🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

-----------------
Bravo   !!

so not a point particle   anymore !!  (:-)
and you start understand that you still dont know enough
and there i s  work to do ahead

Y.P
----------------------------