Radical Edward Posted January 28, 2003 Author Share Posted January 28, 2003 by saying it has divisions above a planck length already implies it has volume... so that's like saying 'how can something with volume not have volume' The issue here is, is the thing even divisible at all (assuming it has volume) and if so, as MrL rightly pointed out, how would the division of a given 'fundamental' particle be reconciled with the fact that certain numbers, such as the lepton number, must be conserved in all interactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I guess no one really has the knowledge to work through problems involving this. The question should rather be, what makes an electron, not even on the quantum size scale, be any different from any other particle? Just saying "well it is" is bogus, please back up your flawed logic. I don't know why you're refusing to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I guess no one really has the knowledge to work through problems involving this. The question should rather be, what makes an electron, not even on the quantum size scale, be any different from any other particle? Just saying "well it is" is bogus, please back up your flawed logic. I don't know why you're refusing to do this. There are other particles that are believed to be fundamental you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 And you probably can't mathematically illustrate why any of them shouldn't be able to be divided either (among the ones with mass, ex. photon is one and has no mass) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 would you care to explain how you go about conserving the lepton number if you split an electron then? or any other of the myriad of quantum numbers which have to be conserved and integer .... there is even less evidence for having half a lepton (by lepton number), than there is half an electron by mass/volume (the latter of which I still haven't seen any evidence for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Once again, since it's exceedingly unlikely this happens in nature on its own, lepton conservation should not be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 Given the fundamental nature of an integer lepton number, I think it is pretty central to the issue actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I don't think so. How quaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 you don't have to think so, however it is a fact that many of the quantum numbers are far more fundamental when considering these particles than the classical concept of volume. without a full rule set, you can't even say whether volume is actually relevant at all, especially as there is no indication that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 There is equally no indication that it isn't. And you have to consider classical volume as electrons are larger than a quantum length. This entire thread is a whole lot of narrative and not a whole lot of people showing why "laws" (if you can really call them that, because last time i checked we weren't completely 100% sure of anything related to this topic, especially in quantum mechanics) would be invalid if in an artificial environment managed to split an electron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 As I said before, can volume be said to have any meaning when the particle is delocalised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone And you have to consider classical volume as electrons are larger than a quantum length. There's no such thing as a 'quantum length'. There's the Planck length, which is about lower bounds on observability. But quantum phenomena apply to EVERYTHING. (See the de Broglie wavelength equation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Quantum length is another name for Planck length. Furthermore, while quantum effect affect everything, the influence of classical effects does not completely disappear until this length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 what's an artificial environment though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward what's an artificial environment though? A made up one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Quantum length is another name for Planck length. Furthermore, while quantum effect affect everything, the influence of classical effects does not completely disappear until this length. Well, the influence of everything disappears at this length. And you still haven't told me what volume means when any observable instance of the particle is spread over an infinite space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 An environment designed to contain a very high number of electrons as to increase the liklihood of collisions despite repulsion forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri And you still haven't told me what volume means when any observable instance of the particle is spread over an infinite space. Then how is mass an accepted property? The primary influence of an electron is localised to the immediate vicinity of the atom, or else how would bonding occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Then how is mass an accepted property? The primary influence of an electron is localised to the immediate vicinity of the atom, or else how would bonding occur. 1. Mass is an accepted property because it is not affected by quantum theory, only by spec rel. 2. The standard orbital diagrams show 99% probability. 3. And to answer the earlier point about electrons colliding, borrowing this handy link from RadicalEdward (http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/nature_subatomic_particles.htm - which also talks about electronic volume), we find that the energy required to force 2 electrons to touch is about 2.5 x 10^15 J, which is the equivalent of a 1 megaton device, or thereabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 1) Yup. 2) Exactly, an atom's electron isn't infinitely spread out. 3) Ok, and you're saying we'll *never* be able to generate this much force on electrons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone 1) Yup. 2) Exactly, an atom's electron isn't infinitely spread out. 3) Ok, and you're saying we'll *never* be able to generate this much force on electrons? 1. Whereas volume is a property governed by Heisenberg. 2. That's not what I said. If you want a probability of 100% of finding the electron within a fixed volume, then the volume you're looking at is infinite. The electron density is asymptotic with 0. 3. I'm not talking about never, I'm merely stating that even if there is a small volume in existance, the force exerted by the electronic charge is so much greater in radius of action that the probablity of getting an electron with that much energy is nigh on 0; I can't be bothered to calculate the amount of energy required to have a decent chance of having an electron with that energy (Boltzmann distribution), but it's going to be unbelieveably, and some may say inconceivably, immense. So large we don't know what other effects may be taking place. (Note to self: might special relativity have some effect on the energy outcome. Must check.) ps. Read the site for further arguement against the electrons-have-classical-volume argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I'm going to take a break from debating that to work through some equations from that page and from relativity/QM in general, then discuss things in my physics class tomorrow, then I'll get back to this debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 You three still aruging over this =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Adam You three still aruging over this =/ They even split it to the right forum. 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