Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 26/10/2021 15:33:07
-
We have h/2 = |r x p| so this seems to suggest that spin 1/2 particles have finite radius r: not point particles.
-
Or it tells us that we have a point particle, but we don't know where it is.
-
Classically, yes, to have angular momentum something must have radius and be spinning.
For quantum mechanics, no. Spin and angular momentum are physical quantities but do not have an actual requirement for physical size. (Perhaps in a way similar to how photons can have momentum but no mass even though this would violate the classical equation p = mv; or how a metamaterial can have a negative refractive index, even though according to Snell's law that would require superluminal speeds).
The key here is that in all cases, we are trying to extend a simple (intuitive) model to describe complex (unintuitive) phenomena. Or using very narrow definitions and forcing them onto situations where they don't apply.
-
Particles can't be points since they must constitute a mechanism. Points can only have one property: that they are zero dimensional. Particles have several properties. A point can't constitute a mechanism.
-
Points can only have one property: that they are zero dimensional
The North pole is a mathematical point.
It has a number of properties, for example, it's a few thousand miles from me.
It's cold.
It's where some people went exploring for, and died.
-
Be sensible. What is the difference between a point that is a particle and any space point.
-
Be sensible.
You first.
-
You didn't answer my question.
-
What is the difference between a point that is a particle and any space point.
A particle is a particle and a point in space is a point in space. Just because an electron has no discernable dimensions doesn't mean it is the same as a random point in space, that is a silly proposition.
-
You didn't answer my question.
I did, but for some reason, you did not understand the answer...
-
Then the particle properties must be encoded within it, and this can only be done if it hasn't got zero size. Otherwise you have to resort to magic to distinguish the two.
-
Then the particle properties must be encoded within it
What does that mean? If I throw a ball, does that mean the KE is encoded in the ball?
and this can only be done if it hasn't got zero size.
What is your evidence for this?
According to QFT an electron is a disturbance in the electron field, which doesn't sound like it has a diameter.
-
If I throw a ball, does that mean the KE is encoded in the ball?
No, but the mass and speed is encoded into the ball by space.
What is your evidence for this?
Logic: something with zero size cannot contain anything.
According to QFT an electron is a disturbance in the electron field, which doesn't sound like it has a diameter.
That leaves it up to magic to encode the mass and speed in the field.
-
No, but the mass and speed is encoded into the ball by space
The term encoded doesn't make sense to me. I would say that mass is a property of the ball. I would also say that the velocity of the ball is the speed and direction of the ball, but it is not a property of the ball. How do you think space 'gives' something to the ball?
Logic: something with zero size cannot contain anything.
It sounds like your logic is based on "common sense", which is a bad thing to depend on when discussing quantum physics. That leaves it up to magic to encode the mass and speed in the field.
Physics is not magic. It may seem like magic to you because you don't understand it and it does not reflect your everyday experiences (ie common sense).
-
The term encoded doesn't make sense to me.
Any writing is an encoding.
-
I would say that mass is a property of the ball.
According to you, the ball is magically endowed a mass (by what you don't say). I think the mass is encoded inside the particles by space points on a circle - concrete.
, but it is not a property of the ball.
It is a (temporary) property of the ball.
How do you think space 'gives' something to the ball?
Space copies space points and pushes it onto every particle of the ball with other space points. The only thing that seems magical here is the copying process, but it is defined.
It sounds like your logic is based on "common sense",
Why not formulate it to conform to common sense? Just because we had to abandon some intuitions don't mean we have to abandon all of them.
Physics is not magic.
You conveniently didn't comment on the point.
-
Any writing is an encoding.
still don't know what that means.According to you, the ball is magically endowed a mass (by what you don't say).
I do not recall stating that magic was involved.
I think the mass is encoded inside the particles by space points on a circle - concrete.
That seems meaningless to me.
Space copies space points and pushes it onto every particle of the ball with other space points.
Space points copying and pushing? Come on, that is just made up pseudoscience.
You conveniently didn't comment on the point.
I guess I am not willing to expend much effort to someone who thinks mass is magic.
-
I do not recall stating that magic was involved.
That's what a rational being infers if you just state absolutely that a particle has the property: mass. You leave out an explanation of what mass is.
Come on, that is just made up pseudoscience.
It's better than leaving mass undefined.
-
Spin is connected to time via frequency; 1/t. The interesting thing about a spinning particle is the amount of space occupied by the particle remains the same even if the time potential; frequency changes. A point particle will always occupies a point of space not matter how fast it spins; time potential.
Space-time in a quantum universe is composed of quanta of time and quanta of space, each occupying the quantum voids of the other. If we were to untangle this system, time and space would each be composed of quanta and gaps, but now with the gaps independent of each other. One could move in time without any entanglement with space ; omniscience, and/or move in space without any entanglement with time; omnipresent.
The spinning particle sort of does this in terms of time, since extra space is not needed to express the extra potential within longer and longer time quanta.
An interesting example of the quantum entanglement of space and time, to form space-time is connected to photography. If I take a still photo I will stop time. Even though time is stopped, at a point in time, space is totally unaffected in the photo. The layout of matter in the space defined by the picture remains the same. In this case, with time stopped, we are in a gap between time quanta, where space is entangled.
-
I have highlighted a few examples of utter nonsense for you.
Feel free to replace them with something meaningful. time potential;
time potential.
extra space is not needed to express the extra potential
One could move in time without any entanglement with space ; omniscience, and/or move in space without any entanglement with time; omnipresent.
-
It's better than leaving mass undefined.
Not only is it obvious that mass is defined, there are even TV shows and reports about redefining the unit of mass.
-
Not only is it obvious that mass is defined
It isn't explained, except by my model of particles.
-
I have highlighted a few examples of utter nonsense for you.
Feel free to replace them with something meaningful. time potential;
time potential.
extra space is not needed to express the extra potential
One could move in time without any entanglement with space ; omniscience, and/or move in space without any entanglement with time; omnipresent.
If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change. The particle will still occupy volume =V. What does change is the frequency, which is defined as 1/time. The spinning particle has potential in time, via its frequency, without any change in the space volume requirement.
Particle velocity is different. In this case, the frequency does not change, but the space volume requirement becomes a function of time, via velocity; d/t. If the particle is both spinning and has velocity such as an electron in an orbital, there is velocity; space-time, plus frequency; extra time potential. This adds up to acceleration; d/t/t, connected to the centrifugal force.
Space-time is not the only show in town. Separate potentials in space and in time can also exist without them being fully entangled with each other, on top of the matrix of space-time. It is easier to keep track by calling these extras time and distance potential.
-
via velocity; d/t
d/dt is not a velocity, it's an operator.
You seem to have interpreted my suggestion that you add more sense as meaning you should add more nonsense.If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change.
Nobody ever said it did.
Did you think you were making some sort of point?
-
If we start with a particle that occupies a volume=V, and give the particle spin, the volume of space requirement does not change. The particle will still occupy volume =V. What does change is the frequency, which is defined as 1/time.
The term 'spin' in subatomic particles is not referring to particles actually rotating, so you are off to a bad start here!
Separate potentials in space and in time can also exist without them being fully entangled with each other, on top of the matrix of space-time.
Stringing together sciency sounding words with out conveying any meaning is not what is normally thought of as science.
-
You keep insisting that particles don't spin, but they have a property analogous to spin. This appeals to magic.
-
The usual definition of mass is circular.
My definition says: mass is encoded by space points on a circle in a particle. Half of the circle is made of left-out points of space.
-
The usual definition of mass is circular.
My definition says: mass is encoded by space points on a circle in a particle. Half of the circle is made of left-out points of space.
I prefer the allegedly circular one to the meaningless one.
-
You keep insisting that particles don't spin, but they have a property analogous to spin.
The particles have angular momentum that is not associated to an actual rotation of the particles.
This appeals to magic.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand physics. It's like showing a lighter to a stone age man, they would think it is magic fire.
-
One property of mass is mass occupies space. If we collect mass together, via gravity, and this mass occupies space, there is less local space. This is reflected as the contraction of mass and the contraction of local space.
Mass has a connection to time, since quanta of time exists within the quantum gaps of quantum space to form space-time. When mass occupies space it couples to time.
Mass cannot travel at the speed of light and therefore this limitation allows finite time to appear via mass. Without mass and only particles moving at the speed of light, space-time is not valid for any particle reference. Mass, by occupying quanta of space, allows time to couple to space and mass to form space-time and finite durations of time and space. I call this mass potential. Mass potential is a like placeholder for time via how it occupies space.
The complexity of the laws of physics can be reduced to these three variables; mass, distance and time potential, since they imply all the rest. One way to see this is with special relativity. Velocity will cause changes in mass, distance and time via relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all references, changes in just there three variables, cause by relativistic velocity, will cause all the rest of the variables of physics to adjust so the laws can remain the same. These three variables can control of all the rest. Various combinations of these three variables will define each of the classic laws.
For example, all forces create accelerations which are defined as d//t/t. These accelerations are all one part distance potential and two parts time potential. Each force has different values of distance and time potential, but all will follow the same simple schema. Current theory is too cumbersome and leads to misunderstanding.
-
One property of mass is mass occupies space.
Mass is a property. So you are trying discuss properties of a property??
Also an electron has mass but no apparent size, so your statement is at odds with physics.
So your first sentence is wrong and the entire rest of the post is just more incorrect guesses... at least you are consistent. ::)