- #36
Sean Torrebadel
- 97
- 0
There is evidence that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum in addition to its orbital angular momentum. It has a spin 1/2 or -1/2. Even if QT treats the electron differently, the evidence still exists.
No; the point is that quantum field theory is a very different theory than classical mechanics. Therefore, we should expect the ontology of quantum field theory to be very different than the ontology of classical mechanics. (And, indeed, it is!)Sean Torrebadel said:So your point is that a philosophy of science is now invalid, because QM, QT, QED, is pre-emptory...
Of course not. The justification comes from the fact that all experimental data agrees with this treatment.Sean Torrebadel said:Look, its okay to treat an electron, to ignore its size and dimension, as a point. But that treatment doesn't justify that it is a point.
Sean Torrebadel said:Protons are suppose to be composed of quarks, protons are treated as point particles as well are they not? So the same argument should hold via viz for protons as electrons-even if there is no proof of an electrons internal structure. Still, an internal spin of an electron infers structure. Since, there is no way for even a mathematical point to spin -internally.
Look, its okay to treat an electron, to ignore its size and dimension, as a point. But that treatment doesn't justify that it is a point.
LewDog said:so are you saying that a quark is made up of charges, so charges are the building blocks of everything? If that is the case then what makes up a charge?
Hurkyl said:Why is that?
Owen Holden said:Originally Posted by sd01g
It seems to me that it is impossible to measure something of zero volume
Your insistence that all mathematical truths have (interpretation) meaning with respect to a particular application (physics) is false.
It is clear to me that there are no physical things that have zero volume.
All physical objects have some volume.
There are no physical things that are not three dimentional.
That we can mathematically talk about more or less than three dimentions does not entail that there are more or less than three dimentions in physical reality.
The concept of point-object is absurd, in physics.
The BB does not entail a beginning at all.
There cannot be, logically, a beginning of time ..with or without magical Gods.
Hurkyl said:Of course not. The justification comes from the fact that all experimental data agrees with this treatment.
P.S. "ignoring the size of an object" is very different from "asserting that an object has the size of a point."
Owen Holden said:What is the size of a point?
Surely there are no physical objects of 'one' dimention.
Points are (mathematical) geometrical concepts.
How does a physical object have size if it has no dimention??
Dimentions are mathematical concepts not physical concepts.
ZapperZ said:But a "point" is a CLASSICAL concept!
We are stuck with using many identical words, but the physics is DIFFERENT! A "particle" and a "wave" in quantum mechanics do not resemble ANY of the classical concepts that we are familiar with. Try finding the physical spatial boundary of an electron! When such an idea isn't even defined in physics, then this makes the idea of a "volume" for such an object highly absurd as well! This is what you are demanding that it has!
Zz.
Owen Holden said:"Originally Posted by Owen Holden
What is the size of a point?
Surely there are no physical objects of 'one' dimention.
Points are (mathematical) geometrical concepts.
How does a physical object have size if it has no dimention??
Dimentions are mathematical concepts not physical concepts."I don't have a problem with volume for non-objects.
Perhaps we should think of electrons etc, as moving fields or some such thing, but not as objects.
ZapperZ said:How do you think these things are defined in QED, which is what Hurkyl has been trying to describe here? Do you think QED's description of "electrons" are like ping-pong balls with "no size"? These were never described as classical objects. That's the whole point of all this. Invoking QED way in the beginning should already made many of you look up what it is.
I don't care at all about your re-defining of words that are clear and distinct.
Owen Holden said:I don't care at all about your re-defining of words that are clear and distinct.
You sound like a theist who wants to define classical words as they please??
Why do you think I should be concerned about your special definition of object etc.
If you want to talk about point-objects, then you had better get a new dictionary of these terms for they do not have sense otherwise.
Because ZapperZ's "special definition of object etc." is what is used in quantum field theory, which is ostensibly the subject of discussion.Owen Holden said:Why do you think I should be concerned about your special definition of object etc.
It depends on your measure. A point has zero volume, zero area, zero length, and cardinality 1. (All of this in the sense of Euclidean geometry)Owen Holden said:What is the size of a point?
Sean Torrebadel said:Alright, I'm a little lost here. Can you explain how an electron and a positron collide, how they annihilate completely into a photon? Is this a mediated process too? For it still sticks in my mind that if these two are points, that two points cannot collide. M or U.
It is interesting, though, because if I were to treat anything as a point it would be a photon.
Sean Torrebadel said:Yes, photons are polar, composed of two types, left and right circularly polarize components.
ZapperZ said:Can you show me in the mathematical description how a plane-polarized light is composed of left and right handed circular polarization?
Zz.
Sean Torrebadel said:Please don't tell me that you don't accept the existence of circularly polarized light? I mean it is a well known chemical phenomenon, reproducable by the simplest means, and done in the lab by students. The question I asked is whether or not it is possible to isolate left circularly polarized light from right circularly polarized light?
Or are you saying that there is no mathematical formalism that deals with the subject. It just occurs to me that if light is composed of two different photon types, that it would be had for it not to be considered composite and therefore not a point...
Hurkyl said:And just to make sure it's clear, a point has volume; its volume is zero.
sd01g said:The problem is that something with zero volume does not empirically exist. Since electrons empirically exist, they must have some volume. This is a philosophic problem, not a physics or math problem.
ZapperZ said:Now it your turn to answer my very direct question. Please do not avoid it (and yes, that is a warning).
Zz.