sci.physics.particle

On Mar 18, 4:03=A0am, Alen wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

------------------
anyway
even the old Greeks that were verygood in abstract thinking
realized that after all
there must be some final smallest physical entity
because if there was no limit to 'small'
the limit will be zero !!

and zero is by definition *nonexistant*
physics i think by definition
does not deal with nonexisatts (:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------