🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 25, 5:13 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> On 25 Jul., 00:45, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > Questions:
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > electron?
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > proton?
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> > What does a shadow weigh?
>
> > Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> > yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> > circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> > may be measured.
>
> > The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> > properties.
>
> > It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> > mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> > "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> > Tom Davidson
> > Richmond, VA
>
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.

You weren't reading very carefully, were you?

An electron is simply that: a single electron.  In the sense that
'particle' means a discrete single entity, then the electron is *like*
a particle.  In the sense that 'particle' implies a definable size/
shape, then the electron is decidedly NOT like a particle.

Size and shape are *geometric* properties.  They are appropriate for a
geometric MODEL of something.

Like many people, (including some physicists with college degrees) you
are not clearly distinguishing between the physical entity itself and
the MODEL of the physical entity.  They are not the same.

> THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?

The 'standard model' is a theoretical MODEL.  Empirical observations
are the ONLY arbiters of 'right' and 'wrong' in physical theory.  This
is done by comparing what theoretical models predict about empirical
observations and the actual empirical observations.  A model is only
decidedly 'wrong' when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with
the observations.

Has the standard model made and predictions which have been falsified,
i.e. in statistically certain disagreement with observations, outside
their error limits?

> It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> extension.

Grammar failure.  Please reparse and repeat.

> In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.

The 'particle' is part of the MODEL.  The physical properties are of
the physical entity.  The object of the model is to create a
mathematical entity that can be mathematically manipulated to imitate
the behavior of the physical entity.

> It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> electron!

Define "true nature" please.

Empirical measurements act upon the physical electron and give 'true'
results (albeit with uncertainties that may not always be recognized
or properly estimated).

Mathematical processes act on the mathematical model and give
theoretical predictions (usually without uncertainties that the
theorists are willing to acknowledge).

When these predictions disagree with the measurements, you must
conclude that ONE of them is wrong, and it is usually the model that
is in error.  This is true in physics, chemistry, or climatology.

> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA