Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 21/04/2016 21:43:48
-
Elementary particles are assumed to have zero volume; to correct my error.
Thinking about the quantization of charge the nature of quantization generally; it seems reasonable to suggest that charge itself is the result of some harmonic function. Similarly quantization of spin wrt magnetic moment. Maybe?
An elementary particle certainly exists in my opinion, (I am not a scientist), my reasoning is the very fact that I can personally see them to exist and distinguishes a piece of dust from the light passing through empty space. The only possible conclusion is this dust could be broke down to smaller particles.
The 0 point you are describing surely relates to the center of a dot that if we broke the dot down into ''particles'' , at the center of the dot would be empty space a 0 point of binding space.
I consider the smallest particle must be 0³ considering the 0 at the center of a dot. 2 adjoining spacial points of 0 makes 1, this is the smallest possible measurement in the Universe.
I also consider that there can only be one particle, so when the higgs is mentioned, or neutrinos etc, I think they are just way off base. My opinion thought.
pi*0²=1 which is a very very very very tiny dot.
-
I'm familiar with the Poynting vector (wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector) in E.M. propagation but, not how it relates to the photon structure.
The Poynting vector is a classical construct, based on Maxwell's equations.
You can also update it to match relativity.
However, it does not address the fact that, if you look closely enough, electromagnetic waves are quantized, ie particles like the photon.
So by all means use the Poynting vector where classical effects predominate (eg in a radio transmitter, or TV antenna cable, or a laser beam propagating through space), but be aware of its limitations.
Use quantum theory where it is more appropriate (eg to describe the generation of the laser beam, or the photoelectric effect when the laser beam hits a charged cathode in a vacuum tube).
pi*0²=1
I disagree. pi*0²=0, not 1.
Why not use some real maths? Like the Euler Identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity): eπi +1 = 0
It has no relevance to the topic at hand - but that puts it on a par with "pi*0²=1".
At least it has the benefit of being correct...
Real maths? is pi*r² not a circumference?
It does relate to the thread if I am trying to explain the smallest possible measurement of a particle.
I consider you are missing the point literally , take any geometrical point and collapse that to 0, there is no possible measurement, now if I square 0 giving me two 0's adjoined I have one dimension, if I add a circumference , pi * 0² =1
The command function of the maths is too square 0, if you think 0² is still 0 then you are failing to apply the command function and not squaring it.
0²>0
0 is an important number.
-
Real maths? is pi*r² not a circumference?
No. It's an area.
-
Real maths? is pi*r² not a circumference?
No. It's an area.
Sorry of course 2pi r is circumference , my mistake. So it must be 0³ then?
-
Sorry of course 2pi r is circumference , my mistake. So it must be 0³ then?
Power 3 would denote a volume, you are getting close to folks just ignoring you if you can't explain what you really mean. Give up the pseudo maths and try to explain in words - and don't make up posh sounding phrases, they just sound meaningless.
-
Sorry of course 2pi r is circumference , my mistake. So it must be 0³ then?
Power 3 would denote a volume, you are getting close to folks just ignoring you if you can't explain what you really mean. Give up the pseudo maths and try to explain in words - and don't make up posh sounding phrases, they just sound meaningless.
0^3?
How small can the smallest possible particle be? Rather than starting with an object and trying to de-construct it , I start off by considering 0 which is nothing.
I will write it as If thinking out aloud and maybe this style will work in explanation,
So I start with 0, a 0 geometrical ''point'', however it is not really a point, a point is too big, it is the centre of a point which is 0. So then I ask myself what does 0 look like next to 0, two 0 ''points'' , and it looks like 00 but 00 is really a line, a small line but a line, so 0^2 must equal 1, because two 0's next to each other I can now see 1 line, so if i then consider a 3d object, i need 3 zeros to represent xyz, so 0³ or 0^3 must be 1 also,
added - I read that back, that sounds easy to follow, the smallest measurement possible must be 0^2=00
and the smallest possible 3 dimensional particle must be 0^3 or 0³
-
What sort of strange assumption is the topic title change? rather insulting.
In your terms 0³=0 1*1=1 0*1=0 etc etc, however what I am discussing is not your maths, it is my maths.....
I also kept to the topic , someone questions a particles existence, I defend the particle existence and then asked how small is the smallest possible particle which I answered,
you asked me to explain and lead me off topic slightly , not my fault this time.
-
Ok, I can begin to see where you are going.
Problem, adding 0s ie nothing to nothing (which is all that raising to the power is) means you still end up with nothing. If I've got no apples and I add them to no bananas, I still have nothing. So 0+0=0 and 0*0=0 and 0^n=0.
What I think you are looking for is the concept of infinitesimally small ie so small that it is almost 0. This is the basis of calculus As invented by Newton and Leibnitz.
It can be very useful to look at what happens to certain equations as one of the variables approaches - tend to - zero. If you are really interested - rather than looking for silly formula to post - then look up some sites teaching basic calculus.
EDIT: ok, my post was being prepared while you were posting. If you want to discuss your maths then it belongs here not in the other part of forum. Clearly I can't help you because I don't understand your maths. So I'm out.
-
Ok, I can begin to see where you are going.
Problem, adding 0s ie nothing to nothing (which is all that raising to the power is) means you still end up with nothing. If I've got no apples and I add them to no bananas, I still have nothing. So 0+0=0 and 0*0=0 and 0^n=0.
And look at the space before your eyes then apply the maths you have just done, you have just successfully described the universe, well done, you have got it , now you know why
4/3 pi n³ is.
and you should now know
4/3 pi remr³ is.
-
And look at the space before your eyes then apply the maths you have just done, you have just successfully described the universe,
No I haven't
-
And look at the space before your eyes then apply the maths you have just done, you have just successfully described the universe,
No I haven't
read the add on bit , space is 0 in any direction and 0 is equal to n , 1 is an amount between 0 and 0
consider that volume is the volume of 0's
-
0 geometrical point + 0 geometrical point = 1
-
read the add on bit , space is 0 in any direction and 0 is equal to n , 1 is an amount between 0 and 0
consider that volume is the volume of 0's
0 geometrical point + 0 geometrical point = 1
I've already explained why this is not true and I don't intend to keep repeating myself. Bye.
-
read the add on bit , space is 0 in any direction and 0 is equal to n , 1 is an amount between 0 and 0
consider that volume is the volume of 0's
0 geometrical point + 0 geometrical point = 1
I've already explained why this is not true and I don't intend to keep repeating myself. Bye.
And of course you are wrong, space is made of nothing, any ''point'' of space is made of nothing, two ''points'' of space, 0+0=1
Anyone can see you are clearly wrong and are not in my league of thinking. I will await a reply from somebody who can think a bit better before they reply. I broke your inverse square law, I broke time, I broke sr and gr, i brokre light, it wont be long before I have gravity wrapped up.
-
If I've got no apples
You have got a volume of space....