---

Questions:
- What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
electron?
- What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
proton?

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

---

On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

What does a shadow weigh?

Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
may be measured.

The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
properties.

It is a *physical* object. It has physical properties such as rest
mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.

"Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

---

Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk writes:

> 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? What is the mean geometrical extension of the earth's gravitational
field?

> THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?

Anything might be wrong. This is science, after all. The current
theory is the best model our best specialists have been able to come
up with, while trying very hard to discover the "true nature" of the
electron. I.e., that's what they've been doing all the time, there is
nothing new in calling for it again.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

---

<Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> skrev
news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com
>
>Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Hej Louis,

Øh ...

For noget tid siden skrev jeg ...

Newsgroups: News:dk.videnskab
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007, CET 14:39, GMT 12:39
Subject: Formel for radius-på-atomkerner efterlyses
6921 news:kefzi.18$pt7.7@news.get2net.dk
6955 news:38uFi.34$qY5.16@news.get2net.dk
6957 news:_4YFi.56$S%2.17@news.get2net.dk

samt ...

Newsgroups: News:dk.videnskab
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007, CET 15:36, GMT 13:36
Subject: Tabel over elementar-partikler efterlyses
6855 news:Onkti.21$Lu3.1@news.get2net.dk
6857 newslti.30$h_5.29@news.get2net.dk
6859 news:eqnti.52$Vd7.25@news.get2net.dk
6862 news:EeCti.23$Ut2.21@news.get2net.dk
6865 news:MdYti.33$E63.7@news.get2net.dk
>
> "Jan Rasmussen" skrev
> news:46b72e28$0$2085$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk
>
> [ ... file 6862 ... ]
>
> > >> Jeg ved ikke om denne poster indeholder noget af det du søger.
> > >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Particle_chart.jpg
> > >
> > > Jeg kikker på den. Mange tak ...
>
> Download af jpg-billedet: 1,41 MB (1.479.111 byte)
>
> Den er meget interessant med mange gode oplysninger ...
>
> Der er endvidere en henvisning nederst til højre:
> http://CPEPweb.org
>
> >
> > Ta eventuelt også en tur med 'The Particle Adventure',
> > en sjov pædagogiske introduktion til partikler.
> > http://www.particleadventure.org/
> >
> > Det ser ud til at være dem der har lavet ovenstående poster.

samt ...

6921 news:O3gzi.21$Li.16@news.get2net.dk
>
> Electron
> Size < 10^-18 m
> ...
> Neutron and Proton
> Size (around) 10^-15 m



Prøv at klikke på linket, Louis, hvormed billed fremkommer inklusiv kort
tekst ang. partiklernes størrelse.


NB! Bemærk venligst på baggrund af ...

6930 news:GIeAi.11$Dt3.10@news.get2net.dk
>
> > "Sven Nielsen" skrev
[ ... ]
> > > Princippet er, at størrelsen h/m_e/c er en konstant som kaldes
> > > elektronens comptonbølgelængde. Den har størrelsen 2,43 picometer.
> > > En foton som spredes vinkelret ud til siden (90 grader) får forøget
> > > sin bølgelængde med 2,43 pm. En foton som spredes tilbage, hvor den
> > > kom fra (180 grader) får forøget sin bølgelængde med 2 * 2,43 pm.
> > > Det er det, formlen siger.


.... at radius-størrelsen (af elektronen) muligvis har en *fysisk* sammenhæng
med denne omtalte bølgelængde. Jeg har blot ej kunnet påvise den endnu. Er
desværre ikke så dygtig. Bedre held med dig i "hypotese-fabrikken". Håber
således også, at du giver en feedback, dersom du finder svaret ...


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 7703 news:g6avm2$2356$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/5b001b21207d4ab4?
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 7704

---

"Jesus-loves-you" skrev
7704 news:g6b1t1$23vh$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk

[ ... ]
> >Questions:
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> > electron?
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> > proton?
[ ... ]
> > Electron
> > Size < 10^-18 m
> > ...
> > Neutron and Proton
> > Size (around) 10^-15 m
>
>
>
> Prøv at klikke på linket, Louis, hvormed billed fremkommer inklusiv kort
> tekst ang. partiklernes størrelse.
>

Linked (til billedet) virker desværre ikke længere ...

Prøv deres hjemmeside på ...
> > http://CPEPweb.org


>
> NB! Bemærk venligst på baggrund af ...
>
> 6930 news:GIeAi.11$Dt3.10@news.get2net.dk
> >
> > > "Sven Nielsen" skrev
> [ ... ]
> > > > Princippet er, at størrelsen h/m_e/c er en konstant som kaldes
> > > > elektronens comptonbølgelængde. Den har størrelsen 2,43 picometer.
> > > > En foton som spredes vinkelret ud til siden (90 grader) får forøget
> > > > sin bølgelængde med 2,43 pm. En foton som spredes tilbage, hvor den
> > > > kom fra (180 grader) får forøget sin bølgelængde med 2 * 2,43 pm.
> > > > Det er det, formlen siger.
>
>
> ... at radius-størrelsen (af elektronen) muligvis har en *fysisk*
> sammenhæng med denne omtalte bølgelængde. Jeg har blot ej kunnet påvise
den endnu. Er
> desværre ikke så dygtig. Bedre held med dig i "hypotese-fabrikken". Håber
> således også, at du giver en feedback, dersom du finder svaret ...


Øh ...

Jeg "fristes" over evne til at fortsætte. Håber det evt. kan inspirere dig
lidt, Louis ...

Antager vi, at en partikels masse er et udtryk for "indfanget" energi,
apropos E = m * c^2, da kunne det være besnærende endvidere at antage, at
massen blot er et produkt af centrifugal-kraften (og således en illusion).
Da må denne masse på en-eller-anden måde være afhængig af radius.

Ved massetab (fx. pga. fusion), apropos ...

5948 news:D7pah.189$8a5.152@news.get2net.dk
5959 news:yrbfh.20$wU5.19@news.get2net.dk
>
> > _____________________________________M i forhold til
> > ______Isotop______Massetab (M)_________Ni-62 og Neutron___Half life
> > 0001 028 Ni 062 0,9906340158890180 0,00000000000000 Stable
> > 0002 026 Fe 058 0,9906365644032130 0,00027210319440 Stable
> > 0003 026 Fe 056 0,9906383759870950 0,00046552482107 Stable
> [ ... ]
> > 0008 026 Fe 057 0,9906598603040260 0,00275939129320 Stable
> [ ... ]
> > 0017 026 Fe 060 0,9906755126493950 0,00443058197468 1,5E+6
Y


.... antages det derfor, at *radius* ændres (bliver en anelse mindre),
hvilket måske kan forklare *hvorfor* nogle isotoper bliver ustabile, og
måske også *hvorfor* ½-life ér netop lige en *konstant* størrelse (for hver
enkelt isotop).

Nogle frekvenser - det antages, at energien er en elektromagnetisk bølge,
der er indfanget i et *fysisk* magnetisk felt, evt. med spin - nogle
frekvenser er altså antageligvis pænt afstemte (og kan derfor "samarbejde"
med andre), mens andre frekvenser kommer i disharmoni, hvorved
"sammenbruddet" indtræffer, og isotopet henfalder til en laverestående
energiform.

Men - som sagt - jeg kan endnu ikke påvise det videnskabeligt ...


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 7704 news:g6b1t1$23vh$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/5b001b21207d4ab4?
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 7705

---

Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?

Zero. I don't know the accuracy or errorbar offhand, but these guys
probably do: http://pdg.lbl.gov


> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?

About 1 fm. I don't know the precise value or errorbar (but they
probably depend on the energy of the measurement). See above link.


Tom Roberts

---

Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Hey stooopid - non-rigid entities have non-rigid dimensions. All we
get is probability containments. All you get is

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

---

On Jul 25, 1:45 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > Questions:
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > electron?
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > proton?
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark
>
> What does a shadow weigh?
>
> Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> may be measured.
>
> The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> properties.
>
> It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA

------------------------
thats more or less the answer!!
ie
there is still no answer for it

one thing is clear at least to me:

the electron is not a 'little tennis ball'
ie
just forget about the solar system and spherical planet
orbiting around!!
according to my understanding after accumulating some
additional information and trying to combine it all to gether
so
it has actually *a few geometrical shapes**
how come ??
if you think about a tennis ball' it is impossible
but if you think about a longish combination of subparticles
*a chain of sub particles* it has the basic structure
of a 'string' or a 'rod '
so i suggested the 'eel 'model'
an eel can have many shapes thogh its basic structure is kept
(length thickness etc )
but it can be winded or stretched or twisted
and mostly vibrating

its difference in energy level is not by rotation
but in its degree of vibration (as a string)!!

and here comes the innovation:
it is not far away from the proton
and controlled by the proton by sort of **remote control **
**it is attached right to the proton a s a 'chain of orbitals'
one long cjain of orbitals

now the proton is a s well not a tennis ball '
it has as well a longish shape (a chain) of orbitals
NOT ONLY 3 'QUARKS'
BUT MUCH MORE SUB PARTICLES THAN JUST
3 QUARKS !!!
so most 'modern physics as for now
is living in a paradise of fools
deluding (and much worse -- cheating !!) themselves and others that
they
'well know' !!!

(may be the new LHC has some chnce to make some
better knowledge provided that those operators of experiments
will have A MORE** OPEN MIND**
FOR SURPRISES AND MORE START POINT
OF SKEPTICISM ABOUT EXISTING PARADIGMS !)

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

---

Y.Porat <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote:

> now the proton is a s well not a tennis ball ' it has as well a longish
> shape (a chain) of orbitals NOT ONLY 3 'QUARKS' BUT MUCH MORE SUB
> PARTICLES THAN JUST 3 QUARKS !!! so most 'modern physics as for now is
> living in a paradise of fools deluding (and much worse -- cheating
> !!) themselves and others that they 'well know' !!!
>
> (may be the new LHC has some chnce to make some better knowledge
> provided that those operators of experiments will have A MORE** OPEN
> MIND** FOR SURPRISES AND MORE START POINT OF SKEPTICISM ABOUT
> EXISTING PARADIGMS !)

I love how the quacks can almost always be spotted because every attempt
at refuting natural science involves some reference to 'paradigms'.

--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

---

On 25 Jul., 00:45, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > Questions:
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > electron?
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > proton?
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark
>
> What does a shadow weigh?
>
> Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> may be measured.
>
> The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> properties.
>
> It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA

ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.

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

---

On Jul 25, 12:13 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> On 25 Jul., 00:45, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > Questions:
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > electron?
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > proton?
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> > What does a shadow weigh?
>
> > Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> > yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> > circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> > may be measured.
>
> > The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> > properties.
>
> > It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> > mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> > "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> > Tom Davidson
> > Richmond, VA
>
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> 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

--------------
right!!

now as is now there is no technical tool to do it

so the way to do it as for now
is to cpllect all known data
and make a good guess
so
at our situation there is nothing to do but
**trial and error*
i agree with you that if it is a physical entity
the mathematical presentation or model or crippled model

IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE FURTHER REAL ADVANCE
IN SCIENCE

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

---

On Jul 25, 1:16 pm, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk writes:
> > 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? What is the mean geometrical extension of the earth's gravitational
> field?
>
> > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
>
> Anything might be wrong. This is science, after all.  The current
> theory is the best model our best specialists have been able to come
> up with, while trying very hard to discover the "true nature" of the
> electron. I.e., that's what they've been doing all the time, there is
> nothing new in calling for it again.
------------------
wrong!!

that approach is the source of stagnation
------------
Y.Porat
----------------------------
>
> /L
> --
> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
>  DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
>   'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

---

On Jul 25, 5:13 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> On 25 Jul., 00:45, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > Questions:
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > electron?
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > proton?
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> > What does a shadow weigh?
>
> > Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> > yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> > circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> > may be measured.
>
> > The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> > properties.
>
> > It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> > mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> > "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> > Tom Davidson
> > Richmond, VA
>
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.

You weren't reading very carefully, were you?

An electron is simply that: a single electron. In the sense that
'particle' means a discrete single entity, then the electron is *like*
a particle. In the sense that 'particle' implies a definable size/
shape, then the electron is decidedly NOT like a particle.

Size and shape are *geometric* properties. They are appropriate for a
geometric MODEL of something.

Like many people, (including some physicists with college degrees) you
are not clearly distinguishing between the physical entity itself and
the MODEL of the physical entity. They are not the same.

> THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?

The 'standard model' is a theoretical MODEL. Empirical observations
are the ONLY arbiters of 'right' and 'wrong' in physical theory. This
is done by comparing what theoretical models predict about empirical
observations and the actual empirical observations. A model is only
decidedly 'wrong' when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with
the observations.

Has the standard model made and predictions which have been falsified,
i.e. in statistically certain disagreement with observations, outside
their error limits?

> It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> extension.

Grammar failure. Please reparse and repeat.

> 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.

The 'particle' is part of the MODEL. The physical properties are of
the physical entity. The object of the model is to create a
mathematical entity that can be mathematically manipulated to imitate
the behavior of the physical entity.

> It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> electron!

Define "true nature" please.

Empirical measurements act upon the physical electron and give 'true'
results (albeit with uncertainties that may not always be recognized
or properly estimated).

Mathematical processes act on the mathematical model and give
theoretical predictions (usually without uncertainties that the
theorists are willing to acknowledge).

When these predictions disagree with the measurements, you must
conclude that ONE of them is wrong, and it is usually the model that
is in error. This is true in physics, chemistry, or climatology.

> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

---

On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

The "classical electron radius" is a claculated quantity, not a
measured one. The calculation requires certain assumptions:

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

"In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size
the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to
its electrostatic potential energy - not taking quantum mechanics into
account. We now know that quantum mechanics, indeed quantum field
theory, is needed to understand the behavior of electrons at such
short distance scales, thus the classical electron radius is no longer
regarded as the actual size of an electron. In fact, modern particle
physics experiments indicate that the electron is a point particle,
i.e. it has no size and its radius is zero. "

IOW, "it is too small to measure".

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

---

Hi my name Is Conrad Countess

I have a geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 in which an EM wave
changes into a backward spinning standing spherical wave that makes 2
rotations to complete one wave cycle and has rest mass. I do believe
that it is no coincidence that these are the same properties
attributed to electrons and that this is indeed a geometrical
description of an electron. First I assumed that analogous to a line
of 1 inch in the horizontal direction times a line of 1 inch in the
vertical direction to equal a square inch, c^2 is the speed of light
in the linear direction times the speed of light in the 90 degree
angular direction that is only reached at the high end of EM spectrum
where frequency is highest. This should create a balance of
centripetal and centrifugal forces to create circular or spherical
motion. Not only is this how orbital and circular motion is viewed
sometimes, it is also measured as (a=v^2/ r) which is acceleration of
circular motion equals velocity squared divided by the radius. If we
substitute c^2 for v^2 as it is said that Einstein did when he derived
E=mc^2 from F=mv^2 we can see how c^2 could refer to the speed of
light in circular motion in this case. Furthermore if one draws an arc
from the beginning of the horizontal line to the top of vertical line
we get a 90 degree arc which if constant will create a circle.
As it turns out, an electrons diameter would be the same measure as
the full amplitude, (positive +negative) of an EM wave such as a gamma
ray, if one looks at the electron as a sphere ,and its radius half
that. But if it is considered a circle folded in half as two circles
at right angles to each other, as indeed an electron is considered a
spin 1/2 particle that makes two rotations in order to complete one
wave cycle, than the diameter of the sphere is the radius of the
circle.
One final thing according to this site
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/debroglie.html

de Boglie assumed that any particle, photon or electron would have a
wavelength equal to h/p or Planck's constant divided by the momentum.
This put Electron along the same wavelength spectrum as EM waves.
Furthermore Bohr set the wavelength of electron equal to circumference
of a circle with an angular momentum of an integer multiple of h/2pi.
This fits in seamlessly with my idea that an electron emerges from and
EM wave spectrum because of a high enough momentum to create circular
motion and rest mass.
This also fits in seamlessly with my idea that the radius or diameter
of electron would be same as full amplitude of an EM wave, and I chose
gamma rays because they are the closest in momentum to electron, and
that c^2 occurs when the speed and momentum of the wave in the 90
degree angular direction equals the speed and momentum of light in the
linear direction, resulting in a balance of centripetal and
centrifugal forces and circular or spherical motion, such as binding
energies and standing spherical waves like electrons. And this happens
because of the 90 degree arc trajectory that the wave takes which if
constant creates a circle.
I also equate, as many do (h = c), and sense the circumference of a
circle, (which can be equated with wavelength of electron according to
Bohr), can be derived from from formula (Radius x 2pi), the momentum
being inversely proportional to it indicates that the radius must be
h as in h/2pi or c as I measured it in my geometrical interpretation
as c in linear direction times c in 90 degree angular direction
resulting in a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle. The
length of one of the lines of force representing speed of light in
linear or 90 degree angular direction as it creates the 90 degree arc
and before it continues into a full circle, would be the radius of an
electron.

Also see: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9


Conrad Countess

---

On Jul 26, 12:30 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi my name Is Conrad Countess
>
> I have a geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 in which an EM wave
> changes into a backward spinning standing spherical wave that makes 2
> tes a circle. The
> length of one of the lines of force representing speed of light in
> linear or 90 degree angular direction as it creates the 90 degree arc
> and before it continues into a full circle, would be the radius of an
> electron.
>
> Also see:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cckhttp://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9
>
> Conrad Countess

----------------------
it is all very nice
except that the electron does not orbit the nucleus !!...

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

---

On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?

Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
You measure scattering potentials.Which is why post druid people
use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I rather than wanks like
scienitists
when working with electrons.



>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

---

On Jul 24, 2:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Point particles.

---

On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > Questions:
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > electron?
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > proton?
>
>    Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
>    You measure scattering potentials.
---------------
but he is not interested in your fucken 'scattering potential '
nore in your fucken methematical crippled formulas

he is not interested in crackparroters
he is interested in some advance !!!

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


Which is why post druid people
>    use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I  rather than wanks like
> scienitists
>    when working with electrons.
>
>
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark

---

On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > Questions:
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > electron?
> > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > proton?
>
> > Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
> > You measure scattering potentials.
>
> ---------------
> but he is not interested in your fucken 'scattering potential '
> nore in your fucken methematical crippled formulas
>
> he is not interested in crackparroters
> he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------------------
>
> Which is why post druid people
>
> > use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I rather than wanks like
> > scienitists
> > when working with electrons.
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark


The electron is not a spherical thing.
It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
disc of energy. It is flat.
It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
of the atom.

John
Galaxy Model

---

On Jul 27, 11:23 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > Questions:
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > electron?
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > proton?
>
> > > Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
> > > You measure scattering potentials.
>
> > ---------------
> > but he is not interested in your fucken 'scattering potential '
> > nore in your fucken methematical crippled formulas
>
> > he is not interested in crackparroters
> > he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------------
>
> > Which is why post druid people
>
> > > use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I rather than wanks like
> > > scienitists
> > > when working with electrons.
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> The electron is not a spherical thing.
> It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
> from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
> disc of energy. It is flat.
> It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
> of the atom.
>
> John
> Galaxy Model

Hi John
This is Conrad Countess

If electron is flat, how does it spin backward in order to get its
negative charge?
How does it make two rotations to complete one wave cycle?
What is the geometry of a free electron?
I have understood it to be a backward spinning, standing spherical
wave, that makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle,
and envisioned it as

this: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9

Conrad Countess

---

On Jul 27, 6:23 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > Questions:
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > electron?
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > proton?
>
> > >    Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either..
> > >    You measure scattering potentials.
>
> > ---------------
> > but he is not interested in your fucken   'scattering potential '
> > nore in your fucken  methematical  crippled   formulas
>
> > he is not interested in crackparroters
> > he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------------
>
> > Which is why post druid people
>
> > >    use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I  rather than wanks like
> > > scienitists
> > >    when working with electrons.
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> The electron is not a spherical thing.
> It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
> from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
> disc of energy. It is flat.
> It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
> of the atom.
>
> John
> Galaxy Model

-----------------
Hey John !!

you are so close to my findings that i start worrying !!(

where and what is your model??
was it 'inspired' by my model ???

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

---

On Jul 27, 8:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:23 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > > wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > Questions:
> > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > electron?
> > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > proton?
>
> > > >    Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
> > > >    You measure scattering potentials.
>
> > > ---------------
> > > but he is not interested in your fucken   'scattering potential '
> > > nore in your fucken  methematical  crippled   formulas
>
> > > he is not interested in crackparroters
> > > he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Which is why post druid people
>
> > > >    use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I  rather than wanks like
> > > > scienitists
> > > >    when working with electrons.
>
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > > Denmark
>
> > The electron is not a spherical thing.
> > It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
> > from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
> > disc of energy. It is flat.
> > It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
> > of the atom.
>
> > John
> > Galaxy Model
>
> Hi John
> This is Conrad Countess
>
> If electron is flat, how does it spin backward in order to get its
> negative charge?
> How does it make two rotations to complete one wave cycle?
> What is the geometry of a free electron?
> I have understood it to be a backward spinning, standing spherical
> wave, that makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle,
> and envisioned it as
>
> this:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
>
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9
>
> Conrad Countess

--------------------
my best guess and suggestion for the electron model is

'A CHAIN OF ORBITALS OF SMALLER SUB PARTICLES' !!
(and in addition the EEL structure ie
a very flexible ;string ' or 'beam '

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

---

On 25 Jul., 11:32, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:13 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Jul., 00:45, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > Questions:
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > electron?
> > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > proton?
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> > > What does a shadow weigh?
>
> > > Your question has no answer because it presumes something that has not
> > > yet been established - i.e. that an electron has, in some plane, a
> > > circular cross section that is independent of the means by which it
> > > may be measured.
>
> > > The electron is not a geometrical object. It has no geometrical
> > > properties.
>
> > > It is a *physical* object.  It has physical properties such as rest
> > > mass, charge, spin, angular momentum, etc.
>
> > > "Why is there air?" - Bill Cosby (1965)
>
> > > Tom Davidson
> > > Richmond, VA
>
> > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > 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
>
> --------------
> right!!
>
> now as is now there is no technical tool to do it
>
> so the way to do it as for now
> is to  cpllect all known data
> and make a good   guess
> so
> at our situation there is nothing to do but
> **trial and error*
> i agree with you that if it is a physical entity
> the mathematical presentation or model or crippled model
>
> IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE FURTHER  REAL ADVANCE
> IN SCIENCE
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -

What about the following considerations?

ARE ELECTRONS COMPOSITE QUANTUM-DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS?
- Is the electron composed of a huge number of very tiny energy-/
matter ‘particles’?
- Is the electron maybe composed of condensed systems of photons?

If the electron is an elastic dynamical quantum-system composed of
more ‘fundamental particles’ then the electron can have a variable
geometrical shape depending of its actual state of energy.

EXTENSION OF AN ELECTRON
- About the geometrical extension of an electron we can ask: What is
the mean geometrical extension of an electron when it is in its lowest
state of energy?

EMISSION OF PHOTONS FROM UNSTABLE DECAYING ELECTRONS
- Are photons emitted from unstable electrons that decay (like
radioactive nuclei) maybe in steps from a higher state of energy with
excess of ‘condensed photons’ to lower states of energy?

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

---

Hi Louis
this is Conrad Countess

I think you are correct ,
In my description of an electron emerging from an EM wave, it is a
free electron equal to energy of c^2. But if we consider the fact that
photons come in different energies, than they must be composed of even
smaller unites of energy that can be added to or subtracted from them
in order to increase and decrease their frequency and corresponding
energies. This must extend to electrons also if they are made of the
same EM energy as photons except with a high enough energy content
that gives them rest mass. Besides electrons, “or at least the space
between the electron and nucleus,”do emit and absorb photons as they
move from higher to lower orbits and vice versa and this may in fact
alter electron geometry.
And so it may not be just the binding energies that can be released
from atoms, the electron itself may breakdown into photons of lower
energy /c^2. Fom one electron might come two photons of next lower
energy which are1/2 of c^2 (perhaps gamma rays ) and so on to
4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512 just like the computer binary system . If
this is the case thousands of photons might explode from one electron
under right conditions. One thing is for sure, we can visualize how a
tremendous amount of energy can be trapped inside of matter, as
equation E=mc^2 tells us by visualizing a tremendous amount of photons
emerging from one electron.

Conrad Countess

---

On Jul 30, 12:38 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Louis
> this is Conrad Countess
>
> I think you are correct ,
> In my description of an electron emerging from an EM wave, it is a
> free electron equal to energy of c^2. But if we consider the fact that
> photons come in different energies, than they must be composed of even
> smaller unites of energy that can be added to or subtracted from them
> in order to increase and decrease their frequency and corresponding
> energies. This must extend to electrons also if they are made of the
> same EM energy as photons except with a high enough energy content
> that gives them rest mass. Besides electrons, “or at least the space
> between the electron and nucleus,”do emit and absorb photons as they
> move from higher to lower orbits and vice versa and this may in fact
> alter electron geometry.
> And so it may not be just the binding energies that can be released
> from atoms, the electron itself may breakdown into photons of lower
> energy /c^2. Fom one electron might come  two photons of next lower
> energy which are1/2 of c^2 (perhaps gamma rays ) and so on to
> 4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512  just like the computer binary system . If
> this is the case thousands of photons might explode from one electron
> under right conditions. One thing is for sure, we can visualize how a
> tremendous amount of energy can be trapped inside of matter, as
> equation E=mc^2 tells us by visualizing a tremendous amount of photons
> emerging from one electron.
>
> Conrad Countess

Point Particles are energy in the infinitely small size.

---

Hi Mitch
This is Conrad Countess
Electrons are only considered point particles by some because no one
has measured them and some people cannot imagine them as anything but
points.
But I am attempting to measure them by inference as a logical
extension of what has been measured such as single photon amplitudes,
two rotations to complete one wave cycle, and backward spin counter to
its trajectory. If a photon falls along the same EM spectrum as
electron with the difference determined by momentum as stated by Bohr
and Compton, and its wavelength can be equated to the circumference of
a circle according to Bohr, than it must have a radius of half that
circle. Besides if they were infinitely small point particles they
would not be able to illuminate things in electron microscopes.
Furthermore infinite smallness implies infinite frequency which
implies infinite mass and black holes.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/debrog.html#c3
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/debroglie.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130389/Compton-wavelength
which includes this statement:
...($B&K(B) the scattering event differ by $B&K!l(B - $B&K(B = (h/mc)(1 - cos
$B&H(B). Here m is the rest mass of the electron and h/mc is called Compton
wavelength. It has the value 0.0243 angstrom. The energy h$B&M(B of a
photon of this wavelength is equal to the rest mass energy mc2 of an
electron. One might argue...


Conrad Countess

---

On Jul 31, 7:25 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Mitch
> This is Conrad Countess
> Electrons are only considered point particles by some because no one
> has measured them and some people cannot imagine them as anything but
> points.
> But I am attempting to measure them by inference as a logical
> extension of what has been measured such as single photon amplitudes,
> two rotations to complete one wave cycle, and backward spin counter to
> its trajectory. If a photon falls along the same EM spectrum as
> electron with the difference determined by momentum as stated by Bohr
> and Compton, and its wavelength can be equated to the circumference of
> a circle according to Bohr, than it must have a radius of half that
> circle. Besides if they were infinitely small point particles they
> would not be able to illuminate things in electron microscopes.
> Furthermore infinite smallness implies infinite frequency which
> implies infinite mass and black holes.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/debrog.html#c3http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/debroglie.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130389/Compton-wavelength
> which includes this statement:
> ...($B&K(B) the scattering event differ by $B&K!l(B - $B&K(B = (h/mc)(1 - cos
> $B&H(B). Here m is the rest mass of the electron and h/mc is called Compton
> wavelength. It has the value 0.0243 angstrom. The energy h$B&M(B of a
> photon of this wavelength is equal to the rest mass energy mc2 of an
> electron. One might argue...
>
> Conrad Countess

I believe in point particles.

---

On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:23 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > > wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > Questions:
> > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > electron?
> > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > proton?
>
> > > > Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
> > > > You measure scattering potentials.
>
> > > ---------------
> > > but he is not interested in your fucken 'scattering potential '
> > > nore in your fucken methematical crippled formulas
>
> > > he is not interested in crackparroters
> > > he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Which is why post druid people
>
> > > > use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I rather than wanks like
> > > > scienitists
> > > > when working with electrons.
>
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > > Denmark
>
> > The electron is not a spherical thing.
> > It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
> > from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
> > disc of energy. It is flat.
> > It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
> > of the atom.
>
> > John
> > Galaxy Model
>
> -----------------
> Hey John !!
>
> you are so close to my findings that i start worrying !!(
>
> where and what is your model??
> was it 'inspired' by my model ???
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------


Hi Y.

My model was inspired by comparing atoms to galaxies.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
I conceived it in 1983.

Check it out!

John

---

On Aug 1, 6:29 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:23 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 8:02 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 6:27 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > > > wrote:> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > > Questions:
> > > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > > electron?
> > > > > > - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> > > > > > proton?
>
> > > > >    Zero for both. Since the radius isn't even measured for either.
> > > > >    You measure scattering potentials.
>
> > > > ---------------
> > > > but he is not interested in your fucken   'scattering potential '
> > > > nore in your fucken  methematical  crippled   formulas
>
> > > > he is not interested in crackparroters
> > > > he is interested in some advance !!!
>
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > > Which is why post druid people
>
> > > > >    use computers, lasers, DVD, and A.I  rather than wanks like
> > > > > scienitists
> > > > >    when working with electrons.
>
> > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > > > Denmark
>
> > > The electron is not a spherical thing.
> > > It is an arm of scattered energy points stretching
> > > from the nucleus and arcing out as part of a
> > > disc of energy. It is flat.
> > > It can be more or less extended depending on the circumstances
> > > of the atom.
>
> > > John
> > > Galaxy Model
>
> > -----------------
> > Hey John !!
>
> > you are so close to my findings that i start worrying !!(
>
> > where and what    is your model??
> > was it 'inspired'       by my model ???
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ---------------------
>
> Hi Y.
>
> My model was inspired by comparing atoms to galaxies.http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
> I conceived it in 1983.
>
> Check it out!
>
> John

-------------------------
i suggest that you will make one revolutionary step further

try to connect your circle moving sub particles
to
**a chain of orbitals ** connected linearly

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

---

On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Electron is fundamental point particle.


Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.

If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!

- Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
‘particles’.

- It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

---

On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!

That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
*not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
between the constituents.

If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.


>
> - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> ‘particles’.
>
> - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

---

On Aug 1, 7:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> between the constituents.
>
> If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
> head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
> overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.
>
>
>
> > - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> > ‘particles’.
>
> > - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark


If something has no volume,
Pete,
then an unlimited number of them can exist in the
same place.

John

---

On Aug 1, 9:47 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’..
>
> > > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> > That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> > everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> > extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> > to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> > in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> > *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> > between the constituents.
>
> > If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
> > head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
> > overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.
>
> > > - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> > > ‘particles’.
>
> > > - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> If something has no volume,
> Pete,
> then an unlimited number of them can exist in the
> same place.

No, that's not right. That's because the *spacing* of constituents is
driven by their *interactions*, NOT by their size.

The size of a proton is NOT driven by the size of the quarks.

The size of a nucleus is NOT driven by the size of the proton and the
size of a neutron.

The size of the atom is NOT driven by the size of the nucleus and the
size of the electron.

The size of a molecule is NOT driven by the size of the atoms in it.

The size of an ionic crystal unit is NOT driven by the size of the
ions in the crystal.

PD

---

On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> between the constituents.
---------------------
it is very nice that you are blubbing (impressive (

words !!

so
if it is 'interaction between the constituents'

may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents' ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
>
> If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
> head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
> overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> > ‘particles’.
>
> > - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark

---

In article <f904998d-3a8c-4ab0-ad3e-4cfc32bb7d9a@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat says...

[snip]
>> That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
>> everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
>> extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
>> to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
>> in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
>> *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
>> between the constituents.
>---------------------
>it is very nice that you are blubbing (impressive (

Who says he is 'blubbing'? Or are you relying on ESP to figure this out?

> words !!

Well, yes, most people express themselves via words. And what is your point?

>
>so
>if it is 'interaction between the constituents'
>
>may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents' ??

He already told us: point particles.

---

On Aug 1, 10:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’..
>
> > > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> > That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> > everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> > extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> > to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> > in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> > *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> > between the constituents.
>
> ---------------------
> it is very nice that you are blubbing  (impressive  (
>
>  words !!
>
> so
> if it is 'interaction between the constituents'
>
> may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents'  ??

The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.

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.

The constituents of a nucleus are (primarily) the protons and
neutrons. The volume of the nucleus is not driven by the size of the
protons and neutrons.

The constituents of a proton are quarks and gluons. The volume of the
proton is not driven by the size of the quarks and gluons.

PD

>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
>
>
>
> > If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
> > head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
> > overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.
>
> > > - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> > > ‘particles’.
>
> > > - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark

---

In article <92146a39-0fed-4622-a517-3993d20c4d31@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
PD says...
>The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
>crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
>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.
>
>The constituents of a nucleus are (primarily) the protons and
>neutrons. The volume of the nucleus is not driven by the size of the
>protons and neutrons.
>
>The constituents of a proton are quarks and gluons. The volume of the
>proton is not driven by the size of the quarks and gluons.

This is all fine and good, but what does 'size' or 'volume' even -mean- in these
contexts? After all, the only meanings I can find for the word 'size' is
different in each of these. For atoms, I would assume you mean "Bohr radius".
Unless, of course, you really mean scattering cross-section or even distance
between successive nuclei in a crystal array of the pure substance.

The last of the three senses would make more sense in your ionic crystal
example, the second for your proton example.

Then again, there are so many different cross-sections and capture radii...

This, BTW, is why I always feel such skepticism when I see a science news
article talking about seeing atoms with some new microscopic technique: what is
it they are really 'seeing'? Level curves in the orbitals? I haven't seen an
answer to this in any of the articles yet.

Why, they are written as if the writer never even thought to ask the question.

---

On Aug 1, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > > > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > > > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > > > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > > > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> > > > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > > > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> > > That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> > > everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> > > extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> > > to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> > > in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> > > *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> > > between the constituents.
>
> > ---------------------
> > it is very nice that you are blubbing  (impressive  (
>
> >  words !!
>
> > so
> > if it is 'interaction between the constituents'
>
> > may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents'  ??
>
> The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
> crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
> 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

we are dealing now with the ELECTRON
anmd the question about
is it a point particle or not ??!!

if you say that the eelctron is a point particle
i say
a point is not natures invention
it is a human artifact
a point has no volue at all BY DEFINITION !!
in order that an interaction will take place
there is need of space
it is INTER action
in a point there is no INTER whatsoever
an INTER can be only between different entities !!
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
(i think that is more of less what you intended to say )
sometimes (or too many times)
there is a confusion between a particle and the orbit it makes !

2
we now try to zoom into the electron
and decide whether it i s a 'final entity
or subdivided to smaller entities ??
so
we had a few questions:

how can the amthematical concept 'point'
be a physical entity??
if you say
well it i snot exacly he mathematical point but]
some very little but more than zero volume
it could only start be a logical claim
but then
if bigger than flat zero
than how much more than a flat zero??

and even if something gigger than flat zero
waht makes its vely long **orbital movement**
as we know from atomic structure
it is about 1 Angstrom !!
so why should your should your point electron
move to a distance of just exactly one A and not more
or less ??
ifyou say
it is 'governed by a mysterious electric field
what are those mysterious agents that keep it
exactly in that distance ??
is it again messengers tha tmove
in straight lines ??
if so
they have a vector of momentum
that is directed outwards
so why should they not** push the electron outside**
and not hold it in a certain distance as we know from experiment ??
(ie attract it ??)

and why just in that specific direction

and that was jsut a smaple of the many questions that rise up
from your
**POINT PARTICLE** THE ELECTRON !!
now i guess
you willtell me
'go learn qm ' ?? (
then i will tell you
if i go to QM
i will be able to keep and ask those
unanswered !! questions
because QM does not answer it !!
it is deeper than existing QM !!!
(QM cannot for instance handle a very heavy Atom !!
it is much more compliated and specific to be solved by those
existing abstract equations )

it belongs to further advance to people
that are not just parrots ( or crooks )
and has some INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY !!
to say
'we have as for now - no actual answers to that '!!
and it needs some further advance
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------








>
> The constituents of a nucleus are (primarily) the protons and
> neutrons. The volume of the nucleus is not driven by the size of the
> protons and neutrons.
>
> The constituents of a proton are quarks and gluons. The volume of the
> proton is not driven by the size of the quarks and gluons.
>
> PD
>
>
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > --------------------------
>
> > > If you have this automatic association between mass and volume in your
> > > head, then you must clear it out as an unjustified assumption. You are
> > > overgeneralizing, and for the wrong reasons.
>
> > > > - Electrons are without doubt composed of more fundamental
> > > > ‘particles’.
>
> > > > - It is time to explore the real ‘true’ nature of the electrons!
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark

---

In article <cfa75cab-961c-44e9-aae1-a685c034cfe4@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.

---

On Aug 1, 10:55 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org>
wrote:
> In article <92146a39-0fed-4622-a517-3993d20c4...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups..com>,
> PD says...
>
> >The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
> >crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
> >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.
>
> >The constituents of a nucleus are (primarily) the protons and
> >neutrons. The volume of the nucleus is not driven by the size of the
> >protons and neutrons.
>
> >The constituents of a proton are quarks and gluons. The volume of the
> >proton is not driven by the size of the quarks and gluons.
>
> This is all fine and good, but what does 'size' or 'volume' even -mean- in these
> contexts? After all, the only meanings I can find for the word 'size' is
> different in each of these. For atoms, I would assume you mean "Bohr radius".
> Unless, of course, you really mean scattering cross-section or even distance
> between successive nuclei in a crystal array of the pure substance.
>
> The last of the three senses would make more sense in your ionic crystal
> example, the second for your proton example.
>
> Then again, there are so many different cross-sections and capture radii....
>
> This, BTW, is why I always feel such skepticism when I see a science news
> article talking about seeing atoms with some new microscopic technique: what is
> it they are really 'seeing'? Level curves in the orbitals? I haven't seen an
> answer to this in any of the articles yet.
>
> Why, they are written as if the writer never even thought to ask the question.

-------------------
you start going on the right way
by discovering more and more
questions that are
really un answered !!

so keep asking
because
asking is the half way for starting answering
the greatest disaster of 'modern science
is the pose of 'it is well known ' !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

---

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.
-------------------
but still
dont you see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
and not physics
it does not tell us abut the physical substance of that
physical entity.
> ----------------

> [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
-----------------
now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (
but only STARTING .....
----------
> would be repelling the left half by the electric force.

are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
( or apriory assumptions ??)
btw
what ever if you are right here or wrong
you stsrted to understand my claim that
ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
THERE IS NO WAY BUT **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
and in that sense you start to be on the right way ...)

who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
electric force ?? (
and btw
it is only now that you undestood my intention
**to try and zoom into the electron**
and not deal (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
or electron versus proton ot elctron file etc

you ddint even trid untill now
to zoom into it because of your paradigmatic
assumption that one cannot zoom into it !!!

But then something, some
> other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But what
> could that be?

A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!

i have my private answer after a long process
of searching not only the electron
but may other 'atonic (microcosm entities) structure
and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
and my theories )
but not at this point
i would like to lead you
by pushing you to a dead end
to get some of my assumptions
that i had to find by
finding myself in a vicious circle of unanswered questions
(unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)


It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
> gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.

i didnt say that or may be yess??
may be those gluons
but gluons is just words
what is lying bhind that word 'Gluons ???
may be here lies the dead dog ???
>
> So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model implies
> the electron must be a point particle.

that is for lazy clumsy thinking people !!!
now a hint

Einstein found that there must be a break through idea
to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma

i hope you understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
of any attrarction force is cheating or at least very crippled
fo r instance
photons that move in straight lines can never be
attraction force messengers !!!

so ???
what else ???
can yous stretch a bit more your creative imagination ??

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

---

---

On Aug 2, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> -------------------
> but still
> dont you see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
> and not physics
> it does not tell us abut the physical substance of that
> physical entity.
>
> > ----------------
> > [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
>
> -----------------
> now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (
> but only STARTING .....
> ----------
>
> > would be repelling the left half by the electric force.
>
> are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
> ( or apriory assumptions ??)
> btw
> what ever if you are right here or wrong
> you stsrted to understand my claim that
> ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
> THERE IS NO WAY BUT **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
> and in that sense you start to be on the right way ...)
>
> who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
> electric force ?? (
> and btw
> it is only now that you undestood my intention
> **to try and zoom into the electron**
> and not deal (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
> or electron versus proton ot elctron file etc
>
> you ddint even trid untill now
> to zoom into it because of your paradigmatic
> assumption that one cannot zoom into it !!!
>
> But then something, some
>
> > other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But what
> > could that be?
>
> A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!
>
> i have my private answer after a long process
> of searching not only the electron
> but may other 'atonic (microcosm entities) structure
> and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
> and my theories )
> but not at this point
> i would like to lead you
> by pushing you to a dead end
> to get some of my assumptions
> that i had to find by
> finding myself in a vicious circle of unanswered questions
> (unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)
>
> It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
>
> > gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.
>
> i didnt say that or may be yess??
> may be those gluons
> but gluons is just words
> what is lying bhind that word 'Gluons ???
> may be here lies the dead dog ???
>
>
>
> > So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model implies
> > the electron must be a point particle.
>
> that is for lazy clumsy thinking people !!!
> now a hint
>
> Einstein found that there must be a break through idea
> to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma
>
> i hope you understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
> of any attrarction force is cheating or at least very crippled
> fo r instance
> photons that move in straight lines can never be
> attraction force messengers !!!
>
> so ???
> what else ???
> can yous stretch a bit more your creative imagination ??
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------

Y- these people obfuscate. Y?
John

---

"john" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:bcd4100d-d38b-40c5-83a7-41db6cf56285@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
| On Aug 2, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > 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.
| >
| > -------------------
| > but still
| > dont you see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
| > and not physics
| > it does not tell us abut the physical substance of that
| > physical entity.
| >
| > > ----------------
| > > [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
| >
| > -----------------
| > now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (
| > but only STARTING .....
| > ----------
| >
| > > would be repelling the left half by the electric force.
| >
| > are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
| > ( or apriory assumptions ??)
| > btw
| > what ever if you are right here or wrong
| > you stsrted to understand my claim that
| > ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
| > THERE IS NO WAY BUT **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
| > and in that sense you start to be on the right way ...)
| >
| > who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
| > electric force ?? (
| > and btw
| > it is only now that you undestood my intention
| > **to try and zoom into the electron**
| > and not deal (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
| > or electron versus proton ot elctron file etc
| >
| > you ddint even trid untill now
| > to zoom into it because of your paradigmatic
| > assumption that one cannot zoom into it !!!
| >
| > But then something, some
| >
| > > other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But
what
| > > could that be?
| >
| > A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!
| >
| > i have my private answer after a long process
| > of searching not only the electron
| > but may other 'atonic (microcosm entities) structure
| > and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
| > and my theories )
| > but not at this point
| > i would like to lead you
| > by pushing you to a dead end
| > to get some of my assumptions
| > that i had to find by
| > finding myself in a vicious circle of unanswered questions
| > (unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)
| >
| > It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
| >
| > > gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.
| >
| > i didnt say that or may be yess??
| > may be those gluons
| > but gluons is just words
| > what is lying bhind that word 'Gluons ???
| > may be here lies the dead dog ???
| >
| >
| >
| > > So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model
implies
| > > the electron must be a point particle.
| >
| > that is for lazy clumsy thinking people !!!
| > now a hint
| >
| > Einstein found that there must be a break through idea
| > to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma
| >
| > i hope you understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
| > of any attrarction force is cheating or at least very crippled
| > fo r instance
| > photons that move in straight lines can never be
| > attraction force messengers !!!
| >
| > so ???
| > what else ???
| > can yous stretch a bit more your creative imagination ??
| >
| > TIA
| > Y.Porat
| > -------------
|
| Y- these people obfuscate. Y?
| John

Because like you they haven't got a fucking clue but want
you to think they are smarter than you, that's why.

---

On Aug 2, 1:49 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > -------------------
> > but still
> > dont you see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
> > and not physics
> > it does not tell us abut the physical substance of that
> > physical entity.
>
> > > ----------------
> > > [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
>
> > -----------------
> > now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (
> > but only STARTING .....
> > ----------
>
> > > would be repelling the left half by the electric force.
>
> > are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
> > ( or apriory assumptions ??)
> > btw
> > what ever if you are right here or wrong
> > you stsrted to understand my claim that
> > ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
> > THERE IS NO WAY BUT **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
> > and in that sense you start to be on the right way ...)
>
> > who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
> > electric force ?? (
> > and btw
> > it is only now that you undestood my intention
> > **to try and zoom into the electron**
> > and not deal (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
> > or electron versus proton ot elctron file etc
>
> > you ddint even trid untill now
> > to zoom into it because of your paradigmatic
> > assumption that one cannot zoom into it !!!
>
> > But then something, some
>
> > > other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But what
> > > could that be?
>
> > A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!
>
> > i have my private answer after a long process
> > of searching not only the electron
> > but may other 'atonic (microcosm entities) structure
> > and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
> > and my theories )
> > but not at this point
> > i would like to lead you
> > by pushing you to a dead end
> > to get some of my assumptions
> > that i had to find by
> > finding myself in a vicious circle of unanswered questions
> > (unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)
>
> > It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
>
> > > gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.
>
> > i didnt say that or may be yess??
> > may be those gluons
> > but gluons is just words
> > what is lying bhind that word 'Gluons ???
> > may be here lies the dead dog ???
>
> > > So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model implies
> > > the electron must be a point particle.
>
> > that is for lazy clumsy thinking people !!!
> > now a hint
>
> > Einstein found that there must be a break through idea
> > to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma
>
> > i hope you understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
> > of any attrarction force is cheating or at least very crippled
> > fo r instance
> > photons that move in straight lines can never be
> > attraction force messengers !!!
>
> > so ???
> > what else ???
> > can yous stretch a bit more your creative imagination ??
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -------------
>
> Y- these people obfuscate. Y?
> John

Y - the electron is identical to an arm of stars in a galaxy:
it stretches from the nucleus to the edge; it is composed of
hundreds of millions of stars; some of these are binary systems,
some have planetary systems, all are composed of smaller
units- atoms containing yet smaller electrons-

Y- there is no smallest

John

---

john wrote:
> [snip]

Any chance this conversation could continue without xposts to dk.videnskab?

---

---

---

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
-------------------------

---

On Aug 1, 11:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 6:00 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > On 1 Aug., 06:14, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Electron is fundamental point particle.
>
> > > > > Real electrons are NOT ‘point-particles’ if the word ‘point’ has the
> > > > > same meaning as in the pure mathematics.
> > > > > It is only in the, maybe wrong, mathematical model of ‘fundamental’
> > > > > particles that it is assumed that electrons are ‘point-particles’.
>
> > > > > If electrons are real matter-/energy ‘particles’ then they MUST have
> > > > > some, maybe oscillating, mean geometrical extension!
>
> > > > That's simply incorrect. You are making a fundamental assumption that
> > > > everything that has mass also has volume. You are simply making an
> > > > extrapolation to an absolute status of a statement that is only known
> > > > to be true of *composite* materials, as I explained in an earlier post
> > > > in this thread. And for composite materials, the property of volume is
> > > > *not* associated with mass; it is associated with the *interactions*
> > > > between the constituents.
>
> > > ---------------------
> > > it is very nice that you are blubbing  (impressive  (
>
> > >  words !!
>
> > > so
> > > if it is 'interaction between the constituents'
>
> > > may be tell us please - what are those 'constituents'  ??
>
> > The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
> > crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
> > 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
>
> we are dealing    now  with the ELECTRON
> anmd the question about
> is it a point particle or not ??!!
>

We don't know. I already told you that.
We have no evidence that it has any constituents. We don't have any
proof that it has no constituents.
But what I've just said is that you cannot decide that question on the
basis of whether it has mass. Mass does not imply volume. Therefore
you cannot use the fact that it has mass to conclude that it has
volume and therefore structure and therefore constituents.
It *may* have volume, and it *may* have constituents, but you don't
KNOW that just because it has mass.

Now, what you can do is to take all the particles we don't have any
evidence one way or the other about structure: electrons, muons, taus,
neutrinos, quarks --- and *suppose* they have structure, and then ask
what implications would follow from that. For that to be a useful
exercise, the supposition should allow you to *calculate* some
properties of these particles -- their masses, for example, or their
decay rates into each other. Until you can do that kind of
calculation, the supposition is just that -- idle and useless
supposition. A physical theory does more than suppose.

PD

---

On Aug 2, 2:55 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

>
> Because like you they haven't got a fucking clue but want
> you to think they are smarter than you, that's why.

Androcles, the former technician, vents his spleen against physicists
as a class, thinking that they need to be taken down a peg, just on
general principle. It is greatly frustrating to him that he's not able
to do that task himself. So he's reduced to grumbling his bile.

PD

---

On Aug 2, 5:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> We don't know. I already told you that.
> We have no evidence that it has any constituents. We don't have any
> proof that it has no constituents.
> But what I've just said is that you cannot decide that question on the
> basis of whether it has mass. Mass does not imply volume. Therefore
> you cannot use the fact that it has mass to conclude that it has
> volume and therefore structure and therefore constituents.
> It *may* have volume, and it *may* have constituents, but you don't
> KNOW that just because it has mass.
>
> Now, what you can do is to take all the particles we don't have any
> evidence one way or the other about structure: electrons, muons, taus,
> neutrinos, quarks --- and *suppose* they have structure, and then ask
> what implications would follow from that. For that to be a useful
> exercise, the supposition should allow you to *calculate* some
> properties of these particles -- their masses, for example, or their
> decay rates into each other. Until you can do that kind of
> calculation, the supposition is just that -- idle and useless
> supposition. A physical theory does more than suppose.
>
> PD

--------------------
1
what is the difference according to you between
a point particle
and Vacum ??
2
have you ever seen the abstract of my model ??
if not
i can send it to you privately ...
3
there are some surprises even for you

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

---

<Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote in message
news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Questions:
- What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
electron?
- What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
proton?

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark


I don't know about the experiemental but I would put an upper limit on
it
by assuming it's density is >= that of a proton. You can then calculate
limits on it from:

m_e / [4/3 pi (r_e)^3] >= m_p / [4/3 pi (r_p)^3]

r_e <= [ (m_e/m_p)^(1/3) ]* r_p

r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m

using:
r_p = 8.25e-16m
m_p = 1.673e-27 kg
m_e = 9.109e-31 kg

r_e <= 4.491e-19 m





--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualityservices2@verizon.net
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"Michael J. Strickland" skrev
news:MCzvk.426$1a2.311@trnddc04
>
> <Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote in message
> news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark
>
>
> I don't know about the experiemental but I would put an upper limit on
> it
> by assuming it's density is >= that of a proton. You can then calculate
> limits on it from:
>
> m_e / [4/3 pi (r_e)^3] >= m_p / [4/3 pi (r_p)^3]
>
> r_e <= [ (m_e/m_p)^(1/3) ]* r_p
>
> r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
>
> using:
> r_p = 8.25e-16m
> m_p = 1.673e-27 kg
> m_e = 9.109e-31 kg
>
> r_e <= 4.491e-19 m
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> Quality Services qualityservices2@verizon.net
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Compare with ...

7705 news:g6b4bd$24o4$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
>
> > > Electron
> > > Size < 10^-18 m
> > > ...
> > > Neutron and Proton
> > > Size (around) 10^-15 m


Smart guy ...

*Where* do You get this information ( r_p = 8.25e-16m ) from ?


And ...

> r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
m_p = 1,67262171(29) × 10^27 kg
m_e = 9,1093826(16) × 10^31 kg


Can someone find the proton-radius better ?


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 7947 news:g9mf57$7fd$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/4dd821ad2099d41b
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 7948

---

"Jesus-loves-you" <John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> wrote in message
news:g9o8mt$s35$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk...
> "Michael J. Strickland" skrev
> news:MCzvk.426$1a2.311@trnddc04
>>
>> <Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote in message
>> news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>> Questions:
>> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
>> electron?
>> - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
>> proton?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Louis Nielsen
>> Denmark
>>
>>
>> I don't know about the experiemental but I would put an upper limit
>> on
>> it
>> by assuming it's density is >= that of a proton. You can then
>> calculate
>> limits on it from:
>>
>> m_e / [4/3 pi (r_e)^3] >= m_p / [4/3 pi (r_p)^3]
>>
>> r_e <= [ (m_e/m_p)^(1/3) ]* r_p
>>
>> r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
>>
>> using:
>> r_p = 8.25e-16m
>> m_p = 1.673e-27 kg
>> m_e = 9.109e-31 kg
>>
>> r_e <= 4.491e-19 m
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland
>> Quality Services
>> qualityservices2@verizon.net
>> 703-560-7380
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Compare with ...
>
> 7705 news:g6b4bd$24o4$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
>>
>> > > Electron
>> > > Size < 10^-18 m
>> > > ...
>> > > Neutron and Proton
>> > > Size (around) 10^-15 m
>
>
> Smart guy ...
>
> *Where* do You get this information ( r_p = 8.25e-16m ) from ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton:

.... a diameter of about 1.65×10-15 m

....


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualityservices2@verizon.net
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

On Sep 4, 12:10 pm, "Jesus-loves-you" <John15...@1.John4.8.Heaven>
wrote:
> "Michael J. Strickland" skrevnews:MCzvk.426$1a2.311@trnddc04
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote in message
> >news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> > Questions:
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> > electron?
> > - What is the value of the experimentally measured 'radius' of the
> > proton?
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark
>
> > I don't know about the experiemental but I would put an upper limit on
> > it
> > by assuming it's density is >= that of a proton. You can then calculate
> > limits on it from:
>
> > m_e / [4/3 pi (r_e)^3] >= m_p / [4/3 pi (r_p)^3]
>
> > r_e <= [ (m_e/m_p)^(1/3) ]* r_p
>
> > r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
>
> > using:
> > r_p = 8.25e-16m
> > m_p = 1.673e-27 kg
> > m_e = 9.109e-31 kg
>
> > r_e <= 4.491e-19 m
>
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland
> > Quality Services                           qualityservic...@verizon.net
> > 703-560-7380
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Compare with ...
>
> 7705news:g6b4bd$24o4$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
>
>
>
> > > > Electron
> > > >     Size < 10^-18 m
> > > > ...
> > > > Neutron and Proton
> > > >     Size (around) 10^-15 m
>
> Smart guy ...
>
> *Where* do You get this information ( r_p = 8.25e-16m ) from ?
>
> And ...
>
> > r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
>
> m_p = 1,67262171(29) × 10^27 kg
> m_e = 9,1093826(16) × 10^31 kg
>
> Can someone find the proton-radius better ?
> -------------------------
no one can find the proton radius because ..................

***it is not a sphere at all !!!!***

not to mension that you cant make a sphere
even not from 3 quarks
anyway
it is not just 3 quack quack ....(
there is much more in it !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------

> Med venlig hilsen,
> Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
> --
> Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
> Last OUTPUT: 7947news:g9mf57$7fd$1@newsbin.cybercity.dkhttp://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/4dd821ad2099...
> (http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/). File-number: 7948

---

On 3 Sep., 19:15, "Michael J. Strickland"
<qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote in message
>
> news:37bc1407-57d5-4632-abd5-b3fb37082dd2@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> Questions:
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> electron?
> - What is the value of the experimentally measured ’radius’ of the
> proton?
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark
>
> I don't know about the experiemental but I would put an upper limit on
> it
> by assuming it's density is >= that of a proton. You can then calculate
> limits on it from:
>
> m_e / [4/3 pi (r_e)^3] >= m_p / [4/3 pi (r_p)^3]
>
> r_e <= [ (m_e/m_p)^(1/3) ]* r_p
>
> r_e <= {9.109e-31/1.673e-27) * 8.25e-16m
>
> using:
> r_p = 8.25e-16m
> m_p = 1.673e-27 kg
> m_e = 9.109e-31 kg
>
> r_e <= 4.491e-19 m
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> Quality Services                           qualityservic...@verizon.net
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael J. Strickland,
Please read the following considerations and derivations and the
calculation of the average 'radius' of the electron. The calculated
value is in accordance with the limit you have given.

Best regards
Louis Nielsen

MASSES AND RADII OF THE PROTON, THE ELECTRON AND THE UNIVERSE.
UNIFICATION OF MICROPHYSICS AND MACROPHYSICS.

By Louis Nielsen
http://www.rostra.dk/louis

In the following I calculate that the average radius of a real
electron is about 4*10^(-19) meter.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE ELECTRON, THE PROTON AND THE UNIVERSE
- Are there connections between the electron, the proton and the
Universe?
- My answer is: Yes.
I postulate that there exists a connection between the average mass-
density of the electron and the average mass-density of the
Universe. A similar connection exists between the average mass-
density of the proton and the average mass-density of the Universe.
The mathematical connections are given by the equations:

(1) (m(p)/r(p)^3) = N(p)*(M/R^3)

(2) (m(e)/r(e)^3) = N(e)*(M/R^3)

In equation (1) m(p) = 1.67*10^(-27) kg is the rest mass of the proton
and r(p) is the average radius of the proton.
In equation (2) m(e) = 9.11*10^(-31) kg is the rest mass of the
electron and r(e) is the average radius of the electron.
The quantity M is the total mass of the Universe and R is the actual
average radius of the Universe.
The quantity N(e) is equal to the ratio between the electrostatic and
gravitostatic forces between two electrons and N(p) is equal to the
ratio
between the electrostatic and gravitostatic forces between two
protons.
The quantities N(e) and N(p) are defined by:

(3) N(p) = (k*e^2/G*m(p)^2) = 1.24*10^36


(4) N(e) = ((k*e^2)/(G*m(e)^2) = 4.16*10^42

In the equations (3) and (4) k is Coulomb's constant and e is the
electric charge of the electron. The quantity G is the value of
Newton's gravitational constant.

MASS-/RADIUS SYMMETRY BETWEEN THE PROTON AND THE ELECTRON
From the equations (1), (2), (3) and (4) we can derive the following
simple symmetry formula between the masses and radii of the electron
and the proton:

(5) m(p)/m(e) = r(p)/r(e)

The measured value of the mass ratio m(p)/m(e) = 1836.15.
From equation (5) we see that the average radius r(e) of the electron
is about 1836 times smaller than the average radius r(p) of the
proton.

With an average radius r(p) = 0,8*10^(-15) meter of the proton we can
from equation (5) calculate the average radius of the electron r(e).
We get:

(6) r(e) = 4*10^(-19) meter

Read more in my treatise:
http://www.rostra.dk/louis/

Comments to the above considerations are very welcome.

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark