[guest39538]

n-field electron.png (10.2 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3062 times)

Does that answer the question of how a free electron can exist in a n-field?

For a general reference, consider an air bubble under water.

[alancalverd]

How do I know I am not looking at anions?

because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.

This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?

[guest39538]

How do I know I am not looking at anions?

because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.

This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?

I like interactive learning Alan, I do not like trying to remove any ambiguity in meanings from a book.   I like to hear other peoples thoughts and understanding on the subject rather than trying to decipher a book.

Anyway I believe my theory has just allowed for the existence of the electron within a n-field, I stand strong in that an electron could not exist outside of a n-field.

n-field bottling of the electron stops the electrons natural self annihilation.

[guest39538]

The N-field theory proposes that an individual electron could not be a Lepton , the Lepton would have gravity to other Leptons.  This is not evident and quite the opposite, Leptons repulse Leptons.  This suggesting that a Lepton cannot have two opposite point signs in the Lepton volume.
Therefore another answer is needed that allows the existence of the electron within the n-field.   After some deliberation in my mind,  I propose the n-field bottles the electron similar to but not exact like magnetic bottling used in Plasma fusion physics.

F_1b>F_1a

where set {a}  and a of set {b} have the same singleton element values and likewise force.

Force vector

←n-field →← electron→←n-field→

Obviously the containment of {a} by {b} is isotropic.

a ∈  {a}

a,b   ∈   {b}   

In the summation set, we can show  ∑{{,b,{a},b,}}   

In the form of an array we can show

bbb
bab
bbb

I would like you to consider this process under the conceptual definition of Quantum field physicality  ( Q.F.P)

[alancalverd]

From Wikipedia (since you don't like books)

A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.

My italics.

If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.

[guest39538]

From Wikipedia (since you don't like books)

A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.

My italics.

If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.

I mentioned nothing of Wiki and the general explanations and definitions.  I said books that are generally one persons thoughts and sentence structure.   

Anyway , you are presenting a difficulty with science defence.  Therefore I will provide a counter argument that regains the premise of my theory.

I ask you how many different types of particles can occupy and originate from a 0 point space?   

Because when all these different singleton particles start to get mentioned, I start thinking it becomes a bit far fetched.

Quite obviously there is only so much that can occupy a fractional  0,  R³ space.

In simplicity , a point particle cannot be made of several other different points.

{0}  A singleton is really small.   There is only more space if it expands.    {0}  created the first micro bang that created the universe.


In the beginning there was nothing observable, but this does not insinuate there was no dimensions of the non-observable.   At any given random point of this vast of nothingness, static charge begins to manifest ,self annihilation into a n-wave permeating through nothing.   Self annihilation because the points were singletons and likewise in polarity.
Then at one given random point , simultaneously manifests of opposite poles  create the very first N-field particle.
Of course all the already created n-field wave energy of opposite poles, came rushing in to that spot and this created a rather big bang.

[guest39538]

The dense gases form around the formation of a singleton + singleton = N-field particle , all the surrounding n-wave energy is centripetally forced to the N-field particle. 

This makes a star within a n-field.  The expansion of the star is contained by the n-field's    Q.F.P 


added-   I got it

{0} + {0} = {1}   

set a + b = C =1

[guest39538]

The reason the opposite pole  annihilation  n-waves do not merge is because of velocity and density. The annihilation n-waves are what powers our observable universe. I think you may call this CMBR.

[alancalverd]

You may call this CMBR. The rest of us call it garbage.

[guest39538]

You may call this CMBR. The rest of us call it garbage.

I would also call it garbage if the physics did not work for the notion.     

Lets us start with the basic question,   

Would all a and b in a volume of R³  space k be attracted to a+b in the same volume of R³  space k?

singleton mono-pole e- = {a}

singleton mono-pole +1e = {b}

Binary system {{a + b}}

(we will soon see what garbage it isn't hey).

added- well we know the answer is yes because I can call for Coulomb to the ''dock''.

So therefore all  {{a+b}}  is attracted to all {{a+b}} 

all {a} is attracted to {{a+b}}

all {b} is attracted to {{a+b}}

Explaining why annihilation n-waves are drawn to mass.

[Bored chemist]

because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.

[guest39538]

because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.

Or I could use google like normal

2.
PHYSICS
the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation.

[Bored chemist]

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

[guest39538]

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.

[Bored chemist]

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.

If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.

Have you found out what the circumstances are  in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.

[guest39538]

You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.

If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.

Have you found out what the circumstances are  in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.

In my version I have told you why electrons are annihilated, because the physics says so.

Why what version do you think is other than my version?  I suppose you are gong to mention anti-pairs which is quite humorous really.

How many elements do you think can fit in a single  point?

[Bored chemist]

Electrons are not generally annihilated.
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.

So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?

[guest39538]

Electrons are not generally annihilated.
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.

So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?

Electrons can exist within a n-field, they cannot exist outside the n-field.  A positron cannot destroy an electron, an electron would have no Q.F.P   against a positron.   The positron would pass though the electron, the electron is a mono-pole, anyone saying it isn't is a blatant  lier.

[guest39538]

Do you also insist an electron has opposite signs to retain formation?

[guest39538]

Quite clearly a ''can'' full of ''beans'' does not maketh  the truth.  Your can Mr C is full of beans.