[talanum1 (OP)]

Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron. My finite model of the electron produces it naturally.

Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names. How then does the QED vacuum recognize an electron?

[Kryptid]

Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron.

Why not?

Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names.

Properties are not "encoded" in particles as if they were some kind of computer program. They simply have properties.

Names are an invention by humans.

[Bored chemist]

Those that believe in point particles cannot naturally explain the magnetic moment of an electron. My finite model of the electron produces it naturally.

Point particles cannot be encoded with properties or names. How then does the QED vacuum recognize an electron?

The problem is that you post stuff like this

In my model the Higgs is made of a Riemann sphere with left out events of spacetime - I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.

So it's going to be hard to get people to take you seriously.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Properties are not "encoded" in particles as if they were some kind of computer program. They simply have properties.

That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.

You both have ignored the issue of an Electron being recognizable by the QED vacuum.

[Bored chemist]

That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.

We know that people have fingerprints (for example) which are not encoded in the DNA.

They may have natural names or numbers.

What would that even mean?

[Kryptid]

That is like saying "people simply have genetic properties". We happen to know that people's genetic properties are encoded in their DNA.

The word "genetic" automatically refers to genes (and therefore DNA). I'm not even sure that "genetic properties" even makes sense.

They may have natural names or numbers.

I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?

[talanum1 (OP)]

I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?

It means I'm stupid.

You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.

[Bored chemist]

I'll second Bored Chemist on that one: what does that even mean?

It means I'm stupid.

You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.

It isn't a fact.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It isn't a fact.

It is a fact that the QED vacuum behaves differently for charged particles than for uncharged ones. If it didn't recognize charged particles, it would have acted the same for both types of particles.

[Bored chemist]

That's not exactly "recognition", is it?
It acts the same way for a protonas for a positron.

[Kryptid]

You two have not commented on the fact that the QED vacuum must be able to recognise charged particles.

"Recognize" implies intelligence. The better phrase would probably be "interact with". It does so via the electromagnetic force, as the quantum vacuum contains virtual charged particles. I don't know what's so odd or unexplained about that.

[puppypower]

Say we have a  wave tank with two wave generators, one generator at each end of the tank. These two wave generators are 180 degrees out of phase. Since the waves will add and cancel by being 180 degrees out of phase, the center of the tank will appears still, even though wave energy is being inputted into the tank. 

Say we add a partition in the middle of the tank, such as a wooden board. This will impact the wave addition and cause the hidden wave energy to appear as equal and opposite waves on each side of the board. The election is like a partition for the appearance of virtual particle/waves in the stillness of wave cancellation.

[Bored chemist]

FORD:
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It does so via the electromagnetic force, as the quantum vacuum contains virtual charged particles

You still need to encode (endow) the particles and virtual particles with charge otherwise, positrons and electrons will look identical for the QED vacuum.

FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.

Is there a moral to the story?

[Kryptid]

You still need to encode (endow) the particles and virtual particles with charge otherwise, positrons and electrons will look identical for the QED vacuum.

Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.

[talanum1 (OP)]

They simply have properties.

How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?

Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.

Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.

[Bored chemist]

Is there a moral to the story?

It's a bit like PuppyPower's post; but funnier.

[Bored chemist]

They simply have properties.

How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?

Well, they do have charge. So that's not a problem.

Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.

Tosh.
Being a point particle tells you (encodes the data; if you like) that they have a radius of zero.
It does not tell you anything else.
It's not as if the charge has to be written on them

[talanum1 (OP)]

It's not as if the charge has to be written on them

You believe in Mysticism then.

[Bored chemist]

You believe in Mysticism then.

No, a mystic would believe that writing something on a particle changes its nature.

That two statements contradict each other.

What?
Did you mean "those two..." In which case you are simply wrong.