New Singularity Theory

[EquisDeXD]

So the larger the mass a particle has, the smaller its radius. If individual particles can't exist without being in higher energy states in a neutron star, yet the gravity is strong enough to overcome that and shrink a neutron star, couldn't the wave functions combine thus creating a single particle with such a high mass that it's radius is unbelievably small but not infinitely small while simultaneously solving the problem of where the matter goes when there's no higher energy level for it to go to due to gravity?

Edited October 7, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[ACG52]

The radius of a particle is really dependent on it's mass and it density. Mass alone is no predictor of radius.

 

I don't really get the rest of your post. Wave functions do not combine in that manner.

[EquisDeXD]

The radius of a particle is really dependent on it's mass and it density. Mass alone is no predictor of radius.

 

I'm starting to think you never know what your talking about because every post I've seen you make says things that don't make sense. Individual particles don't have density, density is the average measure of particles in a volume. Of course the size isn't solely dependent on radius, there's momentum, and spin and one other one that has something to do with electro-magnetism or magnetic moments or something like that, but mass is a large factor, it's the reason why an electron has a larger radius than a proton.

 

.

 

I don't really get the rest of your post. Wave functions do not combine in that manner.

In fusion in stars, the pressure in the sun is so great that it forces protons together to a close enough radius that their wave functions combine and they form a single particle or nucleus, not to mention that it happens without the sun in a normal atom within electron orbitals. You can't distinguish between two electrons in the same exact quantum state, and that's because their wave functions combine to form a single one.

Edited October 8, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[imatfaal]

I'm starting to think you never know what your talking about because every post I've seen you make says things that don't make sense. Individual particles don't have density, density is the average measure of particles in a volume. Of course the size isn't solely dependent on radius, there's momentum, and spin and one other one that has something to do with electro-magnetism or magnetic moments or something like that, but mass is a large factor, it's the reason why an electron has a larger radius than a proton.

 

 

In fusion in stars, the pressure in the sun is so great that it forces protons together to a close enough radius that their wave functions combine and they form a single particle or nucleus, not to mention that it happens without the sun in a normal atom within electron orbitals. You can't distinguish between two electrons in the same exact quantum state, and that's because their wave functions combine to form a single one.

 

The electron is normally described as a point particles (ie with no spatial extension) whereas the proton has a reasonably well defined charge radius of :

R_p = 0.8775(51)*10^-15 m . Charge Radius is not exactly a simple distance measure by a pair of extremely small callipers - as the boundaries are not defined precisely. But even though charge radius is not exact I do not see how the electron can have a larger radius

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Charge_radius

http://en.wikipedia....ntal_properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

[ACG52]

I'm starting to think you never know what your talking about because every post I've seen you make says things that don't make sense.

 

They don't make sense to you because you lack the background needed to understand things.

 

Individual particles don't have density, density is the average measure of particles in a volume.

 

Density is mass per volume. If you have two particles of equal radius, and one is more massive than the other, it is denser.

[EquisDeXD]

The electron is normally described as a point particles (ie with no spatial extension) whereas the proton has a reasonably well defined charge radius of :

R_p = 0.8775(51)*10^-15 m . Charge Radius is not exactly a simple distance measure by a pair of extremely small callipers - as the boundaries are not defined precisely. But even though charge radius is not exact I do not see how the electron can have a larger radius

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Charge_radius

http://en.wikipedia....ntal_properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

 

I suppose radius itself could be subjective, but I was referring more to the uncertainty of an electron as well as the principal quantum numbers. I don't see what your links have to do directly with the topic, if protons were larger, then you wouldn't have a negative charge on the outside of an atom, and your smart enough to know that so I don't get exactly why your disagreeing with me, protons are in the nucleus, electrons are on the outside.

the diameter of a proton is around this before probability gets so small scientists consider it 0,

http://hypertextbook...naMeskina.shtml

and the approximate average diameter of a ground state electron in hydrogen is around this 5.29*10^-11 meters http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius

An electron has a larger approximate radius by a factor of over 1000.

 

They don't make sense to you because you lack the background needed to understand things.

Density is mass per volume. If you have two particles of equal radius, and one is more massive than the other, it is denser.

Or you just don't really understand certain concepts and shouldn't be trying to use them. Density isn't really used in quantum mechanics because your dealing with such a small scale, an electron doesn't really have a visibly finite boundary in the nano-mater realm and it's in a superposition of constantly changing locations, so I don't really see how you can nail down exactly what the density is in a finite number of a few nano-meters, especially considering any measurement of a particle is just one point, it's kind of hard to have the density of a point.

Edited October 9, 2012 by EquisDeXD