🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Wagner wrote:
> 
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:11:45 -0500, Brian Cieszynski <triumph1@cris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Actually we're already at that _point_ now (pun intended). It's beginning
> > to look like there is nothing smaller than quarks and leptons. Quarks are
> > the class of particles that make up protons and neutrons. Leptons are the
> > class of particles which we normally call electrons and neutrinos.
> >
> > They've been trying to find the smallest size of these particles by
> > bouncing them off of each other. The more energy you put into the
> > projectiles, the harder it's going to hit, and the closer it's going to get
> > to its centre. So far, they've been increasing and increasing the energy
> > against these particles and still haven't found a limit to how close they
> > can get. This means that it looks like quarks and leptons are perfect
> > mathematical points, zero-dimensional. You can't get much smaller than
> > absolute zero.
> 
> The only reason they bounce is the electro repulsive force of their E
> fields.  I explain below my thoughts on this.

there actually is a little more to it that just the charges repeling
each other.  electrons just do not overlap each other unless you have
extreme amounts of pressure forcing them together.  this is called
the pali(sp) exclusion principle.  i am not certain if two electrons
can actually hit each other outside of a stars core.

> 
> > Now, we may be accustomed to think of an electron as just a little ball
> > whirling around a nucleus like a planet orbits a star. But, that's just a
> > convenient portrayal. Can you imagine it, these things have mass, but no
> > volume?!? Boggles the mind, doesn't it? But that's just something we have
> > to get used to in Quantum physics.
> 
> It seems perfectly logical to me...  Consider this analogy:  What is
> the volume of a black hole?  It is a quantum singularity, it has
> *zero* volume.  But its *effective* volume is the radius of its
> event horizon.  This very intuitivly transfers to all subatomic
> particles.  They can all be thought of as quantum singularities of
> *fixed* mass.  Therefore they don't blow up in mass and size like
> a black hole.  An electron can be thought of as a "conflux of
> negative electric field potential bound by an infinite distortion
> in the space time continuum."  This nicely explains why an electron
> will absorb a photon.  In order to be absorbed the photon has to
> "hit" the electron.  A hit can be considered a crossing of the event
> horizon of the electron.  So just like a normal black hole, the photon
> can't make the turn and plunks right down into the gravity well.  This
> energy shows up as increased mass of the electron, which we do see.
> (equating KE to mass)  This also explains anti particle annihilation.
> When an electron and positron collide their E fields cancel out and
> the singularity is allowed to evaporate.  We all know about
> singularity evaporation...  Boom!

but how do you explain an electron emiting photons then?  or
are you suggesting that this miniture singularity(that sounds
silly to say when you think about it....) can allow energy to
escape?

of course fun question, what happens if a positron is formed
inside a netron star and it is pressed into an electron?  electrons
and protons simply form neutrons when this happens, but would
positrons and electrons form somekind of particle?

> 
> Volume is a very subjective thing.  The vast majority of space is in
> fact
> empty.  The free space in atoms between the electrons and the nucleus
> is enormous.  We literally breath vacuum every day!  The only thing
> that gives particles substance is the electro forces they have.  eg
> electrons repel each other.  This is a little harder to apply to
> uncharged particles.  I'm not sure what they would have to repel other
> like particles.

ever heard of the weak and strong nuclear forces:)  i forget exactly
what each does, but one of them is responsible for how neutrons behave.
and the other determines when atoms decay radioactivly i think.

-- 
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          
annapuma and unapumma in 96'

 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"






















.