About the Exploration of the Electron
Lou...@edu.herlufsholm.dk
Questions about experiments with electrons:
- Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
In order to enter and explore the inside structure of an electron a
very high-energetic beam of penetrating ‘particles’ smaller than
electrons is the best and needed as ‘bullet-particles’ fired at
electrons.
- Which ‘bullet’-particles have been used in electron-scattering
experiments? Has it been high-energetic photons in Compton-scattering
experiments?
Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark
http://www.rostra.dk/louis
Uncle Al
>
> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> Questions about experiments with electrons:
> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles?
Yes.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Lou...@edu.herlufsholm.dk
> Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> > Questions about experiments with electrons:
> > - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> > not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles?
> Yes.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al,
Please give references to experiments that are exploring the inner
structure of the Electron.
PD
> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
We don't know. There hasn't been any measurement so far that's been
able to detect any.
If there is a structure, though, then this structure SHOULD help
account for both the commonalities and differences with the muon, the
tau, and the three neutrino species. (I.e., an answer for the electron
in isolation is probably not very helpful.)
>
> Questions about experiments with electrons:
> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
No, it's not conclusive. It's only true that to the degree we've
measured it SO FAR there is no evidence of structure.
>
> In order to enter and explore the inside structure of an electron a
> very high-energetic beam of penetrating ‘particles’ smaller than
> electrons is the best and needed as ‘bullet-particles’ fired at
> electrons.
Well, that's not quite true. All you need is that the *wavelength* of
the penetrating particles be small enough to resolve the structure.
>
> - Which ‘bullet’-particles have been used in electron-scattering
> experiments? Has it been high-energetic photons in Compton-scattering
> experiments?
Compton scattering experiments are rather old hat. There's been a
bunch of stuff that's been done over the last five decades. Do you
know how to do research on this in the local university library? (Even
if it's available on the Internet, you will likely need a paid-for log-
in to see the articles online.)
PD
Y.Porat
-------------------
so Mr PD
is the electron according to you
'a pointy particle'???
and if you think so
what is the difference between
'a point particle'
and vacuum ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Matthew Johnson
PD says...
>
>On Aug 4, 2:36=A0pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
>We don't know. There hasn't been any measurement so far that's been
>able to detect any.
>
>If there is a structure, though, then this structure SHOULD help
>account for both the commonalities and differences with the muon, the
>tau, and the three neutrino species. (I.e., an answer for the electron
>in isolation is probably not very helpful.)
>
>>
>> Questions about experiments with electrons:
>> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
>> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
>
>No, it's not conclusive. It's only true that to the degree we've
>measured it SO FAR there is no evidence of structure.
And if there were structure, why would we expect any evidence of it in our
colliders? Surely it would only show up at energies much higher than we we can
reach in a collider.
That is why we should look instead for evidence of it in astrophysics, since it
is only in super massive stars that we get energies likely to reveal any inner
structure of the electron. But AFAIK, we don't see it there either.
[snip]
hanson
news:6b80c31e-840c-4b51...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
What is the inner structure of the Electron?
Questions about experiments with electrons:
not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles?
Uncle rect-Al...@hate.spam.net wrote:
Yes.
>
Louis Nielsen <Lou...@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote
Uncle rect-Al,
Please give references to experiments that are exploring the inner
structure of the Electron.
>
hanson wrote:
Here, see the reference from uncle rect-Al's own web site
where he is exploring the inner structure of the Electron.
Note the **chiral** aspects of rect-Al's procedure:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
ahahaha...ahahahanson.
Y.Porat
> In article <54fbc41b-f1f2-4bac-abfc-38779007a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> PD says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 4, 2:36=A0pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> >> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> >We don't know. There hasn't been any measurement so far that's been
> >able to detect any.
>
> >If there is a structure, though, then this structure SHOULD help
> >account for both the commonalities and differences with the muon, the
> >tau, and the three neutrino species. (I.e., an answer for the electron
> >in isolation is probably not very helpful.)
>
> >> Questions about experiments with electrons:
> >> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> >> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
>
> >No, it's not conclusive. It's only true that to the degree we've
> >measured it SO FAR there is no evidence of structure.
>
> And if there were structure, why would we expect any evidence of it in our
> colliders? Surely it would only show up at energies much higher than we we can
> reach in a collider.
>
> That is why we should look instead for evidence of it in astrophysics,
i am afraid that we dont need even astrophysics
we have jsut a little scratch of our basic logic:
plus the existing knowledge
for instance
if the electron has no volume
what is the probability that two electrons will collide each other
and question 2
how can a zero volume entity have a field ??
how can a zero volume electron even
CREATE a field
and we are not done yet ......
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
...
PD
I just told you. We don't know. We have no evidence that it is not a
point particle (and as I've told you elsewhere, having mass is not
evidence that it has volume). We have no evidence that says it MUST be
a point particle.
>
> and if you think so
>
> what is the difference between
> 'a point particle'
> and vacuum ???
The vacuum doesn't have mass, charge, weak hypercharge, spin,
momentum, kinetic energy, and so on. The electron does.
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
PD
wrote:
> In article <54fbc41b-f1f2-4bac-abfc-38779007a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> PD says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 4, 2:36=A0pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> >> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> >We don't know. There hasn't been any measurement so far that's been
> >able to detect any.
>
> >If there is a structure, though, then this structure SHOULD help
> >account for both the commonalities and differences with the muon, the
> >tau, and the three neutrino species. (I.e., an answer for the electron
> >in isolation is probably not very helpful.)
>
> >> Questions about experiments with electrons:
> >> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> >> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
>
> >No, it's not conclusive. It's only true that to the degree we've
> >measured it SO FAR there is no evidence of structure.
>
> And if there were structure, why would we expect any evidence of it in our
> colliders? Surely it would only show up at energies much higher than we we can
> reach in a collider.
We don't know that. We only know that it doesn't have structure in the
colliders used to date. There is absolutely no way to determine that
the next collider will not find evidence of structure.
Now, there are *theories* that, IF TRUE, indicate that any structure
is not likely to be reached in colliders anytime soon. But we've been
surprised before...
PD
Quite high. Collisions means the exchange of momentum. It does NOT
mean *touching*. The alpha particles in the Rutherford experiment
collided with gold nuclei without ever *touching*. Two molecules in a
gas collide frequently, though nothing *touches*. The atoms of your
coffee cup collide with the atoms of the table beneath it, but they do
not *touch*. When you run your finger along the edge of a coin, no
atom in your finger ever *touches* an atom of the coin.
> and question 2
> how can a zero volume entity have a field ??
Anything that has a charge has a field. No volume is required for a
field.
Matthew Johnson
Y.Porat says...
[snip]
>> That is why we should look instead for evidence of it in astrophysics,
>
>i am afraid that we dont need even astrophysics
Have no fear, don't be afraid;)
>we have jsut a little scratch of our basic logic:
Let me know when you are ready to start that...
>plus the existing knowledge
ditto!
>for instance
>if the electron has no volume
>what is the probability that two electrons will collide each other
As PD alredy pointed out, it is quite high. But he did not go into much detail
on why. The essential point, as PD mentioned, is that you must understand:
collision does NOT mean 'touching'. It means an exchange of momentum. So when,
for example, an asteroid changes orbit because of Jupiter's gravity, that counts
as a collision.
The same for atoms and electrons: an electron collides with an atom if it
exchanges momentum with it, NOT because it 'touched' it. Hence the Rutherford
scattering experiments PD mentioned, where alpha particles went in and 'bounced
back' in highly hyperbolic paths, revealing the presence of the nucleus.
>and question 2
>how can a zero volume entity have a field ??
You are asking the wrong question: ask instead, "how any particle can have a
field", and you will have your answer: the clause "zero volume" is irrelevant.
>how can a zero volume electron even
>CREATE a field
Ditto.
[snip]
Y.Porat
thats very nice
now how can ow i willcopy from you becuse it is toolong (:-)
how can
'mass, charge, weak hypercharge, spin,
> momentum, kinetic energy, and so on. The electron does.'
end of quote
exist and **occupy * in a zero volume ???
may be the dead dog lies in that ** 'occupy' ** ??
but in order to occupy we need inour tortured world - space !!!
not zero space ??
wjile a say space i dont mean that any point in the
volume our particle is hugging between is 'arms' is
full of mass entities iow
that 'hugged ' volume can have some vaccum paces as well
but if so
there is no way that in some of that' hugged volume'
THERE WILL BE NO OCCUPIES VOLUMES THAT
**DOES HAS MASS*
in that case
the inner structure is inevitable !!!!!!
and you agree yes
the differences between us become smaller ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------
Uncle Al
<http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/new-bounds-for-the-higgs/>
Electron substructure and contingent quantitative theory couplings are
extensively discussed in the Comments section. You would rewrite the
whole of physics but you don't know shit about the subject even unto
doing an arXiv search. Pitiful. Stooopid.
--
Uncle Al
Matthew Johnson
Y.Porat says...
[snip]
>'mass, charge, weak hypercharge, spin,
>> momentum, kinetic energy, and so on. The electron does.'
>end of quote
>exist and **occupy * in a zero volume ???
>may be the dead dog lies in that ** 'occupy' ** ??
>but in order to occupy we need inour tortured world - space !!!
>not zero space ??
>wjile a say space i dont mean that any point in the
>volume our particle is hugging between is 'arms' is
>full of mass entities iow
>that 'hugged ' volume can have some vaccum paces as well
>but if so
>there is no way that in some of that' hugged volume'
> THERE WILL BE NO OCCUPIES VOLUMES THAT
>**DOES HAS MASS*
> in that case
>the inner structure is inevitable !!!!!!
>
>and you agree yes
>the differences between us become smaller ??
If you want someone to agree, first you have to post something coherent. This
you did not do.
john
And continue on down.
Nothing ever 'touches' anything else-
!!!because there is nothing to touch!!!
!!!it is all fields!!!
There is no particle.
Movement of energy mimics particles.
See the Galaxy Model for the Atom
John
hanson
"Uncle rect-Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:48987BF5...@hate.spam.net...
> Lou...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>>
>> Uncle rect-Al...@hate.spam.net wrote:
>> > Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>> >
>> > > What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>> >
>> > > Questions about experiments with electrons:
>> > > - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
>> > > not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>> Uncle Al,
>> Please give references to experiments that are exploring the inner
>> structure of the Electron.
>
> <http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/new-bounds-for-the-higgs/>
> Electron substructure and contingent quantitative theory couplings are
> extensively discussed in the Comments section. You would rewrite the
> whole of physics but you don't know shit about the subject even unto
> doing an arXiv search. Pitiful. Stooopid.
>
rect-Al, listen, you performed one of your usual
yiddshe street corner acts again in your own way:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Louis Nielsen did ask you for refs to EXPERIMENTS
but NOT for pontifications by losers who post their
numerological opinions into that sorry arXiv.
But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
PD
I'm sorry, I'm having understanding your poor English here.
Let me try to guess.
*Properties* of objects are not made out of "stuff". Mass is a
property, it is not made of "stuff". Charge is a property, it is not
made of "stuff". Spin is a property, it is not made of "stuff".
Kinetic energy is a property, it is not made of "stuff".
Y.Porat
lets analyze it one by one slowly
lets take for instance the spin
can something with zero volume (a point) have spin ??
left one right one ??
what is the' left or right' of a point ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Aug 5, 9:37 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 6:00 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <54fbc41b-f1f2-4bac-abfc-38779007a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > PD says...
>
---------------------
not only 'mimics' (:-)
ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!
as in macrocosm!!
no one had the legitimation to*** invent*** the
'massles energy ' !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Uncle rect-Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:48987BF5...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> >> Uncle rect-Al...@hate.spam.net wrote:
> >> > Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> >> > > What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> >> > > Questions about experiments with electrons:
> >> > > - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> >> > > not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles?
>
> >> Uncle rect-Al...@hate.spam.net wrote:
> >> > Yes.
>
> Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> >> Uncle Al,
> >> Please give references to experiments that are exploring the inner
> >> structure of the Electron.
>
> Uncle rect-Al...@hate.spam.net wrote:
> > <http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/new-bounds-for-the-higgs/>
> > Electron substructure and contingent quantitative theory couplings are
> > extensively discussed in the Comments section. You would rewrite the
> > whole of physics but you don't know shit about the subject even unto
> > doing an arXiv search. Pitiful. Stooopid.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> rect-Al, listen, you performed one of your usual
> yiddshe street corner acts again
-------------
Hanson my friend !!
i agree with most of your scientific views
except your opposition to SR it is right
GR is not right !!
and more
just do a favor to me :
and give break to your ' Yiddhe stuff '!!
i am a yidd; as well !!(and still your friend ))
and not all' Yidds' are the same!!
(and thinks as you that Uncle is a pain in the neck
though is loaded from time to time with some good knowldge
-not always
yet suffers from too much unjustified self esteem
and rudeness (probably the man is not too healthy etc )
so please jsut get off of that GENERALIZATION sin mode
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Mike Jr.
PD,
I have read your valiant attempts to answer this question. All true.
The electron magnetic moment (u) = -g(eh)/2m * (S/h)
where S is the electron spin, e is the electron charge, m is the
electron mass, and h is Dirac's version of Planck's constant; h/2pi.
g is a dimensionless measure of the moment. A Dirac point particle
has g = 2. QED predicts that vacuum fluctuations and polarization
slightly increase this value. Electron substructure would make g
deviate from the Dirac/QED prediction. Recent measurements of g give
a difference |delta-function g/2| < 15x10**-12.
This measurement limits the electron radius R < 6x10**-24 m. Compare
this to the proton radius of about 8.25×10-16 m.
If Louis wants to understand the structure of the electron, I
recommend taking a look at "The Road to Reality", by Roger Penrose,
Chapter 25.6, 'The zigzag picture of the electron".
--Best regards,
--Mike Jr
PD
Yes.
Spin is a property. It is NOT necessarily a thing with volume
rotating.
Do not extrapolate EVERYTHING from the macro to the micro.
Extrapolation leads to mistakes.
A zoologist who looks at cows and cats and bats and baboons and
pangolins would be inclined to extrapolate that all mammals give live
birth to their young. That extrapolation, though plausible, is WRONG.
A physicist always questions and tests whether an extrapolation is in
fact justified. A physicist does not extrapolate and insist that there
can be no other sensible answer.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
photons half are virtual and they are spinning at light speed. These
photons are in their shortest wave lengths(gamma). They are released to
perform natures greatest balancing act. That balancing act creates
stars. You could almost say To create a star the force of photons are
pushing back gravitons. Go figure Bert
Y.Porat
thank you fo r teaching me about extrapolations in physics
i think it was me that told you that the exrapolation of the rule
that no mass can reach c is wrong!!
and the extrapoaltion that there is no upper limit fo photon energy
is wrong !!(or even no bottom limit is wrong ---
as you thinhk
and i could go on with the examples that i though t you
and not vice versa!!
now back to electron spin:
as known from expe riment
the electron while in a mgnetic field
is ALAIGHNING ITSELF either parallel to the field
(spin 1/2 + or spin 1/2 -)
or ANTIPARALEL to the field
so
what is parallel or antiparallel ??
how can we make the differnce detect it ??!!
as far as i know
in order of having a direction of a body
it must have at least two point to make a directed line
(actually to make any ORIENTATION)
(and the experiment show it has a geometric orientation!!!)
how can ***a point*** have any DETECTABLE orientation??!!
or even if it was more generally two detectable values of the same
kind of property
(one would know that a point is isometrically in all directions !!
(while in our case it is not an abstract detection
but a specific geometry dependent property
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------------
hanson
oye weh!, oye weh, oye weh!... AHAHAHA...
AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA
>
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:187a238d-b10c-4b5c...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
> Louis Nielsen did ask you for refs to EXPERIMENTS
> but NOT for pontifications by losers who post their
> numerological opinions into that sorry arXiv.
> But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
Hanson my friend !!
i agree with most of your scientific views except your
opposition to SR it is right GR is not right !!
to your ' Yiddhe stuff '!!
and not all' Yidds' are the same!!
(and thinks as you that Uncle is a pain in the neck though
is loaded from time to time with some good knowldge
-not always yet suffers from too much unjustified self esteem
and rudeness (probably the man is not too healthy etc )
so please jsut get off of that GENERALIZATION sin mode
>
>
hanson wrote:
Yehi, Yehi, Yehi, my old Yiddishe friend,
... ahaha... My post was NOT directed at YOU.
It's NOT YOU that is performing yiddshe street
corner acts.... It's NOT a generalization neither.
>
Of course, NOT all Yidds are the same and you
should not feel guilty nor should you become
paranoid when I perceive and mention that certain
Yiddishe posters give me the impression that they
are performing their Yiddishe street corner acts.
>
It's uncle rect-Al Schwartz and a few others that do
perform such yiddishe street corner acts... ahahaha...
>
How come I have not heard YOU bitch at the Yidd
who in his street corner act told me that he is going
to piss on my grave? ........ (you want the link?)
>
Yehi, do bitch at rect-Al Schwartz, NOT at me.
You bitching at me while you defend/excuse and
apologize for rect-Al makes you only suspect that
you do secretly agree with rect-Al's yiddishe street
corner acts.... ... since you have NOT condemned
rect-Al when he performed his racist, bigoted and
genocidal yiddishe street corner acts like he did here:
>
Uncle Alan Schwartz, the Yidd, said:
< http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/msg/572674e5060b55a3
>
::Al:: "DEATH to the poor. -- DEATH to the sick. -- DEATH to
::Al:: every cripple. DEATH to every retard. -- DEATH to every
::Al:: addict. -- DEATH to the queer and infected. -- DEATH
::Al:: to every Welfare parasite. -- DEATH to every Social
::Al:: Security parasite. -- DEATH to every prisoner with
::Al:: 10 or more years' prison sentence. -- DEATH to Night
::Al:: Basketball. DEATH to every sniveling conniving goddamned
::Al:: money-sucking Officially Sad sonofabitch in the world.
::Al:: DEATH to the entire Third World. Kill them all".
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/d05517e7f4de883d>
::Al:: "I have no problem with killing the now and future enemy. An
::Al:: Earth with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to
::Al:: live."
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/657dbe27ce06ca8d >
::Al:: Uncle Al especially enjoys earthquakes that collapse churches
::Al:: filled with worshippers.
>
.... or Bob Kolker, another Yidd, who said:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/82caaf5ff6e0038c >
::BK:: "I advocate wide scale genocide on the Moslems", after,
::BK:: on Oct. 18, 04, in news:2tm3f7F...@uni-berlin.de
::BK:: he said "the obvious [final] solution is to kill them all"
> ...
& on 09-23-04,
::BK:: urged in news:2rfqqdF...@uni-berlin.de
::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
>
.... or watch this splendid example of a Yidd, from your
own neighborhood, performing his yiddishe street corner
act, literally:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM>
or in <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f>
>
... or read about this here TV program that aired in Israel
about these genocidal, yiddishe street corner acts, when
Yidds killed hundred thousands of Jewish children:
<http://web.israelinsider.com/views/3998.htm>
>
Yehi, of course there are always different strokes
for and by different folks.... ahahaha.. But what
in Yahweh's name makes you think that it's only
the Yidds that should be allowed to do the striking?
>
Yehi, be careful when you apologize for or justify the
bad apples in your own religo-ethnic tribal basket....
>
... and to boot, Yehi, there is also the Glass house
factor, ... ahahaha... How many thousand times have
YOU made a GENERALIZATION and called posters
"Nazi pig" and "Goebbles"?... ahahaha... You should
be careful with throwing the first stone... ahahaha...
>
"Oye-weh!", "Trust me!", "Go figure!"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs, Yehi, my old friend!
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD
Usually by then energy of the state. This is detected by whether it
absorbs energy (in which case, it is going from the lower to higher
energy state) or emits energy (in which case, it is going from the
higher to lower energy state). It certainly isn't by looking through a
microscope and seeing a little ball with a mark on it. Why? How did
YOU think the spin alignment was detected?
>
> as far as i know
> in order of having a direction of a body
> it must have at least two point to make a directed line
That is incorrect. A force vector is drawn AT a point and it has a
direction, for example. There are not two points that are required to
specify a force vector.
> (actually to make any ORIENTATION)
> (and the experiment show it has a geometric orientation!!!)
>
> how can ***a point*** have any DETECTABLE orientation??!!
It might help if you knew what a vector quantity is.
If I told you that a pea has a center at [x,y,z] coordinates (4.5 cm,
5.8 cm, -9.2 cm) and a velocity vector of (-15.2 cm/s, 0.3 cm/s, and
21.2 cm/s), kindly tell me which two [x,y,z] points I need to specify
the orientation of the velocity vector?
Y.Porat
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
> oye weh!, oye weh, oye weh!... AHAHAHA...
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA
>
> ::BK:: he said "the obvious [final] solution is to kill them all"> ...
>
> & on 09-23-04,
> ::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
>
> .... or watch this splendid example of a Yidd, from your
> own neighborhood, performing his yiddishe street corner
> act, literally:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM>
> or in <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f>
>
> ... or read about this here TV program that aired in Israel
> about these genocidal, yiddishe street corner acts, when
> Yidds killed hundred thousands of Jewish children:
> <http://web.israelinsider.com/views/3998.htm>
>
> Yehi, of course there are always different strokes
> for and by different folks.... ahahaha.. But what
> in Yahweh's name makes you think that it's only
> the Yidds that should be allowed to do the striking?
>
> Yehi, be careful when you apologize for or justify the
> bad apples in your own religo-ethnic tribal basket....
>
> ... and to boot, Yehi, there is also the Glass house
> factor, ... ahahaha... How many thousand times have
> YOU made a GENERALIZATION and called posters
> "Nazi pig" and "Goebbles"?... ahahaha... You should
> be careful with throwing the first stone... ahahaha...
>
> "Oye-weh!", "Trust me!", "Go figure!"... ahahaha...
> and thanks for the laughs, Yehi, my old friend!
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
-------------------
about my 'silence' concerning Al
had you followed me
i am opposing him quite constantly
*and repeatedly condemn his behaviour
as a sick behaviour
of course i am not following all his posts
and it i snot mu job to be sort of a police guardian
of this ng
in general i just concentrate on my issues
and skip most of the others
because there is a lot of nosense going on here
(anyway i am democratic enough
to jsutify the right and legitimacy
of anyone to write about his understanding.
it is even good on the long run that anyone will
publish whatever he believes in
but we have to try and do por best way to do it
in acivilzed way
of course
while youfeel that you are attacked unjustyedly
you have to defend yourself
and the others will decide whats good or wrong
Best regards
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
> On Aug 6, 9:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:24 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 9:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 8:41 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 5, 11:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:38 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 4:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:36 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> > > > > > > > > bunch of stuff that's been done over the last five decades. Do you
> > > > > > > > > know how to do research on this in the local university library? (Even
> > > > > > > > > if it's available on the Internet, you will likely need a paid-for log-
> > > > > > > > > in to see the articles online.)
>
> > > > > > > > > PD
>
> > > > > > > > -------------------
> > > > > > > > so Mr PD
>
> > > > > > > > is the electron according to you
> > > > > > > > 'a pointy particle'???
>
>
>
>
----------------------
i would ask you the same question
becauase you ddint answer my question
in the text books it is written that the electron
in a magnetic field orientates itself
parralel to the field and ANTIPARALLEL to it
so waht does it mean??
it is imho anobvious **geometric* property
and not as you say an energy property!!
and to aline parallel is as well a geometric property !!
thjere is the energy property of absorbing and emmiting energy
but
**that is not in **contrast* or canceling the
gepmetric property
-----------
>
>
>
> > as far as i know
> > in order of having a direction of a body
> > it must have at least two point to make a directed line
>
> That is incorrect. A force vector is drawn AT a point and it has a
> direction,
how is a direction defined acording to you ??
is it not along a line??
and a line can be fefied only by atlleast two points
no matterif you call it a vector
a vectoe has other properties that just the line direction
but those additional properties are **in addition* to the line
ditection
property and not neglecting the dirction feature !!
---------------
for example. There are not two points that are required to
> specify a force vector.
>
> > (actually to make any ORIENTATION)
> > (and the experiment show it has a geometric orientation!!!)
>
> > how can ***a point*** have any DETECTABLE orientation??!!
again how ???
-------------
and i asked you as well
how can a point have some **biased * direction
while the gemometric point has no volume
(that is for itself a rediculous way to understand a particle
but at this point i forgive you for that absurd)
so your point particle has no volume (actually zero volume!!)----
while a point cannot have a biased direction
it is by definition directionless
while the electron showes clearly by experimental data
biased directions of itself !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
PD
It means what I told you.
> it is imho anobvious **geometric* property
> and not as you say an energy property!!
No, it does not mean that, your "opinion" notwithstanding. You have
read something into it that is not there. Reading up on a basic book
in quantum mechanics will quickly correct this misconception. Do you
have access to any quantum mechanics books?
> and to aline parallel is as well a geometric property !!
> thjere is the energy property of absorbing and emmiting energy
> but
> **that is not in **contrast* or canceling the
> gepmetric property
> -----------
>
> > > as far as i know
> > > in order of having a direction of a body
> > > it must have at least two point to make a directed line
>
> > That is incorrect. A force vector is drawn AT a point and it has a
> > direction,
>
> how is a direction defined acording to you ??
> is it not along a line??
No, it is not. I don't know where you got the idea that it is. It
might do you to learn a little about vectors from a very basic book.
Do you have any books that introduce vectors at a very basic level?
See below for the velocity vector example I gave you.
Answer this question, Porat. What are the two points that are needed
to specify this velocity vector?
Mike Jr.
Bert,
Thanks. I have read Uncle Al's reference,
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/new-bounds-for-the-higgs/
I will have to think about this some more.
--Mike Jr
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96e2fd628242e69c?hl=en
while/when you feel that you are attacked unjustyedly
you have to defend yourself. -- Best regards Y.Porat
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/55de765fbdfa66a4?hl=en
...AAHHHhhhh... them "FEELINGS"... ahahahaha...
You are good man, old friend. I have no intension
to attack you and never did. Of course I cannot &
not do I want to influence your feelings as long as
you do not perform those yiddishe street corner
performances we just talked about... ahahahaha...
>
Don't let me cramp your style, Yehi. Take care &
thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson.
Y.Porat
<TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it is imho anobvious **geometric* property
> > and not as you say an energy property!!
>
> No, it does not mean that, your "opinion" notwithstanding. You have
> read something into it that is not there. Reading up on a basic book
> in quantum mechanics will quickly correct this misconception. Do you
> have access to any quantum mechanics books?
-----------------------------
just give us a break with abstarct hand wivings
and be specific
it is an experimental fact that the electron in a magnetic field
is flipping between two geometric situations
PARALLEL AND ANTI PARALLEL
ALIGNMENT got it alignment is a geometric property
the fact that you ahave not a minimal basic geometric
ability or education cannot obfuscate the situation
and th e cacts ar every distinct
it said to be parallel of 180 deg opposite to the first
situation
flipping
the force lines of the magnetic field have a direction
now
if you didnt learn it untill this day
start learning
a direction can be defined at least a by two points!!
even if you will take the the polar system
you have a line plus an angle between the line and the
zero line for reference !!
now again a line and a DIRECTION OF A VERCOR
ARE DEFINED AT LEAST BY TWO POINTS
and if you dont get it
go learn not only QM
but basic geometry which is part and parcel of our
real world and structure of matter !!
our reality is not clouds of probababilitys
as well as your body that is not a cloud of probabilities
clouds of probabilities are clouds of ignorance !!
ie not enough knowledge !!
now another point
physics
is not abstarct mathematical differential equations
it i s basic geometry as well
th e physical reality is not abstract formulas
so back to our electron that is aligned parallel to the
field force lines !!
how come that alignment ??
2
we know as well that that flipping situation is ascociated
one by one with
absorbtion and emitting of photons
now absorbtion means that it is stored for a ** while**
that makes some change in electron!!!...
that causes it to flip 180 degrees
what makes it do it only after absorbing the photon?
and later after emitting it
it goes back 180 degrees to the first direction
so what is the connection according to you
between the geometric facts and the energy facts ??
and if you dont know
just say
' I DONT KNOW ' !!!
ie some intellectual integrity
and let leave abstract' impressive' hand wavings
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
so ??
if to quote you :
'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
so
it is not a point
it has volume !!!
even if a small one
and it is able to basorb and emit energy
ie to hold it for a while
so
where **and how ** is that energy holded while absorbed
in the electron ???
and in addition it can have a ** biased direction**
and a direction means 'at least' two points !!.....
so ???
any further insights as a result ???? (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Matthew Johnson
Y.Porat says...
[SNIP]
>so ??
>if to quote you :
>
>'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
>so
>it is not a point
>it has volume !!!
WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
[snip]
Spaceman
So you are saying that the electron has a negative
radius? (less than 0)
And you actually think you know anything about math?
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article
>> <b408a5e6-5d8e-4fdf...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Y.Porat says...
>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>> so ??
>>> if to quote you :
>>>
>>> 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>>>
>>> so
>>> it is not a point
>>> it has volume !!!
>>
>> WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
>
>So you are saying that the electron has a negative
>radius? (less than 0)
>And you actually think you know anything about math?
>LOL
Since the math blooper was yours, yet again, the laughter is directed at you,
SpaceClown.
You really are completely hopeless! I said 0 is less thatn 6x10**-24 m. IT is.
You jumped to the conclusion of negative numbers. Guess what, clown! Since 0 is
already less than 6x10**-24 m, I don't need negative numbers -- except to
describe your IQ.
>
Y.Porat
> In article <b408a5e6-5d8e-4fdf-bfb9-39df59c6c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Y.Porat says...
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >so ??
> >if to quote you :
>
> >'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> >so
> >it is not a point
> >it has volume !!!
>
> WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
>
> [snip]
----------------
(:-)
and the radius of the Proton that is quoted there
is as well zero for you ???
th e more you are fighting for your zero
(which is zero understanding about the structure of matter !!)
th e greater will be your defeat later
keep well
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > In article
> > Y.Porat says...
>
> > [SNIP]
>
> >> so ??
> >> if to quote you :
>
> >> 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> >> so
> >> it is not a point
> >> it has volume !!!
>
> > WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
>
> So you are saying that the electron has a negative
> radius? (less than 0)
> And you actually think you know anything about math?
> LOL
well said about mathematicians ('head') in physics !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
> In article <BtGdnYNWLs4OHwfVnZ2dnUVZ_gidn...@comcast.com>, Spaceman says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >> In article
> >> Y.Porat says...
>
> >> [SNIP]
>
> >>> so ??
> >>> if to quote you :
>
> >>> 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> >>> so
> >>> it is not a point
> >>> it has volume !!!
>
> >> WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
>
> >So you are saying that the electron has a negative
> >radius? (less than 0)
> >And you actually think you know anything about math?
> >LOL
>
> Since the math blooper was yours, yet again, the laughter is directed at you,
> SpaceClown.
>
> You really are completely hopeless! I said 0 is less thatn 6x10**-24 m. IT is.
> You jumped to the conclusion of negative numbers. Guess what, clown! Since 0 is
> already less than 6x10**-24 m, I don't need negative numbers -- except to
> describe your IQ.
>
>
-----------------
and why just less than 6x 10 **-24 is jsut zero??
and not say half of it ??
do youthink that if it was experimentally zero
the experimentalists would be ashamed to say zero ??
or may be you have the prerogative to pick up
waht fits to you ??
and all the other experiemntal evidence
about properties of electron are not worthy for you
or are meanignless.
for instance that the electronin a magnetic field
is aligning itself
parallel or 180 deg opposite to it
and **nothing between the parallel and -180**
is meaningless for you ??
is it an obvious characteristic of a point that is
isometric in all directions?
because you have an idea fix stupid physics understanding
that the electron must be a mysterious witch on a broom ??
creating mass from noting
or mass without volume?
or may be mass is something nonexistant at all ??
and how can a zero entity have a biased direction property ??
do you think for once and a while or you are jsut an
assertive crackparroter ??
or may be i am wasting my precious time on you
and alike you ??
(are you by any chance a teacher of physics ??)
Y.P
--------------
PD
That is incorrect. There is NO experimental indication of ANY
geometric reorientation. If you think there is, then dig up some
experimental papers that DO indicate that.
>
> PARALLEL AND ANTI PARALLEL
> ALIGNMENT got it alignment is a geometric property
No, that is your interpretation of a WORD. Do not read into a WORD
what the experimental facts are. You are ASSUMING that if they use
that WORD, then they must have seen evidence of a geometric
reorientation. But that ASSSUMPTION, like many of your assumptions, is
simply wrong.
There is absolutely NO evidence of anything turning 180 degrees. The
terms "parallel" and "antiparallel" are used as LABELS because they
are vaguely reminiscent of something at a macroscopic scale. But just
because they use the same WORDS should not imply to you that they are
identical situations or even similar situations.
Porat, this is where it would help enormously if you would direct
yourself to a library to see what was actually MEASURED, rather than
reading too much meaning into the WORDS used in popular descriptions.
As another example, the strong charge on quarks is called color. No
one has EVER seen a quark that appears red or blue or green. Those are
LABELS because the property they are trying to describe has some
ANALOGY to the way that colors work in the macroscopic world. This
does NOT mean that quarks are colored like little balls.
Once again, you extrapolate from the macro to the micro, thinking that
if they use the same WORD for the micro that they use for the macro,
then they must be talking about the same kind of thing. They aren't.
And they only way you are going to understand how different they are
is by READING.
PD
No, it does not. Do you know the difference between a < sign and an =
sign.
If I said that Peter's income was <$100 this year, does this
automatically mean to you that it was definitely not zero?
PD
wrote:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > In article
> > Y.Porat says...
>
> > [SNIP]
>
> >> so ??
> >> if to quote you :
>
> >> 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> >> so
> >> it is not a point
> >> it has volume !!!
>
> > WRONG. 0 is less that 6x10**-24 m, too.
>
> So you are saying that the electron has a negative
> radius? (less than 0)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh, Spaceman, you are priceless.
It might help if you thought just ONE more minute before opening your
yap. It might cut down on the number of completely laughable goofs you
make.
PD
Can you experimentally say that ANYTHING is zero?
What can you MEASURE with perfect precision?
john
hey, QM, got no pictures yet?
No model?
This is because it is
hard to picture a paradox.
John
Y.Porat
---------------
Mr PD
we are not reading here the old books
we are WRITING NEW ONES !!!
2
just give me a break with your teaching me about
right and false extrapoaltions
because i agve you a few lwssons about false extrapolations
that you yourself did about botom and top energies
of photins about
no mass can reach c etc etc
--------
now to our business:
it is you whosaies that waht is tritten in Vilikpedia is wrong
there id an article there talking about the RSR and NMR
paratical systems that are uswed as scanners
and i guess they as dealing withit in everyday life
practially
know a bit better than you and me
anyway even if you were right
we are far from done yet
one of the readers here was quoting and experiment
withresults of radius of electron as
. > 6 x exp - *** a small but still a figuere
and at the same palce the radius of the Porton
by the same system but many orders bigger
so is it A ZERO POINT FOR YOU ??
now would yousay again
that it is wirthless experiment (ie to be neglectied ??)
2
lets go to the first Stern Gerlach experiment
it is as well in your (despised VIKIPEDIA )
the link is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment
now if you look thereyou willsee the famous rersults:
a beam of silver atoms are shot through an uneven magnetic field
(uneven geometrically !!!!!)
anf the results are
the single silver :Atom that is passing there
is the same i\for all these Atoms
except one mysterious feature that was called spin
yet the geometric facts are
that if you soot those Atoms in a procession
one afrer the other at the same start position
you get
one of them goes left'
and one of them goes rigth
making a separation angle (sort of V shape )
so we have there just two 'kinds' of electrons
ie the unpaired single electron that is responsible for that
strange phenomenon!
all of them go either on the on the right hand line
of that V
one goes on the left line of that V
and the other on the right side
exactly on the same lines
with may be minor deviations
but basically on those lines with the constant angle between them
so is it as well
bot some biased geometry feature ??
so
id is that phenomena not a geometric structure biased
phenomenon ??
please remember the start biased geometry of the magnetic field
if not that biased geometry the phenomenon does not exist !!
and of you go on denying non 'point electron'
i wll go on with you to other experimental data ....!!
you bet we have ...
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
PD
And where does it say there that spin orientation means a *geometric*
orientation?
> paratical systems that are uswed as scanners
> and i guess they as dealing withit in everyday life
> practially
> know a bit better than you and me
> anyway even if you were right
> we are far from done yet
>
> one of the readers here was quoting and experiment
> withresults of radius of electron as
> . > 6 x exp - *** a small but still a figuere
> and at the same palce the radius of the Porton
> by the same system but many orders bigger
> so is it A ZERO POINT FOR YOU ??
No, I have never said it is a point particle, Porat. Must I repeat
myself six times to you? I've told you we *don't know*. But I also
told you that bearing mass and bearing charge and bearing spin is does
not FORCE a conclusion of nonzero size.
>
> now would yousay again
> that it is wirthless experiment (ie to be neglectied ??)
>
> 2
> lets go to the first Stern Gerlach experiment
> it is as well in your (despised VIKIPEDIA )
> the link is :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment
>
> now if you look thereyou willsee the famous rersults:
>
> a beam of silver atoms are shot through an uneven magnetic field
> (uneven geometrically !!!!!)
> anf the results are
> the single silver :Atom that is passing there
> is the same i\for all these Atoms
> except one mysterious feature that was called spin
That's right, and there is absolutely no statement that this is a
*geometrical* orientation.
> yet the geometric facts are
> that if you soot those Atoms in a procession
> one afrer the other at the same start position
> you get
> one of them goes left'
> and one of them goes rigth
> making a separation angle (sort of V shape )
>
> so we have there just two 'kinds' of electrons
That's right. There are two values of the spin quantum number.
> ie the unpaired single electron that is responsible for that
> strange phenomenon!
> all of them go either on the on the right hand line
> of that V
> one goes on the left line of that V
> and the other on the right side
> exactly on the same lines
> with may be minor deviations
> but basically on those lines with the constant angle between them
> so is it as well
> bot some biased geometry feature ??
No evidence of that.
Y.Porat
here is a quote from your above post No 13
quote
'I just told you. We don't know. We have no evidence that it is not a
point particle (and as I've told you elsewhere, having mass is not
> not FORCE a conclusion of nonzero size.'
end of your quote
here you are holding the ' long string in 'both of its ends'
ie could be a point and could be not
and waht i am trying to do is
to cancel one of those possibilities
so do you get the diffefence between me and you ??
you see
reality and **real **advance
cannot have to luxury of' holding the string
in both of its ends'
BECAUSE THERE IS JUST ONE REALITY
and my effort is to camcel one of those possibilities
and get to just one posibility
ie
not a point but a aprticle that occupies a volume
as any other particle that we know
i called it instead of occupying a volume
**Hugging ** a volume
ie
be present in some of that volume **even if not at any time
**filling** **all** that volume
iow
i want to make a few steps further to closer to reality
-------------------
>
> > now would yousay again
> > that it is wirthless experiment (ie to be neglectied ??)
>
> > 2
> > lets go to the first Stern Gerlach experiment
> > it is as well in your (despised VIKIPEDIA )
> > the link is :
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment
>
> > now if you look thereyou willsee the famous rersults:
>
> > a beam of silver atoms are shot through an uneven magnetic field
> > (uneven geometrically !!!!!)
> > anf the results are
> > the single silver :Atom that is passing there
> > is the same i\for all these Atoms
> > except one mysterious feature that was called spin
>
> That's right, and there is absolutely no statement that this is a
> *geometrical* orientation.
????
left and right
are not a geometric feature ??
how to we detect left or right ??
in the above experiment there is a distinct geometric feature:
one Atom gors left
and another goes rigth
(left is the hand on which you are holding your wrist watch (:-)
and itcan be defined only due to the fact that
your body has a geometric structure !!!
with many point located in many different geometric locations
at the same time !!!
now in order of saving time;
how about that
the electron is a little magnet ???
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
>
PD
Yes, I know you are. What I'm telling you is that you don't have
enough information to do that. You can't do it with the information
you are trying to use.
> so do you get the diffefence between me and you ??
> you see
> reality and **real **advance
> cannot have to luxury of' holding the string
> in both of its ends'
> BECAUSE THERE IS JUST ONE REALITY
Understood. You also have to acknowledge the difference between a
guess and a positive conclusion. You can GUESS that the electron has
volume and structure. Then, if you'll refer to one of my first
responses to the original poster, you'll see what work is required in
making that a real theory.
If you are given the choice between answers A and B, and you know only
one of them is right, it does no good in science to simply say, "Well,
A makes more sense to me than B, so let's conclude that it's A." It IS
proper in science to say, "Well, we don't know, but let's suppose for
a bit that the answer is A. If that's true, then we would expect [and
here is where a bunch of mathematics is required] to see phenomena X,
Y, and Z in quantities x, y, and z, where if instead B were true, then
we would expect only to see Y and not X and Z, and Y would be in a
different amount y'." It is ALSO proper in science to say, "We don't
have enough information at this point to decide whether it is A or B,
and so it is premature to make that call."
Y.Porat
> On Aug 7, 9:41 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 12:46 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 7, 11:26 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 6, 9:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > there id an article there talking about the RSR and NMR
>
> > > And where does it say there that spin orientation means a *geometric*
> > > orientation?
>
> >
> > the electron is a little magnet ???
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------------------
i am not sure you understood properly how i used the
spin issue
(just one aspect and i have many other aspects
whichi know and you still dont know that i learned
in my resarch about
THE STRUCTURE OF MATTER ..)
anyway
waht i say jsut at this spin issue
that that alone is enough to cancel the
'point particle' notion (guess)
the astern geralch experients
shoes that an unpaired electron
tha tmoves in a sort of 'distorted' magnetic field
is deviated IN A STRAIGH TLINE once to the
left site of that V
once to the right side inm straigh tmovement
indicating no rolling od anything but a steady
directional movement as if it was stuck
in one position all laong its way
and a constant angle between the two 'arms' of that V shape
that is** not** accidental and meaningless!!
now
any 'point' structure orentity has no geometric direction
bias to do that whtsoever
if yes
please explain how a point particle withno volume
can have TWO and only two biased directions
that will cause it in one position or case to move left
and *the* other case move right !!
now please
no abstract philosophy we deal here witrh a very specific case
(btw i remember an American diplomat called Draper -
any connection ?? )
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Mitch Raemsch
> On Aug 5, 6:00 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <54fbc41b-f1f2-4bac-abfc-38779007a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > PD says...
>
> > >On Aug 4, 2:36=A0pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> > >> What is the inner structure of the Electron?
>
> > >We don't know. There hasn't been any measurement so far that's been
> > >able to detect any.
>
> > >If there is a structure, though, then this structure SHOULD help
> > >account for both the commonalities and differences with the muon, the
> > >tau, and the three neutrino species. (I.e., an answer for the electron
> > >in isolation is probably not very helpful.)
>
> > >> Questions about experiments with electrons:
> > >> - Have scattering experiments conclusively shown that the electron is
> > >> not composed of smaller and more fundamental particles? Or ....?
>
> > >No, it's not conclusive. It's only true that to the degree we've
> > >measured it SO FAR there is no evidence of structure.
>
> > And if there were structure, why would we expect any evidence of it in our
> > colliders? Surely it would only show up at energies much higher than we we can
> > reach in a collider.
>
>
>
> we have jsut a little scratch of our basic logic:
> plus the existing knowledge
>
> for instance
> if the electron has no volume
> what is the probability that two electrons will collide each other
Electrons won't collide because they are repulsive.
Electricty is a repulsive force.
> and question 2
> how can a zero volume entity have a field ??
>
> how can a zero volume electron even
> CREATE a field
>
> and we are not done yet ......
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------
>
> ...
>
> since it
>
>
>
> > is only in super massive stars that we get energies likely to reveal any inner
> > structure of the electron. But AFAIK, we don't see it there either.
>
> > [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matthew Johnson
Mitch Raemsch says...
[snip]
>Electricty is a repulsive force.
Wrong again. Electricity is a more general term than that: the electric force
can be eaither attractive or repulsive.
[snip]
Mitch Raemsch
> In article <cb4a56bc-ee36-402e-ad70-4551cef0b...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitch Raemsch says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >Electricty is a repulsive force.
>
> Wrong again. Electricity is a more general term than that: the electric force
> can be eaither attractive or repulsive.
>
> [snip]
Regular electricty in a wire is repulsive.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
wrote:
Not even true in that case. Put two wires with current near each
other, aligned so the wires are parallel. Observe the force between
them. Now turn one of the wires around.
PD
Y.Porat
> > > If Louis wants to understand the structure of the electron, I
> > > recommend taking a look at "The Road to Reality", by Roger Penrose,
> > > Chapter 25.6, 'The zigzag picture of the electron".
>
> > > --Best regards,
> > > --Mike Jr
>
> > ---------------------
> > so ??
> > if to quote you :
>
> > 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> > so
> > it is not a point
> > it has volume !!!
>
> No, it does not. Do you know the difference between a < sign and an =
> sign.
>
> If I said that Peter's income was <$100 this year, does this
> automatically mean to you that it was definitely not zero?
and while we say that peters income is less than 100 $
does it mean it is zero ??
between zero and 100 there are a lot of numbers
so you picked up zero because it fits your crippled paradigm??
see my new thread:
'The stern Gerlach experiment - against the point particle electron'
iow
there are too many considerations and experimental facts
that once you would *interpret them* properly
(please note that* interpret properly *!!)
it will prove a nonzero volume for the electron
it is not just one experiment it is more than one !!
it i s amazing to realize how long that Stern Gerlach
experiment- was not interpretated properly !!!
and comprehensively !!
and come to such a nonsense as 'a point particle
with zero volume
only dumb mathematicians can come to such ** nonsense physics *
without blinking an eye
btw
have you ever seen the abstract of my model
???
it is full of experimental data against 'point particles '
ATB
__________---
PD
> On Aug 7, 3:34 pm, PD <TheD
>
>
>
> > > > If Louis wants to understand the structure of the electron, I
> > > > recommend taking a look at "The Road to Reality", by Roger Penrose,
> > > > Chapter 25.6, 'The zigzag picture of the electron".
>
> > > > --Best regards,
> > > > --Mike Jr
>
> > > ---------------------
> > > so ??
> > > if to quote you :
>
> > > 'electron** radius** R < 6x10**-24 m.'
>
> > > so
> > > it is not a point
> > > it has volume !!!
>
> > No, it does not. Do you know the difference between a < sign and an =
> > sign.
>
> > If I said that Peter's income was <$100 this year, does this
> > automatically mean to you that it was definitely not zero?
> > ------------------------------------
>
> and while we say that peters income is less than 100 $
> does it mean it is zero ??
>
> between zero and 100 there are a lot of numbers
> so you picked up zero because it fits your crippled paradigm??
I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, Porat.
I am NOT saying the dimension of the electron is zero. You keep
insisting that I am.
I am ALSO not saying the dimension of the electron is NOT zero.
It is certainly one or the other, but to say it is KNOWN which of
these things it is, is an unjustified GUESS.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, especially when I've explicitly
and repeatedly told you exactly the opposite.
Y.Porat
here is waht you said above
quote:
'If I said that Peter's income was <$100 this year, does this
automatically mean to you that it was definitely not zero? '
------------
it does not say it is zero
if it was zero
trhe experinetalist whoud not say < 6 - exp** etc
th e lowest figure he cloud detect is
less than the above figure
so why should he say zero ?? of that figure ??
2
i keeep on telling you that that is not the only experimental evidence
for nonzero ther are other evidence
cases.
and i directed you to my basic mathematical
and physical prove based on the
Stern Gerlach experimets
that the electron cannot be a point particle
9a point particle has no volume
once it ocupyes volume
or has mor ethan one point
it is not a point particle any more !!
if you cant understand it
thats your problem
other people will understand it quite easy !!
unless they are completely morons abot basic geometry
laws
(may be now you wil tell us that basic geometry
that a direction need at least two points does not exist in
microcosm ???!!)
see my thread :
'The Stern Gerlach experiment against the point particle electron'
and i asked you and you didnt answer
i asked you :
did you ever seen th e abstract of my model??
it i s full of evidence against the point particle
of the Proton or Electron ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------