🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cfa75cab-961c-44e9-aae1-a685c034cfe4@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat says...

[snip]

>> The constituents of an atom are the nucleus and the electrons. The
>> volume of the atom is not driven by the size of the electron or the
>> size of the nucleus.
>-----------------------------------
>
>thtats nice
>but wasnot my question

What do you mean? Aren't you the one who asked about 'constituents'?

>
>we are dealing    now  with the ELECTRON
>anmd the question about
>is it a point particle or not ??!!

>if you say that the electron is a point particle i say
>a point is not natures invention
>it is a human artifact

But your 'objection' misses the point. Even the abstract notion of "an electron
sui generis" rather than "this electron" or "that electron" is already an
abstraction, and so in some way a "human artifact".

So by no means does the  fact that a point is a human artifact contradict the
idea that the electron is a point particle.

>a point has    no volue at all  BY DEFINITION !!

True. And neither does an electron.

>in order that an interaction will take place
>there is need of space

Yes, space between the two point particles. We have that. So waht is your point?

>it is INTER    action
>in a point there is no INTER  whatsoever
>an INTER  can be only between different entities !!

Such as an electron and another electron, or even an electron and an electric
field (photon).

>a point is just one zero entity !!
>and different entitis   cannot live together  in a point
>2 
>there must be a distinction between the mass of a particle
>
>and  THE ORBIT IT MAKES

Uh, oh. It doesn't make 'orbits' either. Back in the 20s, when the Bohr model
was the best model we had for the atom, we used to think it did, but ever since
about 1926, we knew this was impossible. That is why they are called 'orbitals',
not 'orbits'. The 'al' ending means it is something a little bit LIKE an orbit,
but not necessarily an orbit itself.
 
[snip]

There is another reason you should think of an electron as a point particle.
Suppose that it could be thought of as a right half and a left half of something
smaller, whether smaller particles or just amorphous stuff: then this right half
would be repelling the left half by the electric force. But then something, some
other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But what
could that be? It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.

So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model implies
the electron must be a point particle.