The electron's size is NOT ZERO volume

Size is a 'relative' concept.

There is no smallest because smaller is smaller.

:)

john

By that argument, John, there is no absolute zero, because colder is
colder than that.

When "is" means reaching absolute zero in an experiment,
the there "is" no such thing............and so on

w.

-----------------
th4 very 'Quanta 'concept
does not allow that fucken idea
of zero point volume
for the electron

Even the single photon is not
the mathematical point
you cam assume a very little volume but never zero

not to mention that the electron is
SUB COMPOSED by more basic sub composers that are still unknown!!!

Old Catto said

NO VOLUME - NONEXISTANT
AND NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

physics is not just mathematics !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

You don't know what you're talking about. Uncertainty in *position*
does not mean nonzero volume.

You have no evidence for that. You can *guess* that if you like, but
there's not a stick of evidence for it. That would be the point.

Unless result is independent on condition.
Zero electron volume would mean infinity mass and energy density.
Absence of observed internal structure ( in opposite to nucleons )
does not mean zero volume.

--
Poutnik

MR PD
you insist on sticking to yo0ur mathematics world

youstill ddint learn that no physical entity
can be without some vilume
and without some mass!!
may be you wilollearn it the next 200 years of your life
there are some more intelligent people than you
that dont need 200 years in order to learn someting new

i peoved that even the tiniest photon MAS MASS
THE ONLY MASS
and there is no particle witout mass/volume
it must exist SOMEWHERE AND SOMEWHERE IS --- VOLUME!
if there is no volume you have not one of the MKS
dimensions and you have NO PHYSICS !
you have just f.... mathematics .
>
>--------------------------

-------------
we have circumstantial evidence for it !!
for thinking people
------------------

----------------
if energy mas mass -particle
and the electron can absorbe and emmit energy
'without noticing a cahnge in its mass
it means that our tools are not fine enough
to notice it
2
i showed in my model that
all particles of the periodic table
are composed of mass units that are
the electron positron mass
so particles** and binding energies** are composed
of smaller units
(take again my book tha tis in your possession and start
learning it that will be the best investmement
you even did in your life
beside the better 'easier life '' investment you like to do -- in
personal politics ....)
----------------------------------------------

-------------------
well said !!
just teach PD to start ** thinking**

thinking is as well to ability and basic tallent
to collect *** facts**--
from different directions and combine them to some
NEW INSIGHTS ND UNDERSTANDINGS !!

if PD is a teacher
th e above is one of the first things
he should teach his students
(beside of course in addition to what he is
really good with
ie
to stick to experimental facts and be careful with
jumping to conclusions
there is no advance without the
TRIAL AND ERROR SYSTEM ...
------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

and not jsut parroting !!!

Nor is what I'm talking about.

Nonsense. That statement is just flat wrong.

You deal with electrons 'as if they were points'
to do the math- but everyone knows they
are not points.

No such thing as smallest, because smaller is smaller.

john

No, I don't, John, and I've described to you already the difference
between electrons and mathematical points. It was YOU, John, that if
you say something has zero volume, then none of the other physical
properties don't matter, and it becomes a mathematical point and
nothing more. But that was YOU, not me.

john

John, when are you going to learn to not say definite things about
nature that you can't be sure are true until they are tested with
experiment?

If I describe a block of wood on my desk that
has all its dimensions = 0, I can say that its
volume = 0, and its existence = 0, even if I
say its colour is white.

I can also say, equivalently, that there is no
block of wood on my desk and, if I continue to
insist that its colour is white, I will deserve to
be advised that I might benefit from some kind
of therapy :) :)

Alen

Alen
==================================
Nevertheless its permeability is frostier than aether
and its permittivity allows you to park it in a residential
zone.

Electrons _have_ weight.

Han de Bruijn

You can, but if you do, you'll be classed as a loon. The foolishness
is the conclusion drawn that it doesn't exist.

------------------
dont you know that PD is parrot ??
a f ...mathematician not a physicist
you cant measure a physical zero point !!
a point is a mathematical concept not a physical one
please remember
we ar enot dealind withthe
electron orbital

but now we are dealing with the electron mass itself
any mass must have a volume
anyone who does not understand it
is an imbecile crook !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

------------------
(:-)
liberte fraternite egalite !!

Y.P
-----------------------

lol - I think one should be careful about discussing
its properties in public, since doing so might qualify
a person for a visit by people in white coats.

Alen

--------------------
ant physical entity that can be measured ---
has mass

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
NO REAL PHYSICS !!

AND HAVING MASS
is potentially having wight ----
---if found in a gravitational field
--OF ANOTHER MASS

even gravitation is one of the properties of mass !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------

Not so. A mathematical point does not have electric charge. It is not
physical.
An electron does have electric charge, even though it there is no
evidence of volume. An electron is quite physical.

What makes you think that it is a UNIVERSAL law that "any mass MUST
have volume"?
Volume doesn't come from mass. It comes from the interactions between
constituents. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mass.

Alen
====================================
They are judo enthusiasts, issue the black belts with a gun
and a license to shoot anything with a stupidity greater than
500 milliunclebengreens. Draper has an impressive rack, its
at least 900 milliunclebengreens and would make a terrific
trophy (or atrophy).

"c = 1 and unitless in natural units." -- Draper

"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant" -- Draper

"It turns out that you can verify curvature of a space without
ever stepping away from the space to see it embedded in a
higher dimension." -- Draper

"Requests for *proof* will be routinely ignored in science because
theories are not proven in science."-- Draper

"A pulse is not DC electricity. Idiot. Bloody-faced idiot.
Self-flagellating, bloody-faced idiot." -- Draper

I'm waiting until this list includes statements like
"2 + 3 = 5" -- Draper

===================================
Requests for *hard sums* will be routinely ignored in usenet because
hard sums are not given in usenet.
Idiot. Bloody-beaked idiot. Self-flagellating, bloody-beaked idiot.

Better said its volume is smaller than given value that can be measured.

--
Poutnik

Not sure I want to imply something we don't know.

quote
''mass. It comes from the interactions between
*** constituents.*** '
end of quote
-------------
constituents is a WORD ..

what **physically* does
'constituents '' - means for you beside a word
(we are not in a literature NG )
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

you said above

------------------
well said !!
yet still we have other ways
to make circumstantial collestion
of physical facts

Y.P
------------------

What basic physics understanding has led you to believe that mass has
anything to do with volume?

Yes, I gather you don't know what it means and you're asking me to
define it for you. Can you not Google "definition constituent"?

A composite is something that is made up of other things. The other
things are the constituents of the composite. For example, a carbon
dioxide molecule is a composite, and carbon and oxygen atoms are the
constituents. An atom is a composite, and protons, neutrons, and
electrons are the constituents. (Notice that the volume of the atom is
determined by the interaction between its constituents and has nothing
to do with its mass. Nor does the volume of the atom have anything to
do with the volume of the constituents.) The proton is a composite,
and up and down quarks are its constituents.

Hm, neither you semm to have any volume,
if I watch you from 5 km distance. :-)
I would like to say you have one, but I cannot know.

Reasons to say an electron has no volume
are much more obscure than reasons to say an electron has one.

--
Poutnik

I did not give reasons for electrons to have no volume.
What we know is that
- volume is a property of composites, but we do not know that it is a
property of noncomposites
- volume comes from the interactions of the constituents of a
composite, and this may not much to do with other properties of the
composite
- electrons do not have any observed structure
- electrons do not have any observed volume

The danger is in unwarranted extrapolation.

>
> --
> Poutnik

So, unless we are able to observe structure,
bodies have no volume.

What would be estimation of no volume
based on not observed internal structure.

--
Poutnik

Unless we are able to measure structure or radius, bodies do not have
a *presumed* volume anyway.

"Everyone knows"? Good authority there.

What's smaller than zero? Oh yes, negative numbers. Now explain
a negative size to me.

But this we do know. It is principal experimental obstacle.
How would you set up an experiment to determine an electron size ?

--
Poutnik

The same way Rutherford did it to determine the nuclear size (elastic
scattering) and the way that Friedmann et al. did it to determine
proton structure (deep inelastic scattering). But with electrons,
rather than with protons or nuclei. And in fact a number of these
measurements have been done at electron-positron machines (SLAC, LEP).

Primer: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/scatele.html

Since "weight" is a purely gravitational effect, would it not be better
to say that protons, neutrons and even electrons have MASS?

But all this is about the structure helps to determine size,
not that structure gives the size.

--
Poutnik

--
Poutnik

Or, can be said gravitational mass and inertial mass,
that are proven to be equivalent.

--
Poutnik

--------------------
fucken imbecile!!

did you ever hear about the concept
QUANTUM ??!!

do you understand that meaning of that
**physical** concept ?

or you will remain a fucken mathematician
that is calling himself a 'physicist'

or you are going to remain a fucken crook
nasty shameless gangster (and a thief as well ??

Y.P
--------------------------------

You are the one bringing up negative size.

You are still confusing math and reality.

john

the understanding that you are not a physicsit
but a mathematician !!
how do you imagine a physical (again physidal)
enerity
without having volume
IOW
occupying some place / location in space ??

ddi it ever occurred to you how physical entities are located and
detected ??
it is done by collission of some physical detection entity
with your physical object
right ?
so
how can a physical entity collide with something that has no volume ??

did you understood my profs (a few of them not just one ) that
for instance
ENERGY HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS ??!
or you are going to stay a blockhead crook
to the rest of your life ??

(it semms to me that folowing that your head full
of abstract philosophy
you lost completely your PRACTICAL(physics) SENSE !!
------------------------------------

> ----------------
we are not dealing with Carbon
WE ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING MUCH MORE BASIC !!
it is** not** witches on brooms

it is something tangible - that way or another -
by our senses
we have no other way but at he' end of the day'
use our senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing etc )
but by physical entities

zero volume cannot be- by definition - tangible
by anything !!
it is exactly like nonexistent
someting that does not use at the end of the day
(the end of the 'chain'') --
our physical senses is
METAPHYSICS -- NOT PHYSICS
so
we can say about a basic physical entity
what is it!
and not least-
wHat is it NOT !!
---
PD just wake up !! and be a bit more honest with yourself
and with others
without personal politics or considerations

----------------------
Y.P
--------------------------------

----------------
right !!

Y.P
---------------------

--------------------
(:-) !!

Y.P
-----------------------

A good physicist is both .. they need to be.

Something doesn't need a volume to have location.

How it interacts with other object .. not that it matters that much
how it is deteted .. that doesn't affect whether it exists or not

Doesn't need to be collisions .. no.

Very easily .. if the entity passes through the point where the object
with no volum exists, it has collided with it.

You've never proved that

We'll leave that to you .. not that there is much 'rest of your life'
for you.

You just described yourself again

[snip]

And if its not composite .. why can't it have zero volume? That's
assuming you can define what you mean by 'volume'

So you can sense individual electrons? My goodness.

There is nothing in the definition of zero volume that says
intangible. If you think there is .. please provide that definition.

No .. it just doesn't occupy a volume. That doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

You should talk .. like most of the crackpots here, you live by
dishonesty.

Its all about personal politics and considerations with you .. its all
about you, in your declining years, feeling dis-satisfied with your
life and wanting to leave some sort of legacy. Noble intents, but the
way you go about it .. hoping that if you write nonsense that is
different to accepted physics that it means you have contributed
something to science .. and throwing insults at everyone who points
out the flaws in what you are saying .. is going about it all wrong.

Not in direct contact, no. Even for the coffee cup sitting on your
table, there are no electrons touching each other, no protons touching
each other. They are balanced in suspension from each other at a
distance determined by the electromagnetic field between them.

Look at Rutherford scattering. The alpha particles colliding with the
gold nuclei never touched the gold nuclei!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html

That's simply not true. Things on the microscopic scale do not have
boundaries, hard surfaces enclosing volumes, like lemons and leaves do
in our macroscopic world.

---------------------
you are mixing particles
with their orbitals
as if you would not make the difference between our earth
and its orbit around the sun
yet even so
our earth has volome and mass
its orbit ccopies of course a much bigger volume
while not existing at a certain time
in oll its orbit points

2
filed of force and energy
HAS MASS
if you dint klearn it
go dis cuss with someone else
not with me
(for instance go discuss with PD
for the rest of your life )

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

--------------------
how many false anonymous names you have
piggy ??
and you talk tome about honesty???
nasty imbecile moron idiot crook !!
a pig is more honest and cleaver than you

Y.P
--------------

--------------------
John
do you still delude yourself that you can
teach anything basic in physics
to those imbecile **blockheads**
shameless crooks ??!!

Y.P
----------------------------

No, I'm not. I just referred you to Rutherford scattering between
alpha particles and gold nuclei. Orbitals have nothing to do with
that.

Interacting particles DO NOT TOUCH.

The world is about interactions BETWEEN objects.
An object that doesn't interact does not exist.
Physics has focused on single objects & separated out the interaction
as fields, forces, etc - all math fictions to avoid talking about TWO
things at once.
Once this is done then nonsense such as the isolated 'particle' (or
point-particle), self-interactions, electron models, etc starts
surfacing.
If you look at interactions BETWEEN objects then only spatial
separations become important and a minimum distance makes sense.
Time to return to physics first before attempting descriptions with
math.
NEVER start doing physics by hypothesizing with math.

No, I am responding to your claim "No such thing as smallest, because
smaller is smaller.", with the specific case of what is smaller than
(exactly) 0.

So answer this: If (exactly) 0.0 isn't the smallest, what is smaller?

I'll leave it up to you whether you involve negative numbers, but
if you do, describe how that is possible.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.

---------------------------------
i am tired of being my best to bepolite with you:

as long as you will not understand that
ENERGY OR FIELDS HAS MASS -
the only mass !! ----

---you will remain an idiot as you was before !!

sorry the rudeness but there is no other way
to deal with blockheads that are as well dishonest
(i cant believe that you are that extent stupid
may be emotional problems may be personal nasty politcs
only God knows )

indeed i did a revolution in physics
even it was simple to do that revolution
(surprisingly stunning simple )
simple after many years of struggle with idiots that call
**themselves** intelligent physicists

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------

> > if you dint learn it

None of my anonymous names is 'false'. And 'piggy' is not one of
them.

Yes .. you are blatantly dishonest. You deliberately lie and cheat ..
it is all recorded on google.

And you attempt to be offensive .. it just makes you look stupid.

No .. you're not

And I note that you are completely incapable of addressing the points
of physics and logic I raised. But that was to be expected.

You are such a hypocrite. As if you even try to be polite and civil.
And you have the gall to call others stupid and dishonest, when your
stupidity and dishonesty is recorded on google for all posterity.
What shame you must be bringing to your family name.

-----------------
''point of physics ''

Ehh ??
little shameless psycopath
hired gangster subhuman dreck
go discuss with PD not with me
you are not a partner to discuss with me
not even about 1 +1 = 2

BYE little derck !!

Next !!
Y.P
--------------------------

-----------------------
Mr rsterspace
1
what is your real name
why do you hide behind an anonymous name?
any reason for it ??

2
please fo;ow the discussion between me and PD

he claims that the electron has no volume
do you agree with that ??
he brought for that the last post the argument of
Rutherford scattering
that experiment from the beginning of century showed that most of the
Atom volune is empty !!

SO ???!

does it mean that the electron has no volume ??

PD & fucken Co
claime following that experiment that the
electron has zero volume !!!
......
those fuckers that know nothing about the real structure of matter
think that an electron in the metal mesh should ocupy allthe volume
between nuc and anothe neighboring nuc
expecially if there are doxens of electrons there ordered in 'layers
''
that is morons model
they dont know that most of volume
between Nuc - Nuc is empty because the electrons orbitals are not
'';smered'' and fill all that volume but rather very directed to
specific directions and leaving most of the space
EMPTY
(it is known as well metat lattice science
even from chemistry )

a zero volume electron can create orbitals ?
from what should it create orbitals ??
FROM ITS ZERO VOLUME ??

is there no limit to stupidity
impertinence and crookedness
and personal -ego / politics -- pig behavior ??!

see my model

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

------------------
well said
(any relation to the Great Maxwell ?)

and now your bottom line:
(see the op post )

Does the electron has zero volume ?
or not

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------

what do reasonable stringtheory models derive?

-------------------

??????
Y.P
-----------------

SO ???!

see my model

hanson wrote:
Yehi, just so that you don't bug me with asking again.
I am with you: The electron has volume. It's small:
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
with a radius of: r_e = m_e * G/c^2 ..... =~ 6E-56 cm,
cuz it has Poratic mass, REAL MASS, the only mass.

The only connection is that Maxwell's work has been the focal point
for my own study for about 30 years. He was the logical successor to
Newton but the failure of his aether model sent physics off into the
swamps of phenomenology & field theory, which I am trying o reverse.

stupidity. as if cold is an energy that you can accumulate.
You do not add cold to things. You do not get colder and colder by
increasing the cold.
Heat is energy and it gets cold by removing the heat until there is
ZERO heat.
Yes there can be no heat, absolute zero heat.
Or if you have 24 quarts of blood, and you bleed 20 quarts youre not
at 4 quarts
but you are 20 short. So i ask when you get to being short 24 quarts
does that mean youre drained dry at 0 quarts, or does your body go
further
having been drained 30 quarts and 80 quarts and 90 quarts and 2000
quarts of blood.
Yes i bled to death i lost 2000 quarts of blood.
Thats the sense you do not make at all. Its like the damn college
books that are teaching
that electricity flows the opposite direction because it is the HOLES
that are flowing,
the absent spaces while the electrons are in flow. BUT there are no
absent spaces, because the voltage pull
is pulling the next electron forward to the space where the one before
it has been pulled, and so the electrons
are actually passed from gravity pull to gravity pull as in between
Earth and moon.
Stupid people think their is no gravity between earth and moon, and
they think you can be
between them with no gravity like an electron between atoms, too
stupid to know you are
pulled by both gravities as you pass from one to the other, and this
is why Jupiter has effect
on ALL planets, all gravities of all things are entwined. It is the
crap these people fabricate
that destroys seeing what's real.
May i reiterate the positive negative of electricity versus
magnetismic voltage (electromagnetic field).
The positive charge of a battery pole, or positive HOT wire is not an
accumulation of positive protons to make it positive, nor is it a lack
of many electrons to make it positive. It is POSITIVE not in magnetic
charge BUT in NUMERIC VALUE as in accumulation.
In other words the more electrons you have, the higher the numeric
number of electrons are, is of how strong the negative charge is.
You do not say this physical matter has -2 billion electrons, you say
it has 2 billion electrons.
You dont use a negative number, its a positive number, but the higher
that number is then the higher the negative charge is.
Math and charge are opposite, their is no contradiction. BUT comparing
vacant atoms with lacking electrons as being HOLES traveling the
opposite direction is like religious bullshit. Its twistedly sick to
even publish it and sell these stinking sucking books to the colleges.
I had to pay for the damn book. TRASH. And so is your idea of letting
the COLD energy in to accumulate colder and colder so that there is
not ZERO HEAT.
No wonder you cant see how Armageddon HAPPENS. And truth is, that my
being an Einstein doesnt motivate me to leave Hitler and give my
knowledge to you Fd up americans. It inspires me to disown my american
birth to think i was raised by twits and among twits.

garbage in, garbage out

who said mass is a constant?

john

>garbage in, garbage out

You finally shared your word salad recipe!

--------------
Thank you my friend Hanson
and thanks Gog that there are still a few
honest cleaver sane people that understand the basics of physics
sensibly

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------

but, Klein's amendation was not necessary;
it was only sufficent, because he said it!

however, your theory, on your website,
seems hoeplessly schematic, because you haven't described any
of its properties that would be effective in a)
testing it, and b)
even being able to read it, firstly.

Ha-ha is just egging you on,
without any investment in your oddball model.

-------------------
the electron is not a point particle
not because of what Klien or Kaluza
or what ever said
IT IS A MATTER OF UNDERSTANDING BASIC PHYSICS OR NOT !!
not string or any fucken theory

it is the a b c of physics !!!

physics is not mathematics

mathematics can be only a server of
physics understanding

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------

And there is no understanding without mathematics.
I would say this all is a kind of misunderstanding.

Electron is not a point particle.

By marking as point particle is meant
it behaves as *if it was* point particle.

Meaning of that is
within experiments or quantum calculations
is not needed to consider its volume.

Anyway, in particle physics the volume does not have much sense,
it is just a particular interpretation of wavew function.

Even if electron positron colissions are considered,
what particular energy based cross-section value
is related to electron volume ?

And, understanding physics has no relation
to understanding the human manners.

--
Poutnik

Anything you have ever written about others
says more about you than about them.

I am afraid you real life must be pathetic,
otherwise you would have
no time nor energy nor intension to do this.

Poutnik

----------------
i said !
idiot !!!!

Y.P
------------------------

-----------------------
tet a fucken mathematician
is not good anough for being a real physicist
YOU HAVE TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND FIST THE BASICS OF PHYSICS !!
physics ddint started by mathematics
mathematics was only a tool
later that tool and crooks using it -overcame on its masters
of physics

Y.Porat
---------------------------

you contradict yourself !!

first you say that no understanding without mathematics
2
mathematics say
'the electron is a point particle
and then you say
th eelectron is not a point particle!!

where from you took your understanding that

FROM YOUR MATHEMATICS UNDERSTANDING''

OF FROM YOUR** PHYSICS** UNDERSTANDINGS !!??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------