by that argument, there would be no such thing as a fundamental particle, since everything would be infinitely divisible.

Originally posted by fafalone

It would only effect the theories in it was a common natural state, not a state inducible only by vast improvments in particle accelerators to apply them.

 

I'm open to being proved wrong on this, but you'll have to show me some mathematical proof.

This is the negation of your original statement faf, you do realise that?

No, it's not. My original statement merely stated electrons could be split; I never said this occured naturally any any signficant frequence.

 

 

And something I think people are overlooking is this.

 

The radius of an electron is 2.8x10^-15m

Therefore half an electron would have a radius of ^-30

Both of these are below a Planck length, where classical laws don't apply and quantum laws dominate, 1.6x10^-35m

I'm not arguing about whether they can or can't be split, I don't know. I'm saying that your deduction was incorrect.

why?

you said:

 

 

Electrons have mass and volume, therefore can be split.

 

 

implying that, purely because they have mass and volume, and for no other reason, they can be split. granted one could imagine half an electron, with half the mass and occupying half the volume, but it doens't have to exist.

but why is that logic flawed since it would certainly be a huge exception to physical laws if that was the case.

are you saying you know all the physical laws? just over a hundred years ago we though we knew almost everything, then QM came along and destroyed that impression of almost total knowledge.

I'm saying under our current set of physical laws my logic is correct.

the point I made had nothing to do with physical laws though.

Since their aren't any known exception to the current laws, including electrons, my initial statement was correct.

Bear in mind that space and time are quantised in Planck Units.

 

MrL

Which leads me to wonder how exactly quantum mechanics theories would break down if an object larger than a Planck length could be broken into two objects still larger than a Planck length.

Originally posted by fafalone

Which leads me to wonder how exactly quantum mechanics theories would break down if an object larger than a Planck length could be broken into two objects still larger than a Planck length.

 

Only if both are integral; also, bear in mind that an electron has not been proven to have 'volume' as such.

Here we go again =/ An electron has mass and density, but no volume then?

Originally posted by fafalone

Here we go again =/ An electron has mass and density, but no volume then?

 

The question is, can it be empirically said to have volume when all we can ever detect is a quantum haze?

Until our technology is advanced enough to indicate otherwise, yes. It is not there yet.

where did this density come from? the only electron density I have ever heard of is the electron density in materials, which is the number of electrons in a volume.

Well if it has mass this mass is distrubted over a certain area, which is density.

Originally posted by fafalone

Well if it has mass this mass is distrubted over a certain area, which is density.

 

The volume's infinite though.

 

And under current knowledge, it will be impossible to determine whether or not the electron has volume.

I'm still waiting for someone to mathematically illustrate how massive objects cannot have volume...

 

When proof is demanded, simply saying something is true is worthless without backing it up.

Originally posted by fafalone

I'm still waiting for someone to mathematically illustrate how massive objects cannot have volume...

 

When proof is demanded, simply saying something is true is worthless without backing it up.

 

How can massive objects have indeterminant location?

 

And if mass is due to the higgs boson, who knows what the consequences are.

Originally posted by fafalone

I'm still waiting for someone to mathematically illustrate how massive objects cannot have volume...

 

your conjecture seems to imply that all particles are infinitely divisible, which would more than likely result in a far larger range of particles than we have now, and quite possibly no indication of any particle being fundamental.

Add to that conserving lepton/hadron number, spin, charge, and the like and you're in a pretty pickle.

I believe that particles below a Planck length will not have a structure that can support mass, however please stop arguing and start proving how a particle whose divisions would be above a Planck length could have no volume.