[yor_on]

Yep I agree, it's a hard subject to really encompass
What I think is the problem here is how one want to see the 'origin' of particles. Depending on ones choice there are different paths. Heck, if I was to rule it would all be 'emergences'

Then you can see it as 'real particles' and waves as a 'extension'.
Or waves as being the 'real thing' and particles as some sort of 'concentration'.
And I don't really rule out anything, I try to keep an open mind to what's possible. So that said..

It's all 'emergences' )
===

Apropos electrons..
My take on the subject, and no, I don't understand them

Electrons and Magnetism

[JP]

I hope we can all agree that the electron involves some form of rotational motion.

I see it difficult to find a generalized agreement on this...

I disagree.  Electrons have spin, but do not rotate necessarily.  There's an important distinction between the two, in that you can calculate the values angular momentum (classical rotation) can take on, and spin does not agree with those values.

[lightarrow]

So you agree with me in thinking that it's difficult that most of us agree about the presence of a form of rotational motion.

[Farsight]

Oh come on, JP. Go with the flow. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung:

Zitterbewegung (English: "trembling motion", from German) is a theoretical rapid motion of elementary particles, in particular electrons, that obey the Dirac equation. The existence of such motion was first proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1930 as a result of his analysis of the wave packet solutions of the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons in free space...

There's some kind of rotational motion in there, whether you consider it to be classical or not, and despite your lack of an electron model. Now, can we move on to gravitational potential energy? It's really very simple. 

[Geezer]

Geezer: my response would be some restatement of what I said previously about the ambiguous definition of work and the distinction between classical mechanics and relativity, so I don't think there's any more I can add.

Does that mean, in classical terms, you agree that gravity does do work?

[lightarrow]

Oh come on, JP. Go with the flow. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung:

Zitterbewegung (English: "trembling motion", from German) is a theoretical rapid motion of elementary particles, in particular electrons, that obey the Dirac equation. The existence of such motion was first proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1930 as a result of his analysis of the wave packet solutions of the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons in free space...

There's some kind of rotational motion in there, whether you consider it to be classical or not, and despite your lack of an electron model. Now, can we move on to gravitational potential energy? It's really very simple. 

How many physicists can still believe in Zitterbewegung? Maybe you can found some at the waxwork...

[Farsight]

Geezer: in classical terms, yes. But not in terms of relativity.

lightarrow: all of them. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41352

"European physicists have won the race to observe zitterbewegung, the violent trembling motion of an elementary particle that was predicted by Erwin Schrödinger in 1930. To observe this phenomenon, the team simulated the behaviour of a free electron with a single, laser-manipulated calcium ion trapped in an electrodynamic cage..."

I take it that everybody is now satisfied that there's some kind of rational motion in a subatomic particle like an electron. At point A up in space this occurs at rate X, but because of gravitational time dilation, at point B down on the surface of a planet it occurs at rate Y, which is less than X. This means the subatomic particle has less energy at point B.

[dantheman]

How’s this from someone who knows very little science.
The way I see is that a mass of matter causes a rift in the fabric of space, pushing it out to make room for it’s self. Therefore causing things to attempt to fall in. The larger the mass (not the size) the larger the rift. With black holes being so massive that they achieve a tear rather than a rift. Gravity does not work only the mass does.

[JP]

If anyone wants to discuss more about the electron model, could you start a new thread please?  It's really confusing the original question.  If not, I'll have to split further electron posts off this thread.

Thanks,
JP (mod)

[lightarrow]

Geezer: in classical terms, yes. But not in terms of relativity.

lightarrow: all of them. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41352

"European physicists have won the race to observe zitterbewegung, the violent trembling motion of an elementary particle that was predicted by Erwin Schrödinger in 1930. To observe this phenomenon, the team simulated the behaviour of a free electron with a single, laser-manipulated calcium ion trapped in an electrodynamic cage..."

"According to Christian Roos at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, one of the keys to success was to make their non-relativistic ion behave as if it was a relativistic particle. This is crucial because zitterbewegung is predicted by the Dirac equation, which describes relativistic quantum mechanics".

Note the phrase: to make their non-relativistic ion behave as if it was a relativistic particle.

[JP]

Splitting this is going to be a huge headache, so if you don't mind I've put up a question here about electron rotation:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28707

Thanks,
JP (mod)