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

[John Cuthber]

53 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

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 ψL and ψR . 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.

I think you just proved my point.
You actually think this

 

58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

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

is meaningful.
What do you claim that "infer on" means?
 

Edited February 22, 2023 by John Cuthber

[TheCosmologist]

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think you just proved my point.
You actually think this

 

is meaningful.
What do you claim that "infer on" means?
 

I'm not being funny, but are you unaware of what "infer" means? It's definition is a deduction. 

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

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.

I think the problem here is that you do not understand how a particle can be it's own anti-particle.  So you say, "this is what it really means".

What you should say is, "How can a particle be it's own anti-particle?"  Then other members can help you learn instead of them just telling you that your ideas are wrong.

That seems like a more fruitful discussion.

[TheCosmologist]

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I think the problem here is that you do not understand how a particle can be it's own anti-particle.  So you say, "this is what it really means".

What you should say is, "How can a particle be it's own anti-particle?"  Then other members can help you learn instead of them just telling you that your ideas are wrong.

That seems like a more fruitful discussion.

It's a bit strange I admit. You are either a particle or an antiparticle. Saying you are your own antiparticle, is like saying a photon is both a particle and an antiparticle, but when we talk about antiparticle particle annihilation, which is a special delay process, we don't observe these properties in a photon.

That's why I said, "whatever that is supposed to mean," because I would prefer to say, that the photon is simply a fluctuation with no mirror image that is interpreted as going backwards in time. Mathematically, antiparticles are synonymous with time reversed physics - though not highly popular, this mathematical analogy still remains true to this day.

And of course, photons do not experience time, they do not possess any inertial frame of reference.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

My hovercraft is full of eels. 

A lot of people here consider themselves as regular bullies, don't they? My skin is thick, so don't worry.

If I was speaking nonsense, then I wonder what I could say about half the statements I've read since being here and have seemingly been glossed over by the family of posters here. But I'm not like you people, I don't go out my way to intellectually attack people, but I will defend myself. Thus is more a reflection on the behaviour of others here, not me.

Edited February 22, 2023 by TheCosmologist

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

I'm not being funny, but are you unaware of what "infer" means? It's definition is a deduction. 

I know what it means.

It means deduce  or conclude.
I don't think you know how to use the word.

Now, please well us what you think the word "on" means in this context. Did you mean "from"?
"Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments."
And then tell us what you think the phrase as a whole means.
Basically what you have written is bad English. It's not the only bit either.

Have you not noticed that several people are pointing out the inadequacy of your communications?

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, TheCosmologist said:

If I was speaking nonsense, then I wonder what I could say about half the statements I've read since being here and have seemingly been glossed over by the family of posters here. But I'm not like you people, I don't go out my way to intellectually attack people, but I will defend myself. Thus is more a reflection on the behaviour of others here, not me.

"Pointing out mistakes and flaws in an idea" is NOT the same as "intellectually attacking people". This seems to be something you've misunderstood for a very long time. You are NOT your ideas, your ideas can be wrong, and are in THIS instance. 

If I were attacking you as a person, it would be because of your behavior on discussion forums rather than an idea you've had. You think people don't like YOU, so you keep changing who you are, but it's your ideas that are flawed, and you choose to ignore that. 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

The electron must have divergent Electric Field Lines. If all the charge was located at a point then the field lines must originate a little way away from the point, where there is no charge. This is impossible.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The electron must have divergent Electric Field Lines. If all the charge was located at a point then the field lines must originate a little way away from the point, where there is no charge. This is impossible.

Diverging lines can perfectly well diverge from a common origin, surely?  

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Diverging lines can perfectly well diverge from a common origin, surely?  

They can't cross each other, so they can't all have a common start point.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They can't cross each other, so they can't all have a common start point.

How does that make sense to you?

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They can't cross each other, so they can't all have a common start point.

Ballocks. If they start from a common origin of course they don't cross.

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

16 hours ago, exchemist said:

Ballocks. If they start from a common origin of course they don't cross.

They can be said to cross because they overlap at the point 0 (don't just tend to zero).

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They can be said to cross because they overlap at the point 0 (don't just tend to zero).

No. Don't forget these "lines" (which are just a construct to show how the field behaves) are deemed to be of zero thickness. So they cannot "overlap", unless they actually cross. Which they obviously don't if they emanate from a single point. They simply "tend towards" touching, as you trace them back to the origin. 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

The lines must have a thickness to be physically realizable. The lines can't be smaller than a space point (Planck length).

Edited February 25, 2023 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

You would see that, if the lines were 1*Planck length thick, the charge would have to be distributed 1*Planck length from the point zero, thus not at the point. One cannot talk of charged distributed on a point.

[exchemist]

 

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The lines must have a thickness to be physically realizable. The lines can't be smaller than a space point (Planck length).

But they are NOT physically realisable. Field lines are a construct, as I said in my previous post, rather like the contours on a relief map. Like field lines, contours are not allowed to cross, but they can touch (at precipices and cliffs). Field lines are a way for us to picture how the field is distributed in space, that's all. They are not really there.

When you go walking in the hills, you don't seen any contour lines, do you? 

Edited February 25, 2023 by exchemist

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

Particles can't be smaller than a Planck length otherwise they would be too small to have a physical effect. We can't measure a displacement of space of less than the Planck length.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

They can be said to cross because they overlap at the point 0 (don't just tend to zero).

Two questions for you.

1) Do you regard the  diagram 1 as showing 2 field lines (BD and CA)  or 4 fields lines AP.BP,CP DP) ?

 

2) Is the situation in diagram 2 possible with an electrical effect on one side of a filed line but not effect on the other side ?

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

1.No they are 4 filed lines because field lines can't cross. In addition they must just tend to P.

2. The field lines are the small lines. They must start on charges and unless cancelled by other charges further away, they must have an effect to the left side, so the drawing is wrong.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

1.No they are 4 filed lines because field lines can't cross. In addition they must just tend to P.

2. The field lines are the small lines. They must start on charges and unless cancelled by other charges further away, they must have an effect to the left side, so the drawing is wrong.

Thank you for your replies. Sorry I spelled field incorrectly.

1. Yes I agree but not four your reason. All they have to do is for all four lines to touch  (not cross) at P.

 

2. I'm sorry the diagram was not clear I was in a hurry

The there is only one part of a field line shown the thicker continuous one. Yes It need to have started somewhere on a charge, but that is not relevent to my question.

More fully my question was if you have a field line coming from somewhere is it possible to have what I called electrical effects on one side but not the other ?

You could ask the same question of a charge.

Can you have electric field lines in the space on side of a charge but not the other ?

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

14 hours ago, studiot said:

More fully my question was if you have a field line coming from somewhere is it possible to have what I called electrical effects on one side but not the other ?

Yes, if you have two surfaces with a voltage applied over them.

 

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you have electric field lines in the space on side of a charge but not the other ?

Yes, if the field is cancelled on one side by other charges.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Yes, if you have two surfaces with a voltage applied over them.

 

Yes, if the field is cancelled on one side by other charges.

Interesting, but you didn'r answer my first question.

Do you consider electric field line can touch, although they nmay not cross  - Is there a difference ?