Does an electron have a makeup

[mmix]

electron has no internal structure, until we prove that it isn't.
"negative charges" and "no internal structure" seems to be connected each other.
what is negative charges? don't answer to me. I knew it from what we have experimented from it.

 

[enotstrebor]

The Standard Model is the best theory that we have up till now when it comes to describing the properties of elementary particles (of which the electron is one);

The SM is a wave particle duality model. Thus in effect the wave nature (double slit expiriment-wavyness) is explained via one mathematical model the particle collisional nature via another mathematical model.

It is the best theory to date but some consider the duality of the model is a weakness and some hope for a wave particle unity model, since the electron is only itself (singular) and not a split personality (duality).

The electron does not have an internal structure for several reasons in this model. No experimental verification,

From coulombic collisional analysis, using a particular mathematical model, the electrons collision appears mathematically point like. Interestingly, Compton's himself analysed non-coulombic scattering using different mathematical assumptions and resulted in an electron with a radius (I am not validating Comptons assumptions as true, just noting).

What is true is that any proposed sub-structure to the electron must explain how it can interact point like. Note that non-point spinning objects can have point like behavior. It is known as a gyroscopic reaction (about the center point of spin)

no other elementary particles to decay into,

This is not relevant to sub-structure possibilities, for example a string type substructure theory.

Also, no theory proves this possibility, in stead it is ruled out by the theory used to construct the standard model (eg field theories and group theory to govern the symmetries)...

Not true. The Standard Model does not rule out substructure. It just does not need it. but then it is a wave particle duality theory, not a wave particle unity theory so it doesn't need to have substructure to produce both the wave nature and the particle nature from a single model.

The Standard Model is not the end all and be all. Far from it. In addition to the wave particle duality nature of the SM and the singularity nature of the actuall particle, Nature is also signular, but the Standard Model has five different mathematical views (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Transactional, etc.) of what nature is, and most of these views make nature look absurd.

Finally, the SM can not even say what the photon is. It only says how it interacts! There is no model of the photon and model of matter which when the two models are "interacted'", they produce the observed behaviors. But this is what happens in Nature (at least if you believe in a reality outside onself, etc. etc.)

 

[ZapperZ]

Er.. I'm going to lock this thread because people are replying to VERY OLD posts (pay attention to the date these are posted, people!), and also to people who are ... er ... no longer with us.

Zz.