🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 2, 7:22 am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org> wrote:
> In article <cfa75cab-961c-44e9-aae1-a685c034c...@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.
-------------------
but still
dont you   see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
and not physics
it does not tell us abut the  physical   substance of that
physical entity.
> ----------------

> [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
-----------------
now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (:-)
but only STARTING   .....
----------
> would be repelling the left half by the electric force.

are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
( or   apriory assumptions ??)
btw
what ever if you are right here or wrong
you   stsrted to understand my claim that
 ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
THERE IS NO WAY BUT   **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
 and in that sense you start to be on   the right way ...)

who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
electric force ??  (:-)
and btw
it is only now that you     undestood my intention
**to try and   zoom into   the electron**
and not deal  (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
or electron versus  proton ot elctron file etc

you ddint even trid untill now
 to zoom    into it because of your paradigmatic
assumption    that one cannot zoom into it !!!

 But then something, some
> other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But what
> could that be?

A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!

i have my private answer after a long process
of searching not only the  electron
but may other 'atonic   (microcosm entities) structure
and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
and my theories )
but not at this point
i would like to lead you
by pushing you to a dead end
to get some of my assumptions
that i had to find by
finding myself in a  vicious circle of unanswered questions
(unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)


 It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
> gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.

i didnt say that or may be yess??
may be those gluons
but gluons is just words
what is lying bhind that word  'Gluons   ???
may be here lies the dead dog  ???
>
> So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model implies
> the electron must be a point particle.

that is for lazy  clumsy    thinking people !!!
now a hint

Einstein found that there must be a   break  through idea
to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma

i hope you   understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
of any attrarction force    is cheating or at least very  crippled
fo r  instance
photons that move in straight lines can never be
attraction force messengers !!!

so ???
what else ???
can yous   stretch a bit more  your creative imagination ??

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