[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

"I'd rather have answers which can be questioned, rather than questions that cannot be answered."

Nice idea, but you got it wrong.
He actually said “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”

And yet you tell me that I should believe what it says in the textbooks.

Nearly any textbook will disagree with your skewered view on the non-existence of the corposcular nature of particles.

Did you understand the quote from R.F.?
Telling me that the textbook is right  makes it "an answer which can not be questioned"; exactly what Feynman said we shouldn't want.

Within reason BoredChemist. Feynmann  was right of course, but you can't just take his quote and hope it justifies the wrong way of thinking.

Particles are rightly called what they are because a multitude of experiments have proven this. And it helps using some good physics knowledge, which thusfar has not been shown to me from you. I'll never now forget your statement that a particle can only be a particle if it had a radius. You clearly had either forgotten, or ignored the well established doctrine of pointlike particles.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but I have better things to do with my time than correcting your misunderstandings on scientific methodology anf terminology.

[Bored chemist]

. I'll never now forget your statement that a particle can only be a particle if it had a radius.

I did not say that.
I asked how a point like particle could have a wavelength.
You seem not to have answered.

[Bored chemist]

the well established doctrine

That's another "answer that can't be questioned" then...

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.

As you can see, you did . Are you trolling me, lying or just plain old slow in the brain, dotty even?

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Anyway, I'm not as Bored as you and I am going to get on with my day. You've offered nothing but vapid replies without justification.

[Bored chemist]

If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.

As you can see, you did . Are you trolling me, lying or just plain old slow in the brain, dotty even?

So... you don't understand the concept of zero?
Does that make things difficult for you?

What I actually said was

If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.
Attempts to measure that have, so far, given a result of "too small to measure, and quite possibly zero".

So it is clear that I accept that the radius may be zero.
That would put it in the "set of thigs with no radius".
Let's consider a few of them:
How can Thursday  have a wavelength?
How can love have an amplitude?
How can an electron have a wavelength.

[Bored chemist]

If you are a scientist, I'd hate to be taught under you to be quite frank.

I'm a scientist, not a teacher.
But I'm particularly glad I'm not your teacher.
You seem unwilling to accept new ideas.
You seem not to recognise that an electron is neither a particle (because they don't behave like a wave) nor is it a wave (because they don't act like particles)  so it must be something else.

And you seem not to realise it isn't just me telling you this.

This only means an electron had aspects of waves and particles.  It is actually neither.  An electron is nothing like you have ever seen and as such any attempt to visualize it is bound to fail.

If you don't believe me, show me a particle that behaves like a wave.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Bored Chemist, don't insult my integrity by saying, "So you don't know what zero means," it is you who said electrons are not particles because they have zero radius and this is blatant nonsense since point particles are modelled in the electron case which mist physicists belueve thet have no radius, yet they still call them particles. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed with your weird counterclaims. But I'm not you and it seems ignorance is bliss from your behalf.

[Bored chemist]

it is you who said electrons are not particles because they have zero radius

I did not say that.
I explicitly said that particles can have zero radius.

If an electron was a particle, it would have a radius.
Attempts to measure that have, so far, given a result of "too small to measure, and quite possibly zero".

[Colin2B]

The posting of this topic contravenes forum rules and has been locked