Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

[snip rest of crap]

Bullshit.  What is the diameter of a dandelion seed head?  A cotton
puff?

What is the physical diameter of the sun, idiot?  There is no surface
for which a  density - mass/volume - discontinuity occurs.  What you
see as the sun is where its plasma cools to a low enough temperature
to be transparent to humans.  The sun is a continuous Boltzmann
distribution of gas density in a gravitational field.

Hey f.cking stooopid - what is the surface area of a brick?  At what
measurement scale?

On Jul 25, 2:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

Louis, yes, the electron is geometrical, there is no way an electron
can have a magnetic moment without a current loop area.

Note the magnetic moment has the dimensions of current times area.

The electron has the largest magnetic moment  of any subatomic
particle.

NIST lists; Ue = 9.28476377 E-24  m^2 A  for the electron.

The standard model is a monumental failure, it cannot derive a single
fundamental physical constant, a fatal flaw.

Exactly correct, the standard model is the ultimate AD HOC theory.

Worse, it does not work!

The electron is a well measured particle.

Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.

http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf

Regards; Tom.

On 25 Lip, 11:10, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
[...]

Wake up, Nielsen :)
the true nature of electron is simply, it"s only form of
electropositron.

Uncle Google ---> electropositron
...try to understand and don"t remember to tell about :)

The Best
John from Enes,
Poland

Followups to sci.physics exclusively.  I have no idea what dk.videnskab
discusses.

In sci.physics, Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk
<Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk>
wrote
on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
<bc9db64a-998d-4941-8ea0-1c40949c1048@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:

Finger, meet nose.  (Not too harshly; this is an
instructive tap, not a sucker punch.)  What is the
finger and the nose?  For the most part, they are clouds
of electrons swirling around tiny, positively charged
masspoints -- carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, a little
sulfur and iron and a few other things; in fact, my finger
and your nose are mostly empty space.

But you'll still feel it. ;-)

On a more refined scale, envision such things
as Millikan-Fletcher (usually referred to as "the
Millikan oil-drop experiment".  A single electron is
apparently trappable in an oil droplet, floating between
charged plates.  One can also contemplate batteries,
electromagnetics, and electron guns -- most older-style
monitors required an electron gun to shoot particles at
a phosphor screen, and a pair of electromagnets -- the
yoke -- make sure it goes to the right color point at
the right time.  If a monitor is not physics, what is
one seeing?

It might, in some models.  Nowadays the standar
explanation, however, involves a probability cloud --
and this explanation is strongly suggested by certain
experiments.

The standard model is probably wrong in half a dozen spots
(and the masses of quarks look strangely engineered), but
I for one lack a better explanation of various phenomena in
this Universe.  The Bohr model of the atom has fallen into
disuse, alongside the J. J. Thomson variant and the notion
of indivisibility first coined by someone in ancient Greece
(from which one derives the very name: atomos is greek for
"uncuttable" or "indivisible").

And how would one propose to do that?  Best I can do is
throw it at things at high speed -- the Bevatron comes to
mind, or the Large Hadron Collider (though that's more
suitable for large hadrons; the electron is a lepton).
Perhaps the NHTSA (or whatever it's called now) and CERN
should collaborate, though I wouldn't go quite so far as
to suggest we invent tiny airbags for the doomed hadrons...

On Jul 25, 1:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

An electron is a fundamental point particle whos energy is infinitely
dense because as  a point it is infinitely small. Its energy is a C^2
concentration. With motion it goes above C^2 by the Gamma factor.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Jul 25, 5:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

Louis, what is that you don't yet get?

Realize that the electron is merely an intellectual abstraction, which
serves a useful purpose in modeling interactions with other particles
and fields.  While an electron is conceptually modeled and visualized
at a particle, and that model works to date rather well, scinece yet
has no idea what an electron actually is. Is it a particle, a diffuse
quantity of something, or even an electromagnetic wave phenomena. The
fact is, nobody knows.

The conventional conceptualization of an electron as a particle is
convenient.  We can accelerate those little buggers, deflect their
paths, and measure their mass.  We can use them to charge batteries,
and operate our television sets and cell phones.  We can see their
flight paths using cloud chambers and bubble chambers, or spark
chambers.  Still, we cannot capture even one of these little buggers
for close examination.

So we know how an electron acts, but have no idea what it actually
is.

Do I hear any arguments?

Harry C.

On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

Why?

If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.

Let's take a chain to illustrate:
A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
spacing is given by intermolecular forces.

The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.

The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
*interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
constituents.

The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
between them.

The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.

There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
*interaction* between inner constituents.

PD

On Jul 25, 12:10 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

--------------------
Dear loui
i strongly suggest
that this tread
**will not be erased at all**
the discussion as is here  is worthy !!

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------