'
and if you agree with me that actually
even energy is mass in motion than the scope of agreement between us
is wide.
now about recycling of matter:
if evergy is mass in motion than we have no problem in understanding
it.
it was called once the 'Bootstrap theory'
ie in short particles are recycled constantly not all of them
but too many of them
another remark:
i would not say that the quarks are point particles
i think that even quarks are electron positron etc combinations
and voila we got back to the 'all electron' theory
though even the electron is not th esmallest posible basic particle
th emore smallest is energy
withthat we can come closer to your understanding that
matter can be 'borowed form the environment!! (:-)
so ??
is everything settled ??
if we agree too much it will become boring ?? (:-)
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Monitek
> ok
>
> now if you claim that matter can be borowed from vacum-
> i cant agree with you
>
> if you say that matter can be borowed form the .near envirinment
> than i can agree withyou
> i can agree with you that the envirinment if ful of matter
> of may be a whole 'zoo of particles'
> and if you agree with me that actually
> even energy is mass in motion than the scope of agreement between us
> is wide.
>
> now about recycling of matter:
>
> if evergy is mass in motion than we have no problem in understanding
> it.
>
> it was called once the 'Bootstrap theory'
> ie in short particles are recycled constantly not all of them
> but too many of them
>
> another remark:
> i would not say that the quarks are point particles
> i think that even quarks are electron positron etc combinations
>
indistiguishable from each other. This indicates to me that the structure of
particles could be an array of leptons, plus the fact that protons have been
shown to contain negative charge.
> and voila we got back to the 'all electron' theory
>
It has been known for a long time that leptons have never been fragmented in
any collider experiments, they must be the fundamental particle. Now if they
cant be destroyed where do they go to when particles are created say in an
electron positron collider.
> though even the electron is not th esmallest posible basic particle
> th emore smallest is energy
> withthat we can come closer to your understanding that
> matter can be 'borowed form the environment!! (:-)
> so ??
> is everything settled ??
> if we agree too much it will become boring ?? (:-)
>
Borrowed from the environment, the fabric of space or the vacuum its all the
same to me.
> all the best
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------
>
It looks like its all settled. Matter is borrowed and will eventually return
to the vacuum.
This also means that the e - p pairs borrowed must have been there before
matter was initially formed which means that the big bang theory is
incorrect and that matter was not all created primordial fireball. Something
created the electrons and positrons prior to the formation of matter.
I have recently read that galactice centre black holes were formed within a
billion years after the birth of the universe. which is too early due to the
universe still under going strong expansion at this point.
Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)
Y.Porat
Monitek wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1117768311....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > ok
> >
> > now if you claim that matter can be borowed from vacum-
> > i cant agree with you
> >
> > if you say that matter can be borowed form the .near envirinment
> > than i can agree withyou
> > i can agree with you that the envirinment if ful of matter
> > of may be a whole 'zoo of particles'
> > and if you agree with me that actually
> > even energy is mass in motion than the scope of agreement between us
> > is wide.
> >
> > now about recycling of matter:
> >
> > if evergy is mass in motion than we have no problem in understanding
> > it.
> >
> > it was called once the 'Bootstrap theory'
> > ie in short particles are recycled constantly not all of them
> > but too many of them
> >
> > another remark:
> > i would not say that the quarks are point particles
> > i think that even quarks are electron positron etc combinations
> >
> All one can say is that the physical size of quarks and electrons is
> indistiguishable from each other.
is the experimenlal data that acurate?? to say that??
This indicates to me that the structure of
> particles could be an array of leptons,
i dont know if an array of leptons but an array of something
see my idea of the 'chain of orbitals
does 'chain of orbitals' sounds acceptable to you ??
--------
plus the fact that protons have been
> shown to contain negative charge.
????? that is brand news for me !!!???
--------------
>
> > and voila we got back to the 'all electron' theory
> >
>
> It has been known for a long time that leptons have never been fragmented in
> any collider experiments,
that as well sounds strange to me
which leptons are indivisible and not least
what is the size of collider that was used to show it ??
they must be the fundamental particle.
i doublt it very much!
may be 'fundamental' but are you sure they are not divisible??
--------
Now if they
> cant be destroyed where do they go to when particles are created say in an
> electron positron collider.
>
> > though even the electron is not th esmallest posible basic particle
> > th emore smallest is energy
> > withthat we can come closer to your understanding that
> > matter can be 'borowed form the environment!! (:-)
> > so ??
> > is everything settled ??
> > if we agree too much it will become boring ?? (:-)
> >
>
> Borrowed from the environment, the fabric of space or the vacuum its all the
> same to me.
yet we aleady agreed that theere is space with particles
and space without particles.
>
> > all the best
> > Y.Porat
> > ---------------------------
> >
> It looks like its all settled. Matter is borrowed and will eventually return
> to the vacuum.
> This also means that the e - p pairs borrowed must have been there before
> matter was initially formed which means that the big bang theory is
> incorrect
i would not be so jumpy to declare that that theory is viode.
and that matter was not all created primordial fireball. Something
> created the electrons and positrons prior to the formation of matter.
for me energy is also matter
so i have no problem with what was there first
btw did it occured to you that it could be that
the histoty of our universe is a n enless process
of big bangs expantion
then contraction and a nother big bang etc etc ??
btw such a notion makes you feel like a little microb!! (:-)
>
> I have recently read that galactice centre black holes were formed within a
> billion years after the birth of the universe. which is too early due to the
> universe still under going strong expansion at this point.
dont have much idea about it
all the best
Y.porat
-------------------------
Monitek
Thats why they came up with the negatively charged quark in the proton
>>
>> > and voila we got back to the 'all electron' theory
>> >
>>
>> It has been known for a long time that leptons have never been fragmented
>> in
>> any collider experiments,
>
> that as well sounds strange to me
> which leptons are indivisible and not least
> what is the size of collider that was used to show it ??
>
>
> they must be the fundamental particle.
> i doublt it very much!
> may be 'fundamental' but are you sure they are not divisible??
> --------
>
There has been noexperiment as far as I know which has shown leptons to be
divisible.
I am a firm believer in the recycling universe and that a galaxy is a
complete entity and as such is a unit of the universe.
Henry J Cobb
you would be able to use relativity to stretch this out over a period of
time and observe or interrupt the transfer of energy in sub quantum units.
Therefore any quantum transfer has to occur in zero time.
And the speed of light limitation means that a zero time event occurs in
zero length. I.e., a mathematical point in space time.
The wavelength of a microwave photon is huge when compared to the size
of a water molecule that emits or absorbs it, but this molecule is
infinitely huge when compared to the zero length quantum transfer of the
photon's energy.
So even though the photon is about the size of its wavelength, it
impacts at a single point, because it is a single quantum particle.
The electron is also a single quantum particle. The wave function
defines exactly the nature of the electron, but we can't ever measure
the wave function directly because any probe we use will impact at a
single random point of the electron's wave function and scatter the
electron's single quantum.
So the electron is the size of its wave function, but it impacts at
random zero length points within this "wave packet".
-HJC
Y.Porat
itself??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Josef Matz
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:qKGdnR_rc7vS5yre...@io.com...
No, it impacts as a whole with a typical radius, the classic electron
radius. See stray experiments.
Y.Porat
a wave function is just a mathematical model of the electron
now too many people do not understand that having the partial success
of
predictions according that model does not put them in th eposition of
knowing
everything about the electron!!
iow it is just a *partial model*
that partial model (together with the pompous illusion that they know
now everything
about it
was resulting the false mathematical ) conclusion that:
'the electron is a 'point particle'
i was in a time where all the 'experts' preached undoubtedly and
abusing anyone
who dared to say that the electron cannot be a 'point particle'
it was alike people like me and others who indicated that
'a point particle for the electron is physics nonsense!!
one of my new breakthrough arguments against it was :
' a point particle cannot annihilate itself''!!
a point is the smallest possible entity
so the smallest cannot become something smaller!!
just simple commonsense that took too long to understand by
'intelligent people'
to understand.
and BTW the photon' is as well not a 'point particle'
it is a conglomeration of some smaller physical entities (unknown yet
but the above physics sense tels it obviously!!)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Josef Matz
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1136181738.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think that only points can have this property.
> a point is the smallest possible entity
ok. Nothing smaller than the point. Thats right.
> so the smallest cannot become something smaller!!
if it are points.
>
> just simple commonsense that took too long to understand by
> 'intelligent people'
> to understand.
> and BTW the photon' is as well not a 'point particle'
the photon might be one, very likely.
brian a m stuckless
CLOSE: Brian A M Stuckless ..over & OUT.!!
^
GUESS (RESTmass)*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter.
My GUESS iSS STANDARD
< The STANDARD set. >
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
$$ By deeds you know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!!
$$ :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
$ ____ _ _ _ _
$ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
$ | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
$ My _ENORMOUS_ | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
$ |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
$
$$ :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!!
Josef Matz wrote: >
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1136181738.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Josef Matz wrote:
> > > "Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:qKGdnR_rc7vS5yre...@io.com...
-=-
> > > > The wavelength of a microwave photon is huge when compared to the size
> > > > of a water molecule that emits or absorbs it, but this molecule is
> > > > infinitely huge when compared to the zero length quantum transfer of
> > > > the photon's energy.
> > > >
> > > > So even though the photon is about the size of its wavelength, it
> > > > impacts at a single point, because it is a single quantum particle.
> > > >
> > > > The electron is also a single quantum particle. The wave function
> > > > defines exactly the nature of the electron, but we can't ever measure
> > > > the wave function directly because any probe we use will impact at a
> > > > single random point of the electron's wave function and scatter the
> > > > electron's single quantum.
> > > >
> > > > So the electron is the size of its wave function, but it impacts at
> > > > random zero length points within this "wave packet".
> > > >
> > > > -HJC
> > >
> > > No, it impacts as a whole with a typical radius, the classic electron
> > > radius. See stray experiments.
-=-
> > was resulting the false mathematical ) conclusion that:
> > 'the electron is a 'point particle'
-=- Perhaps you mean ..as Mr Pusch preached, "Point-LiKE".?!!
> > i was in a time where all the 'experts' preached undoubtedly and
> > abusing anyone who dared to say that the electron cannot be a
> > 'point particle' it was alike people like me and others who indicated
> > that 'a point particle for the electron is physics nonsense!!
[Nomen Clature] insert ..see top of PAGE, Y & HjC, too.!! ```Brian.
> > it is a conglomeration of some smaller physical entities (unknown yet
> > but the above physics sense tels it obviously!!)
> >
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat > > --------------------- > >
Re: The electron is not a point particle.