Tom Roberts wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
[about electrons as point particles]
Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Only an idiot would 'actually' think he could make sensible statements
about physics while remaining willfully ignorant of the last 100 years
of physics.

Jul 12 2001, 10:51 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:40:16 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jul 12 2001 10:40 am
Subject: Light

Laura Mendocino wrote:
Also isn't a photon round or spherical? How could something which is a
sphere not have any mass at all? Maybe it's got a tinsie bit.
---------------------

It does not make sense to ask "what shape is a photon?". A photon is
a quantum object, and "shape" is not one of its attributes. Photons
_ACT_
as if they were pointlike objects whose position and momentum are not
precisely known, but that is really just a model....

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


In particular, modern physics (QED and the standard model) models
electrons exceedingly well as point particles. No measurements made to
date are inconsistent with that.

One can indeed calculate the mean free path of these pointlike electrons
in matter, and the results are definitely not "inifinite", and are
consistent with measurements. The mean free path of electrons in matter
depends strongly on their energy (in the rest frame of the matter in
question). Electrons are well known to lose energy while traversing
matter, and to multiple scatter; with sufficient energy they generate
electromagnetic showers.

There are numerous other particles we currently model as pointlike
particles (quarks, gluons, leptons, Higgs). None have infinite mean-free
path in matter, because they all couple to at least one field. Neutrinos
come closest to his guess above, and neutrinos have a mean free path in
rock of about a lightyear (!) -- still not infinite, and observed by
MANY experiments.


Tom Roberts

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:55:59 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote
:
[about electrons as point particles]

Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Only an idiot would 'actually' think he could make sensible
statements about physics while remaining willfully ignorant
of the last 100 years of physics.

Yet, somehow, I fooled all of Rickover's Navy...

Do not confuse ignorance with not buying the modern metaphysical
explanations or interpretations for not accepting experimental
observation and basic mathematic correlations...

In particular, modern physics (QED and the standard model)
models electrons exceedingly well as point particles.

Key phrase, 'models'! On what basis does it 'model'?

No measurements made to date are inconsistent with that.

What measurements, scattering?

One can indeed calculate the mean free path of these pointlike
electrons in matter, and the results are definitely not
"inifinite",

Perhaps you'd like to show how one can get an interaction
between two 'true' point particles.... Extended 'fields'
are part of the electron particle so you'll have to count
it out, or, you ain't dealin' with a point, are you?

... and are consistent with measurements. The mean free path
of electrons in matter depends strongly on their energy (in
the rest frame of the matter in question).

Field interactions again, and those ain't points...

Electrons are well known to lose energy while traversing
matter, and to multiple scatter; with sufficient energy
they generate electromagnetic showers.

It's called Cerenkov & Bremsstrahlung radiation nitwit! And
it ain't due to point to point interactions...

There are numerous other particles we currently model as
pointlike particles (quarks, gluons, leptons, Higgs).

So what? That was not what is at issue. 'Pointlike' is
not synonymous to a 'real' point (without volume). There's
that thar idealized abstraction again!

None have infinite mean-free path in matter, because they
all couple to at least one field.

Right, that's the point (pun intended!)! Their 'field'
is integral to the 'particle', and they ain't points, far
from it!

Perhaps you'd like to show us the mathematics for simple
'point' particles (those that do not have definable fields,
like a neutrino you mention below) that can interact with
other like 'point' particles and how to calculate the
interaction mean free path between interactions for such!

Neutrinos come closest to his guess above, and neutrinos
have a mean free path in rock of about a lightyear (!)

Lead, not rock...

-- still not infinite, and observed by MANY experiments.

And they ain't zero volume points... Thus the circle
closes,

"There exists in nature no points without volume,
lines without thickness, nor infinities in field
properties. ..."

Paul Stowe

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...



I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
Apply at the White House. They really need people that
can keep secrets. )
Did YOU have anything to say?

Yeah. I don't necessarily agree with this. Do you ?
Since impedance is fixed 377 ohms, the electromagnetic
force is gravity times the root of the number of similar charges
in the universe, predicting Coulomb's law (see EW, April 2003
diagrams for EM force cause). Repulsion occurs due to the recoils
from continuous energy exchange (and thus momentum p=E/c
exchange) between similar charges since their spin implies
centripetal acceleration a = v2/r and accelerating charges in a
radio aerial radiate energy, there is no wiggle (no frequency) for
continuous radiation from continuously spinning charges; attraction
occurs because opposite charges block energy exchange between
each other, and are thus pushed together by the energy they continue
to receive from outside.


Coulomb's law for hydrogen atom (force between proton and electron):
F = mMGN1/2/r2 while the force between two electrons is higher by the
factor M (proton) / m (electron), although the force between two
protons
is lower by the same ratio. Thus the ratio of proton to electron
masses,
M/m = 4peM2GN1/2/q2 where e is permittivity and q is charge. Hence
the mass of electron is m = q2/(4peM2GN1/2) while mass of proton is
M = q2/(4pem2GN1/2). Since (from Result 5) Coulomb's force law
divided by Newton's gravity is
N1/2 = [e2/(4per2)] / [mMG/r2] = e2 m c2/(4pmMG) = 2.26924x1039,
the predicted masses of electron and proton are respectively
9.11 x 10-31 and 1.67 x 10-27 kg, and N = 5.15x1078.
Measured masses are for the electron 9.10956 x 10-31 and for the proton

1.672614 x 10-27 kg, other major predictions are the Hubble constant H
and the density of the universe locally:
H = 16p 2Gme2mprotonc3 e 2/(qe4e2.7...3) =
2.3391 x 10-18 s-1 or 72.2 km.s-1Mpc-1, so 1/H = t = 13.55 Gyr.

r = 192p 3Gme4mproton2c6 e 4/(qe8e2.7...9) = 9.7455 x 10-28 kg/m3.

Caution... pop-up mine field
http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/

Ivor Catt and Nigel Cook seem to have some notion of how to relate
G to 377 ohms but they only flirt with induced dipoles and London
Forces. Their reliance on BB conjectures and mass of the universe
*probably * results in what is merely circular restatement of the
original conjuctures.

Gibbon's approach seems better:
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue...


Androcles.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Paul Stowe wrote:
[about electrons as point particles]
Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Only an idiot would 'actually' think he could make sensible statements
about physics while remaining willfully ignorant of the last 100 years of
physics.

Roberts is such of that class of idiot. Here is one of his so-called
"sensible"
statements.

"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes



Androcles

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...



I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
Apply at the White House. They really need people that
can keep secrets. )
Did YOU have anything to say?

Yeah. I don't necessarily agree with this. Do you ?

I don't agree with anything you say out of necessity.
I may or may not agree based on the validity of what you say.
Applying at the White House would be stupid of me, so
I do not agree with you.


Since impedance is fixed 377 ohms,

I don't agree with that either. Impedance is a function of
frequency and frequencies are not fixed. The lowest
frequency is zero, EM frequencies range enormously and
are Doppler shifted. I suggest a course in basics given by
a radio engineer, not a half-witted physicist. This one is quite good:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.com.../impedance.htm
Then there is
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...impcom.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../phase.html#c2
although I know imaginary numbers are beyond your ken, and
I suspect beyond your sue as well.
Please don't make further attempts at seriousity, frivolity suits you
much better. Give us funny cartoons, not funny attempts at
proving funny aether.

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...



I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
Apply at the White House. They really need people that
can keep secrets. )
Did YOU have anything to say?

Yeah. I don't necessarily agree with this. Do you ?

I don't agree with anything you say out of necessity.
I may or may not agree based on the validity of what you say.
Applying at the White House would be stupid of me, so
I do not agree with you.


Since impedance is fixed 377 ohms,

I don't agree with that either. Impedance is a function of
frequency

Don't mess with your televison connection.
Call a expert.

Sue...

and frequencies are not fixed. The lowest
frequency is zero, EM frequencies range enormously and
are Doppler shifted. I suggest a course in basics given by
a radio engineer, not a half-witted physicist. This one is quite good:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.com.../impedance.htm
Then there is
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...impcom.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../phase.html#c2
although I know imaginary numbers are beyond your ken, and
I suspect beyond your sue as well.
Please don't make further attempts at seriousity, frivolity suits you
much better. Give us funny cartoons, not funny attempts at
proving funny aether.

Androcles.

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:17:27 GMT, Paul Stowe
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:05:19 -0700, David Smith wrote:
|
| Dear Paul Stowe:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| ...
|
|...
|
| Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
| point without volume,
|
| electrons.
|
| Nope
|
| For the more objective, rational reader out there...
|
| http://www.energyscience.org.uk/notes/rn9709.htm
| http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00061.htm
|
| Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
| zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
| particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
| because zero volume particles result in zero area
| cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Another way to put it...

"...we have allowed what is perhaps a silly thing, the
possibility of the 'point' electron acting on itself."
-- Richard P. Feynman (1964)

Indeed! Feynman was not an idiot...

"Particles Come to Life"
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1

So we have the conundrum of HEP showing that they have not be
able to find any *internal* "structure" for an electron.

At isssue is 'how' they attempt to 'find' such structure.
In particular, scattering...

Solution... the structure of an electron is external and is
due to the quantum "vacuum"

Agreed, the 'structure is a fluidic formation that responses
as a perfect elastic body. Such bodies do not have discernable
internal structure. To have that on must have a non-elastic
(rigid) body with some physical extent.

and relativistic effects. Higher energies will always just
result in a more point-like internal structure.

As mentioned above any body with perfect elastic and no
surface friction will scatter like as a pointlike entity.
That doesn't make it so...

Lower energies reveal the external structure.

Do you mean field interactive effects?

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| news | | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:17:27 GMT, Paul Stowe

| wrote:
| |
| |On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:05:19 -0700, David Smith wrote:
| |
| | Dear Paul Stowe:
| |
| | "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| |...
| |
| | Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
| | point without volume,
| |
| | electrons.
| |
| | Nope
| |
| | For the more objective, rational reader out there...
| |
| | http://www.energyscience.org.uk/notes/rn9709.htm
| | http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00061.htm
| |
| | Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
| | zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
| | particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
| | because zero volume particles result in zero area
| | cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...
|
| Another way to put it...
|
| "...we have allowed what is perhaps a silly thing, the
| possibility of the 'point' electron acting on itself."
| -- Richard P. Feynman (1964)
|
| Indeed! Feynman was not an idiot...
|
| "Particles Come to Life"
| http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1
|
| So we have the conundrum of HEP showing that they have not be
| able to find any *internal* "structure" for an electron.
|
| At isssue is 'how' they attempt to 'find' such structure.
| In particular, scattering...

Well, scattering is the normal way of searching for structure. If you
scatter particles continuously off an object, you will be eventually
able to see that it is a ball or a cube or whatever. Deep inelastic
scattering is where you penetrate the "ball" and find that you are
scattering off internal objects making up the "ball". I really don't
see anything wrong with these kind of procedures.

| Solution... the structure of an electron is external and is
| due to the quantum "vacuum"
|
| Agreed, the 'structure is a fluidic formation that responses
| as a perfect elastic body. Such bodies do not have discernable
| internal structure. To have that on must have a non-elastic
| (rigid) body with some physical extent.
|
| and relativistic effects. Higher energies will always just
| result in a more point-like internal structure.
|
| As mentioned above any body with perfect elastic and no
| surface friction will scatter like as a pointlike entity.
| That doesn't make it so...
|
| Lower energies reveal the external structure.
|
| Do you mean field interactive effects?

You know that I take Volovik's viewpoint mostly that the quantum
"vacuum" is a medium with gauge bosons just being collective motion of
that medium. This makes for a whole different "ballgame". At any
instant or very short interval of time, gauge bosons are composites of
virtual fermion pairs. Then we have to have the picture that fermions
can and do have direct contact with virtual fermions and also virtual
fermions with virtual fermions. Then of course, this begs the questions
what are virtual fermions and makes one think that if virtual fermions
exist, why not "less than virtual" (LTV) fermions? And how do we make
this work? Well... we must turn to cosmology for the answer and impose
a dual spacetime concept similar to a Dirac Sea only modified so that it
can work. I think I am tilting back towards the concept of a form of
absolute time like Ilja is proposing. It does seem like there was some
kind of BB event eventhough it may not be exactly like current theory
has it, so using that as a reference to "our" Universe's "now" we could
have a form of absolute time. This means "our" Universe's "now" has to
be a physical event horizon that moves at c. A needed boundary for the
dual spacetime concept. This boundary then allows for the concept of
LTV fermions and virtual fermions. This is all very similar to what
John Polasek is trying to do in his "Dual Space" book.

So... now that we have a possible mechanism for virtual fermions, all
real fermions will be surrounded by virtual pairs and this is the
external structure. Guess I have ranted enough here but probably more
explanation is needed which we are working on in a new QVC paper. ;-)

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com