[Origin]

Particle accelerator data has shown that electrons are fundamental particles, where mass and negative charge are integrated into a unified state; single particle state.

What is a "unified state" supposed to mean.  Mass and charge are separate properties of an electron.

This unique difference between electrons and protons explains the uncertainty principle when applied to atoms. If the electron was a single particle with negative charge and mass unified, and the proton was not, their EM interaction will impact each differently, due to the EM force of the electron unified and sharing potential with the electron mass. The energy balance will be correct, but the EM balance should have uncertainty; momentum and position There will be energy bleed off to mass side, so EM force predictions seem somewhat off. Heisenberg would have seen things differently if that data was available to him.

Nice word salad.

Two characteristics of mass is mass takes up space and has inertia.

Wrong again, an electron is a point particle, it doesn't 'take up space' and it has mass.

The rest of your post is just more of the same; wrong, wronger and wrongest.  Made up pseudoscience, nothing to see here...

[Bored chemist]

I don't think anyone expected that,

They didn't set up the accelerators because they thought nothing would happen.

This unique difference between electrons and protons explains the uncertainty principle when applied to atoms.

No, it does not.
Among the things which makes that obvious is the fact that the principle applies to electrons and protons in the same way that it applies to atoms.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?

Both move, but one is about 2000 times heavier, so it obviously moves less.

mass takes up space

Not as far as we can tell in the case of the electron.

In terms of hydrogen bonding, the binary nature of hydrogen bonding; covalent and polar

It's not really binary.

You keep on calling mistakes "new connections"
Why do you do that?

[Kryptid]

Particle accelerator data has shown that electrons are fundamental particles, where mass and negative charge are integrated into a unified state; single particle state. The same is not true of the proton.

But it is true of the positron.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?

Because it has less mass.

[Origin]

Puppypower:
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Kriptoid:
Because it has less mass

The sad part is an answer was given by two people but you will continue to be puzzled since you never learn anything new, you just make up new stuff.

[puppypower (OP)]

Puppypower:
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Kriptoid:
Because it has less mass

The sad part is an answer was given by two people but you will continue to be puzzled since you never learn anything new, you just make up new stuff.

As new data appears, like the electron being a single particle, and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century, the old answers no longer apply; apples and oranges. One needs to ask the same questions, but in the context of the latest understanding based on reproducible lab results. Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not. Reinventing the wheel is needed when the cart changes to this extent. The old assumptions of probability may have applied when the electron was two things, but it makes less sense as one unified thing with two complementary and interactive potentials. Now there is a logical explanation outside the casinos of science.

The question could be rephrased as why does the electron maintain it high velocity and inertia around a proton; energy level, while also taking up a lot of space; wave function? Why doesn't the orbit and space requirement decay over time; atomic collapse, since the proton is an easy slow target and there is EM potential that could be expressed? Matter and antimatter will do this.

An analogy is the moon orbiting the earth. The moon's inertia is such that its motion balances the force of gravity that lies between. We get an orbit. In the case of an electron in an atom, there is a perpetual minimum inertia, that does not get any lower, even with the EM force getting stronger with less distance. Even at absolute zero, when exothermic is favored, the EM cannot close the deal. Instead the high space requirement of the electron is perpetual and requires a constant inertia that is not being decreased by the EM force, beyond a certain level. This is a mass based glitch in the EM force due to the unified force of negative charge and mass.

This topic is water and life which is connected to hydrogen bonding. This is where the one particle electron and the multi-particle proton do their dance via a binary switch between two bonding styles; polar and covalent, with differing inertia and space requirements. This is critical to life since there is a difference in free energy between these two states, that can be expressed via changes in enthalpy, entropy and space requirement; energy, muscle and information.

My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles. Water can account for much of the decrepancy, while the unification of negative charge and mass can account for rest.

In science there are foundation premises on which theory is built. If the old foundation is not up to par, any theory built on that foundation does not have a good footing in reality. The current life sciences may have to be moved to alternate theory due to a poor and obsolete foundation. This assumes science come before politics and money. It is ironic that I am the one following the philosophy of science. 

[Bored chemist]

and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,

When did anyone assume that?

[Bored chemist]

An analogy is the moon orbiting the earth.

Yes, but it's a bad analogy.
A better analogy might be the Moon and the Earth both orbiting their common centre of gravity- though this does mean that the Moon moves more because it has less mass.

[Bored chemist]

My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.

Nobody ever made that assumption.

[Bored chemist]

you just make up new stuff.

yep, and the "stuff" gets worse.

[Kryptid]

and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,

When did anyone assume that?

Yes, I too want to know that.

Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not.

The proton isn't the opposite of the electron. The positron is.

[puppypower (OP)]

My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.

Nobody ever made that assumption.

and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,

When did anyone assume that?

Yes, I too want to know that.

Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not.

The proton isn't the opposite of the electron. The positron is.

In our universe, the lions share of negative charge is connected to the electron, while the lions share of positive charge is connected to the proton. This is not to say that other ways are not possible. Antimatter is an example of an alternate way but this is a tiny percent of the universe. 

In practical reality, we are not dealing with isolated positive and negative charges, but positive and negative charges contain within two very different configurations. The electron combines mass and negative charge into a single particle, while the proton combines mass and positive charge as several particles. Positive charge, in practical terms, is more pure than negative charge since the unification of mass and negative charge allows negative charge to be impacted and modified by its integrated mass. When pure positive charge interacts, with mass tainted negative charge, it will lead to some odd results in the EM force such as uncertainty.

An analogy is say we had two, two-man teams having a foot race. One team is tied together by opposite legs like in a three legged race; electron. While the other team can run as two separate people; proton.

The team tied together has to synchronize their motion perfectly or else they will cause a resistance to each other, that can cancel some forward progress. The two free person team does not have to coordinate or need to have the same running style, since each is not that overly dependent on the other. The slower of the two, on the free team, will not impact the faster. But electron team, but being two things tied together as one, can only be as fast as the slowest link and the fastest has to synchronize with the slower for the team to go faster. The mass of the universe has inertia, while the electron has to follow this lead to maximize the team.

The universal containment of charge, as protons and electrons creates two different charge containment scenarios, using what would otherwise be two equal and opposite charges. This results in some profound differences, due to their different styles of containment. This can explain things like the Uncertainty Principle and even the binary nature of the hydrogen bonding switch. The three legged electron has two of its four legs; so to speak, tied via a unique aspect of the unified force; mass/gravity/negative charge, that is not part of the standard model. 

The standard model assumes both positive and negative charge, via the EM force, and not just negative charge, is the bridge to mass/gravity, via the electron. The charge anomaly is based on the universal containment as electrons and protons and the practical results that appear in physical reality; real instead of ideal. Real is based on a pure positive charge and tainted negative charge, caused by different containments.

The positron is also a single particle. This single particle containment scenario of positive charge and mass would create a tainted positive charge, that would be on the same page as the tainted negative charge of the electron. They will annihilate without uncertainty. They will not linger, forever, like the hydrogen atom.

[Kryptid]

In our universe, the lions share of negative charge is connected to the electron, while the lions share of positive charge is connected to the proton.

That doesn't change what I said. The proton is not the opposite of the electron. The positron is.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:58:41
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 12:11:57
My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.
Nobody ever made that assumption

You quoted me pointing out that you said something silly.
But you didn't address the problem.

How did you come to the idea that anyone assumed this... "

As new data appears, like the electron being a single particle, and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,

Why do you believe that nonsense about anyone thinking an electron was two particles?

[Origin]

Positive charge, in practical terms, is more pure than negative charge since the unification of mass and negative charge allows negative charge to be impacted and modified by its integrated mass. When pure positive charge interacts, with mass tainted negative charge, it will lead to some odd results in the EM force such as uncertainty.

Why do you make up goofy crap and then present it as if it was true?  You are probably the most prolific purveyor of pseudo science on this site; it seems no matter what the subject, you are willing to make up some illogical junk to add to the discussion.  You must be so proud[shrug].

[Bored chemist]

Why do you make up goofy crap and then present it as if it was true? 

I assume he doesn't understand that he is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

It's very hard to do anything about it.

[puppypower (OP)]

The bottom line is an electron has mass and negative charge, yet it is only one particle, based on particle collider experiments. This paradox tells me there is a unified force connection between the mass and negative charge within the single particle electron. This means mass/gravity and negative charge and EM force have an intimate connection, via the electron, that is interchangeable; unified forces. This flexibility should allow different states of an electron, without altering it as a single particle.  When I said that negative charge was tainted, it was simply saying the equilibrium of mass and negative charge can shift depending on the circumstances.

The analogy is the EM force. At one time, the electrostatic and magnetic forces were treated as two separate forces. We now know these are two sides of a single force. We also know that the ratio of charge to magnetism can change and it will still be called the EM force, since these two forces are part of one unified thing. The real problem of accepting unified force with the election, appears to be the implications; this changes everything.

The extra mobility of the electron, compared to the proton, is connected to mass differences. The proton is heavier and slower. However, this perpetual difference in mobility allows the electron to amplify its magnetic force compared to the proton. A charge in motion will create a stronger magnetic field, that increases with velocity. 

If we compare the EM force of the hydrogen proton to the electron, the electron has more EM force potential, due to negative charge being attached to mass that is lighter and faster. The EM forces are not equal and balanced for the electron and proton. This is due to the mass difference; smaller for electron, amplifying the magnetism of the negative charge via higher mass velocity. The proton may have the same kinetic energy, but this translates to lower EM energy. The electron has to use extra orbital space and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to use up its extra mass based EM potential. This allows atom building.

The positron can mimic the electron, in terms of the same velocity and EM force induction; equal and opposite. The different in the EM force between the proton and positron is not a charge based affect, but rather it is connected to the containment style of the charge. The proton containment of positive charge will create different EM forces, than electron containment for negative charge or positron containment for positive charge. I was/am an applied scientist and notice these practical differences. This is how the next widget appears.

Relative to water, water expands when it freezes. Water takes up more space as it gets colder than 4C, especially at the freezing point. Why would the electrons take up more space; 10% more, when freezing makes things colder and thereby takes away energy? It would be like a hydrogen atom expanding, after giving off energy and going into a lower energy level.

Matter takes up space. This means when water freezes, we have a different state of matter with a larger space requirement, using the exact same electrons and protons. In this case, the change is connected to the hydrogen bonding electrons and protons going from polar to covalent. This shifts the EM equilibrium to where charge potential means less, than magnetism. Higher mass inertia is used to create extra stability via better and stronger magnetic addition. More space becomes exothermic via the EM advantage.

If we look at mass and gravity, more space lowers mass density. The increases gravitational potential and lowers GR affects. If the entire earth was a ball of water and it froze it would get larger against the force of gravity. The mass of the water electrons will see a potential increase. This is a very integrated affect that only happens with water and the element Antimony.

When we melt ice, the water will contract and the space requirement will be less. The mass inertia of the electron gets less; less gravitational potential, allowing the magnetic ratio of the EM force to become less. This is endothermic due to the loss of covalent magnetic addition. The electrostatic side of the EM force become more important; polar hydrogen bonding. The switch in equilibrium is based on changes in integrated mass inertia and negative charge mediated via the magnetic force to change ratio and changes in gravitational potential.



 

[Bored chemist]

This paradox

It is not  a paradox.

Why don't you respond to the points which people have already made, rather than posting more tripe?

Why do you believe that nonsense about anyone thinking an electron was two particles?

[Bored chemist]

This is a very integrated affect that only happens with water and the element Antimony.

And germanium .
And gallium and... probably a few other things.

Why do you put so much effort into things that are clearly wrong?

[puppypower (OP)]

The reason why I assume the standard theory still assumes the electron was/is two particles is because nobody made the connection that mass/gravity and negative charge were fully integrated within the electron, because the electron is only one particle.

If the mass and negative charge of the electron had been assumed to be fully integrated, gravity would have already been integrate with the other three forces via the negative charge of the electron. That simple connection was not made, since everyone still expects positive and negative charge to act the same. Words and actions do not add up.

Positive and negative charge can and do act the same; equal and opposite, under some circumstances, like positron and electron. But nature and practical reality, early in the BB, segregated the two charges, via two different and dominant styles of containment; proton and electron. This is the preponderance of the universe; real instead of ideal and rule instead of exception. As the rule, only the electron is fully integrating charge; negative, and mass as one particle. I have been showing you how this one particle with mass and negative charge works in hydrogen bonding to show this integration is real.   

Hydrogen bonding is done with hydrogen protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe, interacting with electrons; negative charge unified to mass. Life occurs at the foundation of this containment difference. Properties of mass, such as inertia and space are expressed through the electron, via the binary switch of polar and covalent hydrogen bonding. The mass inertia will alter the magnetic component of the EM force within the electron, differently from the hydrogen proton, due to the different containment styles. The hydrogen bond can switch settings and thereby be used to transfer information, free energy and muscle.

[Bored chemist]

The reason why I assume the standard theory still assumes the electron was/is two particles is because nobody made the connection that mass/gravity and negative charge were fully integrated within the electron, because the electron is only one particle.

Stop posting word salad and answer the point.

How did you think that the electron was considered to be two particles when absolutely nobody and nothing said that it was?

Your nonsense about negative charge is unhelpful because, as has been punted out, a positron has essentially the same properties except that it has a positive charge.
So we know that this

As the rule, only the electron is fully integrating charge;

is impossible- no matter how often you repeat or rewrite it.