Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Author Share Posted January 26, 2003 by that argument, there would be no such thing as a fundamental particle, since everything would be infinitely divisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Author Share Posted January 26, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Author Share Posted January 26, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 but why is that logic flawed since it would certainly be a huge exception to physical laws if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Author Share Posted January 26, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 I'm saying under our current set of physical laws my logic is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2003 Author Share Posted January 26, 2003 the point I made had nothing to do with physical laws though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 Since their aren't any known exception to the current laws, including electrons, my initial statement was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Bear in mind that space and time are quantised in Planck Units. MrL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Here we go again =/ An electron has mass and density, but no volume then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Until our technology is advanced enough to indicate otherwise, yes. It is not there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 27, 2003 Author Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Well if it has mass this mass is distrubted over a certain area, which is density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 27, 2003 Author Share Posted January 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Add to that conserving lepton/hadron number, spin, charge, and the like and you're in a pretty pickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now