sci.physics.particle

On Mar 17, 8:40=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:45=A0am, SolomonW wrote:
>
> > In article > > d578d2bf3...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, mitchg...@hotmail.com
> > says...
>
> > > Atomic shells are occupied by particle wave electrons where the wave
> > > defines particle =A0momentum. High momentum is where the particle is
> > > least and vice versa. The electron wiggles in the surface or shell.
> > > Its pilot wave size is 1772 times that of a nucleon.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Under the uncertainity principal the limit on the pilot wave is =A0
> > arbitary.
>
> -----------------
> the principle of uncertainty
> is the principle of ignorance!!
>
> the uncertainty is **our * uncertainty
> not natures one
> nature is 100 percent deterministic !!!
>
> your ignorance for instance
> starts with the belief that the electron is
> a 'point particle'
> the electron cannot be by *physical definitions
> not by clumsy crippled =A0mathematical =A0definitions
> because a mathematical 'point'has no volume
> has no possibility to include any physical entity !!
>
> it is not even a 'small billiard ball'
> it is not as well =A0 a sphere
> according to its behaviour
> *it must be a composition of many connected =A0sub particle *
> or else it cannot be 'spread ' or smeared' on
> some aria .
> so
> th ignorance starts with wrong **interpretations' of the
> experimental data .
> (may be of people who cant get rid
> consciously or subconsciously - from the 'solar system'
> model =A0 =A0 )
> it seems that one of the difficulties to get the
> geometric structure of the electron is
> that it is detected by electrons themselves
> or by very heavy photons that are 'demolishing it
> or distorting it at the =A0moment of collision and =A0detection
> another reason =A0 =A0might be that the electron
> (and its sub particles ) have MANY GEOMETRIC SHAPES !!) not just one
> shape
> many shapes are possible by a =A0 =A0 chain of orbitals
> and not by =A0just =A0one orbital .
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
>
> =A0not just one shape .

You are right, and I say that such problems can never
be solved by science alone, because they are too much
involved with the inescapable concepts of the mind. The
conceps of the mind will have to be dealt with in themselves,
i.e., philosophically, if any clear picture is ever to emerge.

For example, it can be argued, as you have indicated in
the reference to 'smearing', that anything 'featured'
automatically involves a distinction of one part of it from
another, which automatically indicates composition.
But any composed entity cannot be the 'most fundamental'
because the parts of which it is composed are, by
definition, automatically more 'fundamental' than the
entity itself.

Such concepts will have to be properly examined
philosophically if we are ever to have a hope of really
understanding the so-called 'fundamental' realities.

Alen