Particles Being Points is in Conflict With Them Being Something! [WRONG AGAIN]

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Yes, dimensional analysis is a very powerful tool and a close friend of mine.

At least we can agree on this

Wry smile.

What do you make of

Physical Similarity and Dimensional Analysis  

Duncan

or

Dimension Theory

Hurewicz and Wallman

?

[TheCosmologist]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

You posted a link that refers to a theory paper. Lots of theory explorations go nowhere. Has the been shown to be valid?  Has there been experimental confirmation?

You set them to 1, not 0

 

 

 

Yes technically this is true. Mathematically at least. But, set them to zero, the picture hasn't changed so long as they are not interacting with the overall calculation. I admit, your terminology is more correct, I used a loose terminology just to not complicate the meaning of what is being discussed, hence I pointed out, even if it had been set to zero, its not that we multiply the term by zero.

 

I'll recant this in order not to confuse the more experienced. I'm not arguing the stances on this, just giving a peculiar, but loosely valid viewpoint.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

At least we can agree on this

Wry smile.

What do you make of

Physical Similarity and Dimensional Analysis  

Duncan

or

Dimension Theory

Hurewicz and Wallman

?

I am in favor of all dimensional analysis arguments. I even created higher powers which diverted away from the Planck regime. In my opinion, dimensional analysis is one of the most exciting aspects of inspection of equations, because it's quite surprising sometimes what solutions can be factored out and to find what constants or variables are left behind. Often they reveal interesting new physics.  Check my Larmor radiation of black holes, which shows a direct example of this where I pull out the gravitational upper limit of the gravitational force, and what was left behind was the Von Klitzing constant which has implications for conductive or resistent surfaces.

Edited February 21, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[studiot]

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

I am in favor of all dimensional analysis arguments.

We have certainly not exhausted or explored all the rooms in 'dimension house' yet.

But we have found some phenomena that run counter to 'common sense' or our ordinary experience.

Nor have we arrived at a consistent definition of dimension, suitable for all purposes.

 

We have also has a couple of threads of discussion here at SF about the subject.

[TheCosmologist]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

We have certainly not exhausted or explored all the rooms in 'dimension house' yet.

But we have found some phenomena that run counter to 'common sense' or our ordinary experience.

Nor have we arrived at a consistent definition of dimension, suitable for all purposes.

 

We have also has a couple of threads of discussion here at SF about the subject.

True enough, I concur.

[studiot]

By the way.

There is nothing in classical EM theory to connect charge directly to energy.

If there were it could be like heat and we would observe convertion as well as exhaustion of the source.

In that sense charge is more like gravity.

Both are inexhaustible supplies of their particular effect.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

Yes. 

The second link was earlier than the first. They discovered that there was no pointlike charges in the second link. Then the first link which again is the most recent discovery, that the field was indeed allowed to rotate. Even say, that the first link is theoretical, the first link is an observed fact. What we still do not know for sure, is that the charge distribution rotates, but it's highly likely since spin is part of the full Poincare group of space translations.

 

No, they showed there was no electron dipole moment at some level. The article doesn’t say, because it’s a pop-sci report about the experiment. Which is why it uses language that a lay audience might identify with. I thought you were here to discuss physics, not the watered-down verbiage used in press releases and articles like that. 

 

2 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

Neglecting the theoretical part, the spherical charge distribution found shows empirically that the electron is not a point like charge.

How could a point charge have a dipole moment?

 

2 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

 

This was a hand in hand argument for the pointlike argument for electrons which led us astray concerning the physics of pointlike dynamics. Further, classical mechanics also predicted pointlike behaviour. Given a small enough balm bearing in the classical limits, the particles would always behave experimentally as if they were fundamentally pointlike - so really, we have a mixture of discrepancies based on theoretical assumptions. In this latter case, because particles behaved pointlike, we assumed they were. 

I was asked by my physicist friend, Tejinder Singh, a rising physicist in the academic world who found a non-free parameter solution to the fine structure, 'what causes the genius of Einstein to assume that particles are singularities of spacetime?' 

I wasn’t aware Einstein was so involved in QM. Citations, please.

 

 

[TheCosmologist]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

No, they showed there was no electron dipole moment at some level. The article doesn’t say, because it’s a pop-sci report about the experiment. Which is why it uses language that a lay audience might identify with. I thought you were here to discuss physics, not the watered-down verbiage used in press releases and articles like that. 

 

How could a point charge have a dipole moment?

 

I wasn’t aware Einstein was so involved in QM. Citations, please.

 

 

Sorry but bipolar ain't my thang lol

Now to have a dipole, you need a sense of quantum compatibility in regards to how spin is distributed as an observable. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[exchemist]

47 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Sorry but bipolar ain't my thang lol

Now to have a dipole, you need a sense of quantum compatibility in regards to how spin is distributed as an observable. 

That is a meaningless sentence, Gareth. Compatibility of what with what?  And what does it mean to talk of spin being distributed as an observable? Spin is quantised: with an electron you can only measure one value (or two projections of that value in an external field, if one is present. You can't measure bits of spin here and there.  

Edited February 21, 2023 by exchemist

[TheCosmologist]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That is a meaningless sentence. 

Polarity means it spins one way. 

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

No, they showed there was no electron dipole moment at some level. The article doesn’t say, because it’s a pop-sci report about the experiment. Which is why it uses language that a lay audience might identify with. I thought you were here to discuss physics, not the watered-down verbiage used in press releases and articles like that. 

 

How could a point charge have a dipole moment?

 

I wasn’t aware Einstein was so involved in QM. Citations, please.

 

 

Well he invented a lot of quantum mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect, including other contributions. His main objection was the interpretation  of the wave function...

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Polarity means it spins one way. 

 

 

No, Gareth, that's not right. Direction of spin determines the orientation of magnetic moment. It tells you nothing about any electric dipole.

And compatibility of what with what? 

Edited February 21, 2023 by exchemist

[TheCosmologist]

49 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No, Gareth, that's not right. Direction of spin determines the orientation of magnetic moment. It tells you nothing about any electric dipole.

And compatibility of what with what? 

Polarity is chirality which means "handedness." 

Do not call me Gareth BTW. 

[studiot]

I feel this thread is wandering further and further off topic which is (not was) the formal logical soundness of a point particle.

 

The Cosmologist has not answered my question to him about quantum numbers.

In my oldfashioned day we had two quantum numbers concerned with 'angular momentum.

There were 4 in all labelled, n, l m and s respectively.

The first 3 had a classical interpretation, although they mark stationary point solutions to the Schrodinger equation.
These describe the energy, position size and shape of the obitals.

The final one, s, has only a quantum interpretation although it is common to refer to it as the spin or quantum spin of the electron about its own axis, the actual behaviour is not exactly that of a mechanically spinning anything.

The second one, the azimuthal quantum number, l,  can be associated with classical angular momentum of the electron as a point particle rotating about the nucleus.
 

So where are we in relation to point particles ?

 

Incidentally as regards the so called infinite limit that also seems to be causing trouble,

We have no problem with density being a point function limit of mass over volume, nor of pressure being the force over zero area in the limit.

1 minute ago, TheCosmologist said:

Polarity is chirality which means "handedness." 

I respectfully suggest crossing swords with a real organic chemist about chirality would be difficult.

Chirality embraces a host of phenomena of which handedness is only one, but I'm sure exchemist would run rings round any of us on this subject.

[exchemist]

38 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Polarity is chirality which means "handedness." 

Do not call me Gareth BTW. 

Chirality is not the same as polarity at all. You have no idea what you are talking about, Reiku.

You may be confusing it with polarization, viz. the way chiral systems can rotate the plane of plane-polarized light. But if you knew some physics you would not confuse the two. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by exchemist

[swansont]

3 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

Sorry but bipolar ain't my thang lol

Who said anything about bipolar? 

3 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

Now to have a dipole, you need a sense of quantum compatibility in regards to how spin is distributed as an observable. 

That sounds like word salad.

2 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

Well he invented a lot of quantum mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect, including other contributions. His main objection was the interpretation  of the wave function...

Last I checked this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, but go ahead and be obtuse about it, and see if that helps matters

[TheCosmologist]

16 hours ago, exchemist said:

Chirality is not the same as polarity at all. You have no idea what you are talking about, Reiku.

You may be confusing it with polarization, viz. the way chiral systems can rotate the plane of plane-polarized light. But if you knew some physics you would not confuse the two. 

Spin polarisation is how the angular momentum is aligned to a given direction. We have a fancy name to talk about the spin of particles, it's called its chirality. Literally it means handedness. Do I mean to be cheeky here? Of course I do, are there any polite posters here at all? You slander my knowledge of physics when in reality I don't see much physics being argued. Some answers I've read since being here, have been either straight out wrong or highly questionable.

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Who said anything about bipolar? 

That sounds like word salad.

Last I checked this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, but go ahead and be obtuse about it, and see if that helps matters

I'm becoming bipolar 😐 

Well you were not aware that Einstein was so involved with QM's, so forgive me if I point out that a lot of his work actually centered round it.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Well you were not aware that Einstein was so involved with QM's, so forgive me if I point out that a lot of his work actually centered round it.

I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid answering my inquiry.

[TheCosmologist]

Just now, swansont said:

I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid answering my inquiry.

Sorry, I'll read more closely.

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Spin polarisation is how the angular momentum is aligned to a given direction. We have a fancy name to talk about the spin of particles, it's called its chirality. Literally it means handedness. Do I mean to be cheeky here? Of course I do, are there any polite posters here at all? You slander my knowledge of physics when in reality I don't see much physics being argued. Some answers I've read since being here, have been either straight out wrong or highly questionable.

 

I'm becoming bipolar 😐 

Well you were not aware that Einstein was so involved with QM's, so forgive me if I point out that a lot of his work actually centered round it.

Polarity and polarisation are not the same, and neither is the same as chirality. 

[TheCosmologist]

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Polarity and polarisation are not the same, and neither is the same as chirality. 

I think you're mistaken quite badly. What do we mean by handedness? It means we are talking about whether a particle has a spin right or a spin left (or up and down) configuration, indeed before anything collapses, it has both. What do we mean that a particle is polarized? It means that a particular spin state is attributed to a particle. Hence I take a quote from Google for you:

 

"Spin polarization is the degree to which the spin, that is, the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles, is aligned with a given direction."

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid answering my inquiry.

Sorry what was your question? All I see is

"No one mentioned bipolar," ... I was trying to make a funny here.

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Polarity and polarisation are not the same, and neither is the same as chirality. 

Take a look here how these terminologies are used

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.2c07088

In the context of spin we see here how it applies more directly to particles, since the last link dealt with molecular spin, or polarization

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)#:~:text=A chiral phenomenon is one,is the same as chirality.

Edited February 22, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[exchemist]

30 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

I think you're mistaken quite badly. What do we mean by handedness? It means we are talking about whether a particle has a spin right or a spin left (or up and down) configuration, indeed before anything collapses, it has both. What do we mean that a particle is polarized? It means that a particular spin state is attributed to a particle. Hence I take a quote from Google for you:

 

"Spin polarization is the degree to which the spin, that is, the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles, is aligned with a given direction."

Sorry what was your question? All I see is

"No one mentioned bipolar," ... I was trying to make a funny here.

Take a look here how these terminologies are used

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.2c07088

I'm the context of spin we see here how it applies more directly to particles, since the last link dealt with molecular spin, or polarization

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)#:~:text=A chiral phenomenon is one,is the same as chirality.

No, chirality refers to entities that cannot be superimposed on their mirror image. For example your right hand is a mirror image of your left and there is no way you can superimpose your right hand onto your left hand. The same is true of right hand and left hand helices. 

Spin polarisation is simply the (partial) alignment of the angular momentum vector with some external influence, e.g. a magnetic field. Chirality does not feature in that, since particles can and do flip from one orientation to another. If it were a matter of chirality, that would be impossible.  

Polarity refers to an asymmetrical distribution of a property giving rise to opposite "poles", in physics usually either electric or magnetic, as in a magnetic or electric dipole, or higher multipoles.   

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by exchemist

[TheCosmologist]

24 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No, chirality refers to entities that cannot be superimposed on their mirror image. For example your right hand is a mirror image of your left and there is no way you can superimpose your right hand onto your left hand. The same is true of right hand and left hand helices. 

Spin polarisation is simply the (partial) alignment of the angular momentum vector with some external influence, e.g. a magnetic field. Chirality does not feature in that, since particles can and do flip from one orientation to another.

Polarity refers to an asymmetrical distribution giving rise to opposite "poles", in physics usually either electric or magnetic.   

 

 

This is just additional information. The spun cannot be superimposed when you have antiparticles, for example. Yes that is important, I would never deny this.

For instance gauge theory have massless bosons in which it doesn't matter if you superimpose, simply because they are their own antiparticles, whatever that means. To me it simply makes more sense to say there are no antiparticles, than saying they are their own. For massless radiation, the chirality is said to be the same as the helicity. Nevermind.. however, without going into the superimposed bit, chirality literally means handedness, and yes we can use it to describe the spin of right or left moving particles. Clearly this is heavily investigated under the spinor formalism of Dirac.

The physics is exotic, as you will know, when antiparticles are thrown into the mix. The handedness of a particle can only be up or down, but as soon as we establish what chirality a particle has, we immediately deduce the spin of the antiparticle. So when I use the word chirality, I literally mean it's observable spin, getting into other technicalities is just fun, childsplay.

I take a quote to point this out, "In physics, chirality may be found in the spin of a particle, where the handedness of the object is determined by the direction in which the particle spins."

Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments. We simply say, "Yes, chirality is the property of handedness of a system, for a particle, this refers to the directionality of its own spin."

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[John Cuthber]

The problem with this thread is not physics.
The problem is that you seem to think that sentences like this are meaningful.
 

2 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments.

 

[TheCosmologist]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The problem with this thread is not physics.
The problem is that you seem to think that sentences like this are meaningful.
 

 

Well we didn't. We simply gave a definition of what the word chirality means.

I mean look, quantum mechanical lingo isn't easy. It never is, and sometimes people will use a phrase and it may not mean the same thing to another person. In the Susskind lectures, when Sussind described antiparticles and the solutions therein obtained of them from the Dirac equation, he asks the audience, "what do we mean by chirality?"

After a brief moment of silence, he continues, "We just mean it's handedness, whether it is right handed or left handed."

 

Obviously when we speak of left handedness or right, we are literally talking about the spin orientation of the particle/system. When you decompose the DIrac equation, finding negative solutions, we end up writing out wave functions of either [math]\psi_L[/math] and [math]\psi_R[/math]. The universe is literally filled with left handed particles, not right handed particles and has been dubbed the antimatter problem.

Or another phrase, Baryon problem.

Edited February 22, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

This is just additional information. The spun cannot be superimposed when you have antiparticles, for example. Yes that is important, I would never deny this.

For instance gauge theory have massless bosons in which it doesn't matter if you superimpose, simply because they are their own antiparticles, whatever that means. To me it simply makes more sense to say there are no antiparticles, than saying they are their own. For massless radiation, the chirality is said to be the same as the helicity. Nevermind.. however, without going into the superimposed bit, chirality literally means handedness, and yes we can use it to describe the spin of right or left moving particles. Clearly this is heavily investigated under the spinor formalism of Dirac.

The physics is exotic, as you will know, when antiparticles are thrown into the mix. The handedness of a particle can only be up or down, but as soon as we establish what chirality a particle has, we immediately deduce the spin of the antiparticle. So when I use the word chirality, I literally mean it's observable spin, getting into other technicalities is just fun, childsplay.

I take a quote to point this out, "In physics, chirality may be found in the spin of a particle, where the handedness of the object is determined by the direction in which the particle spins."

Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments. We simply say, "Yes, chirality is the property of handedness of a system, for a particle, this refers to the directionality of its own spin."

 

My hovercraft is full of eels. 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

My hovercraft is full of eels. 

Exactly. +1