🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 27, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 !!  (:-)

We don't know. We don't have any experimental evidence that it has any
spatial extent.

> and you start understand that you still dont know enough
> and there i s  work to do ahead

Of course. That is always the case and will always be the case. There
are a number of possibilities, however, that we are quite sure we can
rule out.

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