[talanum1 (OP)]

We have h/2 = |r x p| so this seems to suggest that spin 1/2 particles have finite radius r: not point particles.

[Bored chemist]

Or it tells us that we have a point particle, but we don't know where it is.

[chiralSPO]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Be sensible. What is the difference between a point that is a particle and any space point.

[Bored chemist]

Be sensible.

You first.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You didn't answer my question.

[Origin]

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.

[Bored chemist]

You didn't answer my question.

I did, but for some reason, you did not understand the answer...

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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. 

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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).

[talanum1 (OP)]

The term encoded doesn't make sense to me.

Any writing is an encoding.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.