[talanum1 (OP)]

Ha ha, now everyone has to deal with my Particles-are-not-Points-Theory. I published the article: "Why Particle Properties are Quantised." at: www.ijasr.org/papers/ijasr00424945.pdf.

[Bored chemist]

Ha ha, now everyone has to deal with my Particles-are-not-Points-Theory.

In the same way that I have to cope with a 7 year old's "What I did in the holiday" essay- by not reading it.

BTW, I bet you don't have a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Kryptid]

We don't know if particles are points or not. They just seem point-like down to the resolution of our experiments.

[talanum1 (OP)]

My model says they are not points. My model says exactly what they are. My model is falsifiable just by measuring the Electromagnetic field of the free electron.

[Bored chemist]

My model says they are not points. My model says exactly what they are. My model is falsifiable just by measuring the Electromagnetic field of the free electron.

Does your model predict a field which is different from that predicted by conventional physics?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Does your model predict a field which is different from that predicted by conventional physics?

Yes it predicts a different field from that of a point charge moving in a straight line, at least close to the electron. The electric field tends to zero far away from the electron.

[Origin]

Yes it predicts a different field from that of a point charge moving in a straight line

How so?

[Bored chemist]

Does your model predict a field which is different from that predicted by conventional physics?

Yes it predicts a different field from that of a point charge moving in a straight line, at least close to the electron. The electric field tends to zero far away from the electron.

That's interesting because, if the experimentally observed paths of electron (for example in TV sets and  electron microscopes was different from the path predicted by conventional physics, someone would have noticed.
They would probably have got a Nobel prize for it.

So we know that the experimental- i.e. real-  fields round electrons are those predicted by conventional physics.

And so we know that, if your idea predicts something different then your idea is wrong.

You can ditch it now and never mention it again.
(Or, you can choose not to do science, but why would you do that on a science page?)

[talanum1 (OP)]

That's interesting because, if the experimentally observed paths of electron (for example in TV sets and  electron microscopes

The field is different at 10-100 fm from the electron. Those things are of macroscopic dimensions, of order 1 m, where the field aught to be the same.

[Bored chemist]

That's interesting because, if the experimentally observed paths of electron (for example in TV sets and  electron microscopes

The field is different at 10-100 fm from the electron. Those things are of macroscopic dimensions, of order 1 m, where the field aught to be the same.

The OP thinks that we use electron microscopes to observe thing whose size is of the order of a metre.

So we can safely discount his opinion on the matter.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The OP thinks that we use electron microscopes to observe thing whose size is of the order of a metre.

I was talking about the size of the objects: an electron microscope is about: 1m x 100mm in diameter.

An electron microscope hasn't got sufficient resolution to sense 100 fm.

[Bored chemist]

The OP thinks that we use electron microscopes to observe thing whose size is of the order of a metre.

I was talking about the size of the objects: an electron microscope is about: 1m x 100mm in diameter.

An electron microscope hasn't got sufficient resolution to sense 100 fm.

So you worked out what was relevant in only two attempts.