🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.

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

>
> THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> extension.
> 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.
>
> It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> electron!
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark