🚀 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.
>
> [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.

-------------------
and in addition to the above
another    preemptive   question:

how and why
a point particle behaves like a wave  ???

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