Radical Edward

you don't have to think so, however it is a fact that many of the quantum numbers are far more fundamental when considering these particles than the classical concept of volume. without a full rule set, you can't even say whether volume is actually relevant at all, especially as there is no indication that it is.

Given the fundamental nature of an integer lepton number, I think it is pretty central to the issue actually.

would you care to explain how you go about conserving the lepton number if you split an electron then? or any other of the myriad of quantum numbers which have to be conserved and integer .... there is even less evidence for having half a lepton (by lepton number), than there is half an electron by mass/volume (the latter of which I still haven't seen any evidence for.

by saying it has divisions above a planck length already implies it has volume... so that's like saying 'how can something with volume not have volume' The issue here is, is the thing even divisible at all (assuming it has volume) and if so, as MrL rightly pointed out, how would the division of a given 'fundamental' particle be reconciled with the fact that certain numbers, such as the lepton number, must be conserved in all interactions?

His main source is commonly known as the anus.

well if you don't mind her dead....

your conjecture seems to imply that all particles are infinitely divisible, which would more than likely result in a far larger range of particles than we have now, and quite possibly no indication of any particle being fundamental.

actaully bush did say something like this, let me see if I can find it.

perhaps the students would get top marks for pointing out the obvious, much in the same way a couple of notorious philosophy students did.

just because he did it once and was utterly crushed in the process, doesn't mean he will do it again. In fact he is pretty unlikely to try it again, since he knows full well he will be slapped down. If there is one thing that Hussein craves, it is self preservation.

It's not actually conceptually complicated at all, only the mathematical representation is. As regards complexity, it isn't even a patch on Quantum Mechanics.

where did this density come from? the only electron density I have ever heard of is the electron density in materials, which is the number of electrons in a volume.

total isolation from right after birth.... I'd like to see a newborn baby survive alone in any environment.

the point I made had nothing to do with physical laws though.

are you saying you know all the physical laws? just over a hundred years ago we though we knew almost everything, then QM came along and destroyed that impression of almost total knowledge.

s/he'd starve.

you said: implying that, purely because they have mass and volume, and for no other reason, they can be split. granted one could imagine half an electron, with half the mass and occupying half the volume, but it doens't have to exist.

I'm not arguing about whether they can or can't be split, I don't know. I'm saying that your deduction was incorrect.

by that argument, there would be no such thing as a fundamental particle, since everything would be infinitely divisible.

oh I know about him attacking israel, something he is likely to do again if we attack him. if he gets them with a WOMD, then they retaliate with a nuke (I believe that is their policy) and the whole region could plunge into war of catastrophic proportions.

that's a more legitimate concer I think, though not overly major considering the number of suitcase bombs and so on that were lost after the USSR collapsed.

yeah, his own people. what would he have to gain from attacking anyone else, apart from certain death?

I'm not saying it can't be divided, I'm merely saying that your logical deduction does not follow automatically.

somehow I doubt saddam would be nuking anyone. It wouldn't be consistent with the way he behaves.

that isn't applicable in this case. While physical rules may be represented mathematically, that doesn't mean that all mathematical rules and constructs have a physical analogue. (for example, fractions)