0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
Quote from: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 12:15:45but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question. Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 12:25:23Quote from: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 12:15:45but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question. Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no. Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.
The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron; it is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical and other charges of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles can be totally annihilated, producing gamma ray photons.
In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing: for any set A, the axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A, A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as an element).
Axiomatic set theory[edit]Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The intuitive approach tacitly assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any particular defining condition. This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such paradoxes.[5]
Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set theory.Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer‐verified derivations of more than 12,000 theorems starting from ZFC set theory, first order logic and propositional logic.
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom? I cannot find one.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 14:32:25Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom? I cannot find one. You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 22:21:55This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?The value is a dimension and existence Mr C. -e is the sign for the electron Mr C, +1e is the sign for the proton Mr C. N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G. p.s it is (e-) + (+1e) = 0 =N
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
How do I know I am not looking at anions?
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 16:55:54How do I know I am not looking at anions? Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 16:55:54How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating? It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 14:32:25I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what, Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstanceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tubeAnd, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 15:34:02When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photonsIf that was true, then table salt would explode.
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:33:48I do not think we could collide table salt at c.You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Quote from: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:36:15Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:33:48I do not think we could collide table salt at c.You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c. F²
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:39:37Quote from: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:36:15Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:33:48I do not think we could collide table salt at c.You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c. F²I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:46:24If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this. Yep, just as I predicted.
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?