---

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

---

Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
[snip rest of crap]

Bullshit. What is the diameter of a dandelion seed head? A cotton
puff?

What is the physical diameter of the sun, idiot? There is no surface
for which a density - mass/volume - discontinuity occurs. What you
see as the sun is where its plasma cools to a low enough temperature
to be transparent to humans. The sun is a continuous Boltzmann
distribution of gas density in a gravitational field.

Hey fucking stooopid - what is the surface area of a brick? At what
measurement scale?


--
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, 2:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

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

Louis, yes, the electron is geometrical, there is no way an electron
can have a magnetic moment without a current loop area.

Note the magnetic moment has the dimensions of current times area.

The electron has the largest magnetic moment of any subatomic
particle.

NIST lists; Ue = 9.28476377 E-24 m^2 A for the electron.

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

The standard model is a monumental failure, it cannot derive a single
fundamental physical constant, a fatal flaw.

> 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.

Exactly correct, the standard model is the ultimate AD HOC theory.

Worse, it does not work!

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

The electron is a well measured particle.

Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.

http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf

Regards; Tom.

---

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "tnlockyer@aol.com"
<tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote:


>
>Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.
>
>http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf

Are you aware of the works of Walter Russell?



--
Rado

You are the salt of the earth. You can change your destiny!
You can give birth to a new civilization or you can create
Hell on earth. - Georges Ohsawa

---

On Jul 25, 1:35 pm, "tnlock...@aol.com" <tnlock...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> Louis, yes, the electron is geometrical, there is no way an electron
> can have a magnetic moment without a current loop area.
>
> Note the magnetic moment has the dimensions of current times area.
>
> The electron has the largest magnetic moment  of any subatomic
> particle.
>
> NIST lists; Ue = 9.28476377 E-24  m^2 A  for the electron.
>
> > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
>
> The standard model is a monumental failure, it cannot derive a single
> fundamental physical constant, a fatal flaw.
>
> > 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.
>
> Exactly correct, the standard model is the ultimate AD HOC theory.
>
> Worse, it does not work!
>
> > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > electron!
>
> The electron is a well measured particle.
>
> Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.
>
> http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf
>
> Regards; Tom.

Opps! Try.

http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf

---

On 25 Lip, 11:10, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
[...]
> It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> electron!
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

Wake up, Nielsen :)
the true nature of electron is simply, it"s only form of
electropositron.

Uncle Google ---> electropositron
...try to understand and don"t remember to tell about :)

The Best
John from Enes,
Poland

---

On Jul 26, 12:03�am, Rado <r...@fjernpost1.tele.dk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "tnlock...@aol.com"
>
> <tnlock...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.
>
> >http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf
>
> Are you aware of the works of Walter Russell?
>
> --
> Rado
>
> You are the salt of the earth. You can change your destiny!
> You can give birth to a new civilization or you can create
> Hell on earth. - Georges Ohsawa

No, please provide a reference

Regards; Tom.

---

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:59:39 -0700 (PDT), "tnlockyer@aol.com"
<tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 12:03?am, Rado <r...@fjernpost1.tele.dk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "tnlock...@aol.com"
>>
>> <tnlock...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Here are the electron and positron geometric calculations.
>>
>> >http://www.members.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf
>>
>> Are you aware of the works of Walter Russell?
>>
>
>No, please provide a reference
>

I ask because your ideas - if I interprete them correctly - seem to be
similar to his in many ways. I'm not into all the complex formula
stuff however, as I believe it all can be explained very simply in
simple geometry, just like Russell did.

http://5-dimension.org/members/russell/scans



--
Rado

You are the salt of the earth. You can change your destiny!
You can give birth to a new civilization or you can create
Hell on earth. - Georges Ohsawa

---

On Jul 25, 1:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> 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

An electron is a fundamental point particle whos energy is infinitely
dense because as a point it is infinitely small. Its energy is a C^2
concentration. With motion it goes above C^2 by the Gamma factor.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

---

On Jul 25, 5:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> 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

Louis, what is that you don't yet get?

Realize that the electron is merely an intellectual abstraction, which
serves a useful purpose in modeling interactions with other particles
and fields. While an electron is conceptually modeled and visualized
at a particle, and that model works to date rather well, scinece yet
has no idea what an electron actually is. Is it a particle, a diffuse
quantity of something, or even an electromagnetic wave phenomena. The
fact is, nobody knows.

The conventional conceptualization of an electron as a particle is
convenient. We can accelerate those little buggers, deflect their
paths, and measure their mass. We can use them to charge batteries,
and operate our television sets and cell phones. We can see their
flight paths using cloud chambers and bubble chambers, or spark
chambers. Still, we cannot capture even one of these little buggers
for close examination.

So we know how an electron acts, but have no idea what it actually
is.

Do I hear any arguments?

Harry C.

---

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

Why?

If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.

Let's take a chain to illustrate:
A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
spacing is given by intermolecular forces.

The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.

The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
*interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
constituents.

The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
between them.

The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.

There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
*interaction* between inner constituents.

PD

>
> THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> extension.
> In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> electron!
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

---

On Jul 26, 5:09 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 1:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > 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
>
> An electron is a fundamental point particle whos energy is infinitely
> dense because as  a point it is infinitely small. Its energy is a C^2
> concentration. With motion it goes above C^2 by the Gamma factor.
>
> Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

Mitch, we now know the electron is not a point particle; See;

http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf

Note that all of the electron's measured fundamental physical
constants can only be calculaed from a closed electromagnetic
stricture.

Regards, Tom

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Physical-Constants-Geometric-Structures/dp/096315463X

---

On Jul 27, 7:40 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
>
>
> > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > 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
>
> Louis, what is that you don't yet get?
>
> Realize that the electron is merely an intellectual abstraction, which
> serves a useful purpose in modeling interactions with other particles
> and fields.  While an electron is conceptually modeled and visualized
> at a particle, and that model works to date rather well, scinece yet
> has no idea what an electron actually is. Is it a particle, a diffuse
> quantity of something, or even an electromagnetic wave phenomena. The
> fact is, nobody knows.
>
> The conventional conceptualization of an electron as a particle is
> convenient.  We can accelerate those little buggers, deflect their
> paths, and measure their mass.  We can use them to charge batteries,
> and operate our television sets and cell phones.  We can see their
> flight paths using cloud chambers and bubble chambers, or spark
> chambers.  Still, we cannot capture even one of these little buggers
> for close examination.
>
> So we know how an electron acts, but have no idea what it actually
> is.
>
> Do I hear any arguments?
>
> Harry C.

--------------------
i like that 'we dont know' of yours (

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

---

On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> Why?
>
> If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
> objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
> dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
> elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.
>
> Let's take a chain to illustrate:
> A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
> the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
> are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
> spacing is given by intermolecular forces.
>
> The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
> bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
> carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
> minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
> not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
> other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.
>
> The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
> and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
> *interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
> at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
> still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
> a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
> constituents.
>
> The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
> protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
> between them.
>
> The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
> one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
> inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
> have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
> smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.
>
> There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
> have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
> *interaction* between inner constituents.
>
> PD
>
>
>
> > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> > It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> > that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> > extension.
> > In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> > described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> > properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > electron!
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark

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

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

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

---

On Jul 27, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > Why?
>
> > If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
> > objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
> > dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
> > elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.
>
> > Let's take a chain to illustrate:
> > A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
> > the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
> > are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
> > spacing is given by intermolecular forces.
>
> > The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
> > bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
> > carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
> > minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
> > not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
> > other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.
>
> > The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
> > and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
> > *interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
> > at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
> > still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
> > a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
> > constituents.
>
> > The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
> > protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
> > between them.
>
> > The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
> > one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
> > inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
> > have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
> > smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.
>
> > There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
> > have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
> > *interaction* between inner constituents.
>
> > PD
>
> > > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> > > It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> > > that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> > > extension.
> > > In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> > > described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> > > properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> > > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > > electron!
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> -----------------
> Bravo   !!
>
> so not a point particle   anymore !!  (

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

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

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

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

---

On Jul 28, 3:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > > > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > > > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
> > > objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
> > > dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
> > > elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.
>
> > > Let's take a chain to illustrate:
> > > A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
> > > the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
> > > are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
> > > spacing is given by intermolecular forces.
>
> > > The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
> > > bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
> > > carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
> > > minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
> > > not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
> > > other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.
>
> > > The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
> > > and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
> > > *interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
> > > at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
> > > still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
> > > a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
> > > constituents.
>
> > > The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
> > > protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
> > > between them.
>
> > > The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
> > > one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
> > > inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
> > > have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
> > > smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.
>
> > > There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
> > > have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
> > > *interaction* between inner constituents.
>
> > > PD
>
> > > > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> > > > It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> > > > that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> > > > extension.
> > > > In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> > > > described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> > > > properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> > > > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > > > electron!
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> > -----------------
> > Bravo   !!
>
> > so not a point particle   anymore !!  (
>
> We don't know. We don't have any experimental evidence that it has any
> spatial extent.
>
> > and you start understand that you still dont know enough
> > and there i s  work to do ahead
>
> Of course. That is always the case and will always be the case. There
> are a number of possibilities, however, that we are quite sure we can
> rule out.
>
>
>
> > Y.P
> > ----------------------------

common PD
i started to praise you and now you draw back to the
'point particle '???
a point is zero volume and therfore cant have any physical properties
and cant emit any energy from itself
it is not a billiard ball as well
so at the good case
an honest scientist should say
'i have no idea about the geometric structure of the electron'
because it is too illusive for me '
i can only know some physical properties of it '

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

---

On Jul 28, 12:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 3:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > > > > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > > > > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
> > > > objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
> > > > dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
> > > > elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.
>
> > > > Let's take a chain to illustrate:
> > > > A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
> > > > the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
> > > > are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
> > > > spacing is given by intermolecular forces.
>
> > > > The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
> > > > bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
> > > > carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
> > > > minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
> > > > not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
> > > > other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.
>
> > > > The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
> > > > and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
> > > > *interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
> > > > at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
> > > > still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
> > > > a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
> > > > constituents.
>
> > > > The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
> > > > protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
> > > > between them.
>
> > > > The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
> > > > one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
> > > > inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
> > > > have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
> > > > smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.
>
> > > > There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
> > > > have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
> > > > *interaction* between inner constituents.
>
> > > > PD
>
> > > > > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> > > > > It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> > > > > that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> > > > > extension.
> > > > > In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> > > > > described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> > > > > properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> > > > > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > > > > electron!
>
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > > Denmark
>
> > > -----------------
> > > Bravo   !!
>
> > > so not a point particle   anymore !!  (
>
> > We don't know. We don't have any experimental evidence that it has any
> > spatial extent.
>
> > > and you start understand that you still dont know enough
> > > and there i s  work to do ahead
>
> > Of course. That is always the case and will always be the case. There
> > are a number of possibilities, however, that we are quite sure we can
> > rule out.
>
> > > Y.P
> > > ----------------------------
>
> common PD
> i started to praise you and now you draw back to the
> 'point particle '???
> a point is zero volume and therfore cant have any physical properties

I don't know why you would say that. I just got done explaining that
volume is a property of *composite* objects only and volume is an
artifact of *interactions* between constituents. Now you go and say
that nothing can have physical properties unless it has volume. I
don't know where you go about making that assumption.

If you are doing it on the basis of surveying those things that you
know from your *common experience*, note that absolutely everything
you know from your common experience is a composite object. However,
to extrapolate from your common experience to make an absolute
statement is dangerous. It might well be that in your common
experience, absolutely every mammal gives live birth to their young,
including sheep, dogs, humans, giraffes, lemurs, rhinos, whales, bats,
and armadillos. However, it would be a mistake to then say on the
basis of this survey that there can be no mammal that does not give
live birth to its young.

Extrapolation from the common to the general is a popular mistake but
one that should be warned against on all occasions.

PD

> and cant emit any energy from itself
> it is not a billiard ball as well
> so at the good case
> an honest scientist should say
> 'i have no idea about the geometric structure of the electron'
> because it is too illusive for me '
> i can only know some physical  properties of it '
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------------

---

On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, "tnlock...@aol.com" <tnlock...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:09 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 1:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > > 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
>
> > An electron is a fundamental point particle whos energy is infinitely
> > dense because as a point it is infinitely small. Its energy is a C^2
> > concentration. With motion it goes above C^2 by the Gamma factor.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -
>
> Mitch, we now know the electron is not a point particle; See;
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf
>
> Note that all of the electron's measured fundamental physical
> constants can only be calculaed from a closed electromagnetic
> stricture.
>
> Regards, Tom

I'm on Dial-up, and in canuckistan, so I get bytes/minute.
Would someone else please recommend Tom's pdf
above, so I can take the time to download it.
TIA
Ken

---

On Jul 28, 8:47 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 12:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 3:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 10:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 25, 4:10 am, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > > > ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> > > > > > If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> > > > > > have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > If you think about it, volume is a property that only applies to
> > > > > objects and substances that are *known* to be composites, and the
> > > > > dimensions of that object are driven not by the size of the more
> > > > > elemental constituents but by the *interaction* between them.
>
> > > > > Let's take a chain to illustrate:
> > > > > A crystal of table sugar has geometric extension, but this is due to
> > > > > the intermolecular spacing between sucrose molecules. The molecules
> > > > > are not in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact, but rather their
> > > > > spacing is given by intermolecular forces.
>
> > > > > The sucrose molecule has physical extent by virtue of the interatomic
> > > > > bond lengths in the sucrose molecule. Those bond lengths between
> > > > > carbon and hydrogen in the sucrose are due to where the energetic
> > > > > minimum is in the *interaction* between the carbon and hydrogen atoms,
> > > > > not because that's where their electron shells bump up against each
> > > > > other. Refer to a basic chemistry book.
>
> > > > > The size of the carbon atom is governed not by the size of the nucleus
> > > > > and the electrons, but by the nature of the electromagnetic
> > > > > *interaction* between them. When the nucleus and and the electrons are
> > > > > at their point of closest approach, the dimensions of the nucleus is
> > > > > still 100,000 times smaller than where the electron sits. The atom is
> > > > > a composite whose size is governed by the *interaction* between it's
> > > > > constituents.
>
> > > > > The nucleus is a composite. It's size is governed not by the size of
> > > > > protons and neutrons rubbing side by side, but by the *interaction*
> > > > > between them.
>
> > > > > The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons. The proton's size of
> > > > > one femtometer is not controlled by the size of the quarks and gluons
> > > > > inside it, but by the *interaction* between them. Every measurement we
> > > > > have says that quarks and gluons are *at least* a thousand times
> > > > > smaller than their average distance between them in the proton.
>
> > > > > There is simply no reason to assume that fundamental particles MUST
> > > > > have physical extent, since physical extent is a result of
> > > > > *interaction* between inner constituents.
>
> > > > > PD
>
> > > > > > THE STANDARD-MODEL IS NOT ULTIMATE, MAYBE WRONG?
> > > > > > It is in the not ultimate standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’
> > > > > > that an electron is described without a physical geometrical
> > > > > > extension.
> > > > > > In the standard-model of ‘elementary-particles’ the electron is
> > > > > > described as a ‘point-particle’ that have been given AD HOC physical
> > > > > > properties as mass, electric charge, spin, magnetic moment etc.
>
> > > > > > It must be time experimentally to discover the ‘true’ nature of the
> > > > > > electron!
>
> > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > > > Denmark
>
> > > > -----------------
> > > > Bravo   !!
>
> > > > so not a point particle   anymore !!  (
>
> > > We don't know. We don't have any experimental evidence that it has any
> > > spatial extent.
>
> > > > and you start understand that you still dont know enough
> > > > and there i s  work to do ahead
>
> > > Of course. That is always the case and will always be the case. There
> > > are a number of possibilities, however, that we are quite sure we can
> > > rule out.
>
> > > > Y.P
> > > > ----------------------------
>
> > common PD
> > i started to praise you and now you draw back to the
> > 'point particle '???
> > a point is zero volume and therfore cant have any physical properties
>
> I don't know why you would say that. I just got done explaining that
> volume is a property of *composite* objects only and volume is an
> artifact of *interactions* between constituents. Now you go and say
> that nothing can have physical properties unless it has volume. I
> don't know where you go about making that assumption.
>
> If you are doing it on the basis of surveying those things that you
> know from your *common experience*, note that absolutely everything
> you know from your common experience is a composite object. However,
> to extrapolate from your common experience to make an absolute
> statement is dangerous. It might well be that in your common
> experience, absolutely every mammal gives live birth to their young,
> including sheep, dogs, humans, giraffes, lemurs, rhinos, whales, bats,
> and armadillos. However, it would be a mistake to then say on the
> basis of this survey that there can be no mammal that does not give
> live birth to its young.
>
> Extrapolation from the common to the general is a popular mistake but
> one that should be warned against on all occasions.
>
> PD
>
> > and cant emit any energy from itself
> > it is not a billiard ball as well
> > so at the good case
> > an honest scientist should say
> > 'i have no idea about the geometric structure of the electron'
> > because it is too illusive for me '
> > i can only know some physical  properties of it '
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------

i am the last one to tell him that
we cannot extrarpolate endlessly in physics

anyway
if you think that a' point' is a physical entity
and not a **human artifact** welcome !!

anyway
as i see this thread is going to be erased in two days
(so we are wasting our typing .....)
so may be we should go on with that in another thread

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

---

On Jul 28, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i am the last one to   tell   him that
> we cannot extrarpolate  endlessly in physics
> anyway

>  if you think that a' point'   is a physical entity
> and not a **human artifact**  welcome   !!

Come on "Y", of course one can extrapolate endlessly in physics!
Especially if you don't care if your theories actually have a basis in
observed reality. The idea is that MATH is the ultimate reality,
hence since "points" exist in math, it's clear that one can say that
"point particles" exist in physics. One should ALWAYS use mathematics
as the indicator of true reality. That way reality can be any self-
consistent system you say it is, just as one can mathematically define
any self-consistent system or even multiple mutually exclusive self-
consistent systems.

To actually try to discover the true nature of an electron and to
speculate on it being a vortex (less than nothing) in the luminiferous
aether, is clearly not going to get anyone anywhere. There is no real
mathematical model for aether vortexes and therefore they cannot exist
in reality! Especially since math shows that aether is not needed to
describe reality, therefore, it is clear aether does not exist. We
only need to accept the properties of empty space as given constants
that come from nowhere just as we accept the idea that energy in the
form of waves travels easily through nothing at all. That seems clear
enough. Doesn't it?

I think it's clear that modern physics has pretty much explained all
observed phenomena such as electrons, light, and other particles.
What is there left to figure out?

---

On Jul 29, 7:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i am the last one to   tell   him that
> > we cannot extrarpolate  endlessly in physics
> > anyway
> >  if you think that a' point'   is a physical entity
> > and not a **human artifact**  welcome   !!
>
> Come on "Y", of course one can extrapolate endlessly in physics!
> Especially if you don't care if your theories actually have a basis in
> observed reality.  The idea is that MATH is the ultimate reality,
> hence since "points" exist in math, it's clear that one can say that
> "point particles" exist in physics.  One should ALWAYS use mathematics
> as the indicator of true reality.  That way reality can be any self-
> consistent system you say it is, just as one can mathematically define
> any self-consistent system or even multiple mutually exclusive self-
> consistent systems.
>
> To actually try to discover the true nature of an electron and to
> speculate on it being a vortex (less than nothing) in the luminiferous
> aether, is clearly not going to get anyone anywhere.  There is no real
> mathematical model for aether vortexes and therefore they cannot exist
> in reality!  Especially since math shows that aether is not needed to
> describe reality, therefore, it is clear aether does not exist.  We
> only need to accept the properties of empty space as given constants
> that come from nowhere just as we accept the idea that energy in the
> form of waves travels easily through nothing at all.  That seems clear
> enough.  Doesn't it?
>
> I think it's clear that modern physics has pretty much explained all
> observed phenomena such as electrons, light, and other particles.
> What is there left to figure out?

------------------
Hey benj

allow me to smile (

now
if you think that amthematics should be the supreme
judge of physics
i think you dont know what physics is
at the beginning i though t you are joking
but if not
your physics situation is very sad
2
you ddint notice that all this thread is going to erase
in a few days
so we are wasting our typing for nothing

see you around the corner
in another thread........
if you are interested to learn some basic philosophy of physics
3
may i guess that you came to physics from .... mathematics ??
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------

---

On Jul 25, 12:10 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> ARE ELECTRONS PHYSICAL ENTITIES?
> If an electron is a physical matter-/energy ‘particle’ then it MUST
> have a maybe not definite mean geometrical extension.
>
> 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
--------------------
Dear loui
i strongly suggest
that this tread
**will not be erased at all**
the discussion as is here is worthy !!

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