Dimensions of Particles

[Singularitarian]

It was almost four years ago i consulted with a physicist with a question regarding our knowledge of particles. I came to question the validity of pointlike masses, and i asked whether it was all that beneficial to even think of particle masses as being pointlike. I do remember asking whether it was at all possible particles themselves could be tiny pointlike singularities?

My question was answered with a firm ''no'', as they exhibit characterists that singular regions would not. I never questioned it very much afterwards, and whilst i truely did like the idea that particles have charcterists similar to pointlike singularities, i came to conclude the idea was simply rubbish. Two years later, i did raise the issue again with a scientist on the net, who ridiculed my idea as being perfectly psuedoscientific. I do remember trying to defend my theory beside the equally-bizarre idea that electrons themselves could be tiny black holes, which would imply some kind of singularity. But, again, it was dismissed as rubbish.

Because of this reception, i decided to argue that the dimensionless idea for particles was not very rewarding for physicists, (which might subliminally be a reason to why the physicists of the 1980's started meddling with 1-d strings for particles instead). It wasn't rewarding, because we take into account many new attributes of particles we had yet to consider, such as a surface area. Anything with a radius (and whilst correct measurements of the electrons radius vary), should have some kind of surface area. If it has a surface area, then logically it has some width, and therefore dimension, for how could dimensionless objects make up paradoxically a three dimensional world of matter and energy? Are we to believe it is only in union between two dimensionless objects can some kind of dimensionality appear?

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.

Using calculations, it was possible to suggest that a quantum aether (which superceeded the luminferous aether since the 90's in discovery of the Casimir Force) and this pressure would be exerted on the surface area of particles, which must be considered with some kind of dimension, rather than being pointlike. Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong. Then today, i read a science paper, which corresponded to my first ever inquiry into the structure of particles, and how they could actually be singularities:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0906.4801C

''Taking the symplectic 4 form - the volume element in the 8- spinor phase space- as a natural Lagrangian, these singularities turn out to have rest energies within a few percent of the observed particle masses.''

Here i have qouted the important part. The initial reason why my conjecture was not taken seriously is because of the observable eigstates which would differ. According to this particle, particle singularities actually have observables very close to the prediction of the standard model. My question is, do you think particles are pointlike, or should they have some kind of structure/dimension(s)?

[Aepervius]

As far as I remember from basic particle (electron, neutron, proton), only the electron is defined as a point like particle. This is because from some experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap) we can place some upper limit on the elctron size, and at that upper limit there is no point to cinsider them having a radius for the purpose of calculation/theory for most experiment. The otehr are defined with a radius which is roughly in the order of femtometer.


Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong.

Never mind. That is one of the sign. *tip toe out*

[Darth Rotor]

No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.

?

Hmm, a Reynolds number for a dimension n the 1 x 10-12 range?

Not only won't that float, it may not have any means of self propulsion.

DR

[Dorfl]

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.

If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations?

[Singularitarian]

If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations?

Just to answer also the person who said that pointlike objects only classify for electrons, is not entirely true. The idea that spin cannot be an actually rotational spin is for all fermions, not just electrons, and this is due to exactly the point made in this post. You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make 720^o, so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.

[Singularitarian]

Hmm, a Reynolds number for a dimension n the 1 x 10-12 range?

Not only won't that float, it may not have any means of self propulsion.

DR

I came to realize though, that even the Reynolds equations has unknown factors in them. Let me demonstrate for you how this works.

If there is a moving liquid, then there is a force exerted on the surface area of the object. This can be given as a relation to an unknown function with possible candidates given as:

f(F,u,A, \rho,v)=0 [1]

The reynolds number allows to give some idea what causes this pressure, howsoever, the reynolds number and the equation itself is not entirely known.The Buckingham Pi Theorem states that there are many forms in which one can take equation [1] to make it dimensionless, but it will take on two main groups, that being the Reynolds number R_e= u \sqrt{A}/ v and the drag coefficient, given as C_D=F/ \rho AU^2, so essentially one has:

f(C_D=F/ \rho AU^2, R_e= u \sqrt{A}/ v) =0

with some rearranging one aquires:

F=\rho Au^2f(R_e)

So the force is multiplied by some unknown function of the reynolds number. In speculation of all of this, one might need some of the general idea's behind the reynolds number for particles if we are to take quantum mechanics seriously for non-zero dimensional particles.

[Mr.D]

Just to answer also the person who said that pointlike objects only classify for electrons, is not entirely true. The idea that spin cannot be an actually rotational spin is for all fermions, not just electrons, and this is due to exactly the point made in this post. You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?720%5Eo, so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.

Nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5015779#post5015779).

[Singularitarian]

Mr D, i speak absolute science. So i don't understand your attitude.

Secondly, i said ''currently allowed'' because there is nothing remarkable about theories changing. It happens all the time. For instance, a particle might be able to spin faster than light, if it were a tachyon, for instance.

[Singularitarian]

And to prove you wrong, just to nail it in the coffin, so to say;

'' Spin and similar rotations in normal space are quantized into unit angular momentum chunks because a single (or multiple) rotational flip through 360o cannot be distinguished from no rotation at all. In the same way, motion completely around a K-K loop brings you back to where you started, and this analogously leads to quantization of electric charge. The size of the unit charge and the strength of the electric force are inversely proportional to the distance around the loop: the smaller the loop, the larger is a unit charge. ''

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw06.html

[Singularitarian]

Oh, and look MR D

'The satisfaction did not last long. In the 1930's it was discovered that electrons violated angular momentum quantization. Electrons were found to have an irreducible angular momentum, called spin, of 1/2 an h/2pi unit. The electron, behaving like a tiny top that cannot be stopped from spinning, is said to be a "spin 1/2 particle". This means that the wave function of an electron does not come back to the same quantum state when it is rotated by 360o, but only when it is rotated by twice 360o or 720o. The same is true for protons, neutrons, and other spin 1/2 particles.


In other words, the world you view after turning your body by 360o is not the same world as before your rotation. All spin 1/2 particles in the universe will have the algebraic signs of their wave functions reversed by your action. You have to make another 360o rotation to put the world back the way it was. There are few directly observable effects of this sign reversal, but it is nevertheless a bizarre and counter-intuitive result. We have no idea where these half integer spins come from or why most fundamental particles have them, yet they do.'

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw77.html

[Mr.D]

i speak absolute science.

I'll agree you use much of the vocabulary of science, but your other threads have shown you to be - I'll be charitable here - less than clear in communicating in the languages of science.


Secondly, i said ''currently allowed'' because there is nothing remarkable about theories changing. It happens all the time. For instance, a particle might be able to spin faster than light, if it were a tachyon, for instance.

Even if that's what you meant, it still makes no sense in the context of Dorfl's post regarding interpreting the spin of a particle as the classical angular momentum of a rotating three-dimensional object.

[Singularitarian]

Actually, i think you will find it has everything to do with the classical view. A zero-point dimensional object cannot have a normal orientation of spin. Something which is pointlike, cannot exist for a 360 degree spin back to original orientation.

[Mr.D]

Oh, and look MR D

'The satisfaction did not last long. In the 1930's it was discovered that electrons violated angular momentum quantization. Electrons were found to have an irreducible angular momentum, called spin, of 1/2 an h/2pi unit. The electron, behaving like a tiny top that cannot be stopped from spinning, is said to be a "spin 1/2 particle". This means that the wave function of an electron does not come back to the same quantum state when it is rotated by 360o, but only when it is rotated by twice 360o or 720o. The same is true for protons, neutrons, and other spin 1/2 particles.


I finished all the coursework for a Ph.D in physics some 15 years ago (I changed career paths before finishing my dissertation), so your quoting a UW web page neither impresses me nor convinces me you are actually understanding what you read.

How does one interpret noninteger spin for a multidimensional quantum particle as classical angular momentum without running into the relativistic problems Dorfl pointed out? (Recalling of course the deviation of magnetic moment of the electron from classical QM)

And your sidetrack into fluid dynamics? I can't even come up with an analogy for how out of nowhere that came.

[Singularitarian]

Ah, good, someone who should know better.

Do you know doctor Cramer, and his work? He's very intelligent, very, inquisitive. If you do not believe what you read, then sir, that is your fault. The page is clearly authentic, not to mind Cramer has dedicated around 50 similar pages to the Alternate View Column, you should read them.

I'll get back to the rest of your questions in a few minutes.

[RussDill]

Due to quantum uncertainty, it doesn't really matter if the particle is point like, a singularity, a black hole, or whatever.

However, its when you try to apply some structure to the particle that you run into problems. If the structure can't deform, you get superluminal transmission of information. If it deforms, than you have the question of what is deforming, and the conclusion that electron (a) can differ from electron (b) in more than just spin. You have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assign a structure.

At the end of the day, if you can come up with a self consistent theory that makes testable predictions, have at it. However, it seems that you are just examining your own navel lint.

So? What is your testable prediction?

[Singularitarian]

Due to quantum uncertainty, it doesn't really matter if the particle is point like, a singularity, a black hole, or whatever.

However, its when you try to apply some structure to the particle that you run into problems. If the structure can't deform, you get superluminal transmission of information. If it deforms, than you have the question of what is deforming, and the conclusion that electron (a) can differ from electron (b) in more than just spin. You have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assign a structure.

At the end of the day, if you can come up with a self consistent theory that makes testable predictions, have at it. However, it seems that you are just examining your own navel lint.

So? What is your testable prediction?

By ''deform'', what is meant?

[Mr.D]

Do you know doctor Cramer, and his work? He's very intelligent, very, inquisitive. If you do not believe what you read, then sir, that is your fault. The page is clearly authentic, not to mind Cramer has dedicated around 50 similar pages to the Alternate View Column, you should read them.


The two links you provided are to articles that are almost 15 and 25 years old. But I took a very quick glance - nothing that looks too egregiously wrong for "Analog - Science Fiction and Fact Magazine" articles of that vintage.

But the articles don't seem to have any real relevance to your ideas other than to point out a few of the seemingly odd properties of the Standard Model.

[Ziggurat]

By ''deform'', what is meant?

Change shape.

[ben m]

Dorfl never pointed that out.


He did, and you replied quoting it: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5015337#post5015337

If the vacuum contains an energy, there must be an associated pressure. That is pure physics man.

That is only true in the strong-equivalence-principle sense---i.e. only in General Relativity.

If you mean "pressure" in terms of "something that exerts a force on an area", then no, vacuum energy does not need to exert a force. The electromagnetic component of vacuum energy does cannot exert a force on electrically neutral particles. The quark/gluon component of the vacuum energy cannot exert a force on leptons. And so on.

In any case, in cases where the vacuum can exert a force, that force cannot look like hydrodynamics. Why not? Because hydrodynamics is not Lorentz invariant. There's always a velocity term---"the relative velocity between the object and the fluid"---which is nonsense if the "fluid" is the vacuum. The real vacuum manages to have an energy density while still being Lorentz invariant.

[RussDill]

By ''deform'', what is meant?

If an electron had a surface area and an internal volume, then any interaction on one part of the particle would need to travel to other parts of the particle. For instance, if momentum were imparted. If the interaction occurred across the whole particle simultaneously, then superluminal communication would be occurring.

Otherwise, when momentum is imparted, the shape of the particle would need to temporarily deform (change shape).

[ben m]

These odd properties by the way, where essential because yet again i explain, pointlike particles do not possess a true 360 degree back-to-orientation reality; non-pointlike particles can have a real axial spin.

Classical pointlike particles can't have a spin at all, much less half-integer spin. And classical particles of any shape/size whatsoever cannot have the 720-degree rotation behavior. If you view this behavior as a problem, extending the size of the particle doesn't fix it. Making the particle quantum-mechanical does fix it.

[RussDill]

Ziggurat can help me out here, but applying classical spin to elementary particles has other problems, iirc, you run into serious issues with time dilation. A particle with classical spin would spin slower as it approaches the speed of light from the POV of a stationary observer.

[Mr.D]

How does one interpret noninteger spin for a multidimensional quantum particle as classical angular momentum without running into the relativistic problems Dorfl pointed out?

Dorfl never pointed that out.


This is what Dorfl wrote:
If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations?

So, yes he did. Is there anyone other than Singularitarian who doesn't see that?


Oh, and please nest your quotes.

[Singularitarian]

Ben and Mr D,

what you said Mr D was

''How does one interpret noninteger spin for a multidimensional quantum particle as classical angular momentum without running into the relativistic problems Dorfl pointed out?''

Dorfl said

'' If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations? ''

What Dorfl is referring to is the orietational spin, where it would need to exceed lightspeed, when it is a pointlike particle. You are referring to angular momentum as if the dimensional object would continue to exhibit problems with spin. The problems only arise from non-dimensional particle.

So, no... not what Dorfl said at all.

[Singularitarian]

Ziggurat can help me out here, but applying classical spin to elementary particles has other problems, iirc, you run into serious issues with time dilation. A particle with classical spin would spin slower as it approaches the speed of light from the POV of a stationary observer.

The spin has its own spin-contraction formula. I will try and find it for you.

[Mr.D]

These odd properties by the way, where essential because yet again i explain, pointlike particles do not possess a true 360 degree back-to-orientation reality; non-pointlike particles can have a real axial spin.


Sigh.

Unless these non-pointlike particles you speak of do not obey relativity (which to be fair, you hinted at with your "currently not allowed" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5015690#post5015690) comment), the angular momentum they carry as "spin" cannot be classical angular momentum. And if your proposed non-pointlike particles do no obey relativity, then how do you justify applying fluid dynamics to them?

The intrinsic angular momentum of fermions in the Standard Model is part-and-parcel of the Standard Model - it is entirely self-consistent and matches very well to experimental measurements.

If you're going to try to remodel Standard Model with nonpointlike electrons etc, you're going to have throw it all out and your model must also explain (among other things), the magnetic moment of the electron, the width of atomic spectra emissions, the interference patterns of electron beams in the double-slit experiment and so on. So far you haven't even justified why the Standard Model is insufficient other than some vague notion that "Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5014900#post5014900)

[RussDill]

The spin has its own spin-contraction formula. I will try and find it for you.

...And if you claimed that it applies to electrons, photons, and quarks, wouldn't that prove my point?

[Singularitarian]

That's funny that, because, there was no problems with a classical view of spin, until that is, we realized that quantization of pointlike particles did not allow the true three-dimensional rotational spin, according to Cramer. In fact, he hints at no errors with relativity in general before such a quantization was made, so i think you are wrong.

[Singularitarian]

...And if you claimed that it applies to electrons, photons, and quarks, wouldn't that prove my point?

I could attempt to answer any problems which may arise with having the relativistic effects taken into account, but these would be guesses, educated ones though. For instance, spin may seem altered from our perspective, but inertially from the view of an electron, it would remain exactly the same, according to relativity.

[RussDill]

That's funny that, because, there was no problems with a classical view of spin, until that is, we realized that quantization of pointlike particles did not allow the true three-dimensional rotational spin, according to Cramer. In fact, he hints at no errors with relativity in general before such a quantization was made, so i think you are wrong.

ORLY? Is that what you will stick with? Please consider the ramifications of a photon with classical spin.

[Singularitarian]

The photon is a boson, with a spin 1.

Not a fermion. Doesn't apply.

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat can help me out here, but applying classical spin to elementary particles has other problems, iirc, you run into serious issues with time dilation. A particle with classical spin would spin slower as it approaches the speed of light from the POV of a stationary observer.

Rotation in relativity is a little messy, so that's not quite true. But there are indeed very big problems with trying to treat electron spin as classical. The whole rotating faster than light speed bit is one of the problems. Rigidity of the electron is another. Then there's the whole problem of the gyromagnetic ratio, which is very unclassical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio#Gyromagnetic_ratio_for_an_isola ted_electron).

[Mr.D]

What Dorfl is referring to is the orietational spin, where it would need to exceed lightspeed, when it is a pointlike particle. You are referring to angular momentum as if the dimensional object would continue to exhibit problems with spin. The problems only arise from non-dimensional particle.


No.

What Dorfl is referring to is the very well known problem of treating electrons like physical nonpointlike particles.


Try it (At most this should take 20 minutes - if your google-fu is particularly weak):

Look up the mass of an electron and google up the current experimental upper bounds on the size of an electron.

Come up with a physical mass distribution for your proposed nonpointlike model - any one you like - along with its moment. Then calculate how fast your model must spin for it to have classical angular momentum 1/2.

Post the model and the formula here.

[RussDill]

The photon is a boson, with a spin 1.

Not a fermion. Doesn't apply.

Are you claiming that fermions have dimensions and bosons are pointlike?

[Singularitarian]

Are you claiming that fermions have dimensions and bosons are pointlike?


No. I am saying in this demonstration, i have investigated the spin problem of electrons, a rule which gave rise to the quantized angular momentum, which goes for all fermions. I have never gone as far as to speculate about the other class.

[RussDill]

No. I am saying in this demonstration, i have investigated the spin problem of electrons, a rule which gave rise to the quantized angular momentum, which goes for all fermions. I have never gone as far as to speculate about the other class.

What problem are you trying to overcome? Is there some experimental data that is not matching up with the standard model?

[Singularitarian]

I just have a conceptual problem with zero-dimensional particles, that is all :(

[Tumbleweed]

I see it this way. A point has no dimensions and exists only in the realm of math. Ditto for a line and a plane the first two "plane. If it is an atom thick it is a slab not a plane with no volume or a line with no thickness. Volume is what makes our universe. No volume no matter. Now imagine a volume in the form of a sphere, the center of which is at point 0,0 on a graph. If you spin that sphere around that point it is another dimension of the sphere. If you spin it counterclockwise versus clockwise that may be defined as a dimension too, but maybe just spin itself is. Now you can give that sphere velocity by giving it a constant motion away from that 0, 0 coordinate and that is another, give it acceleration and jerk and you have 2 more. In other words motion using powers of time are dimensions just as powers of lengths are.

[Mr.D]

I just have a conceptual problem with zero-dimensional particles, that is all :(

And I'm the one with the attitude? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Do you think you might have gotten a friendlier response if you started with the above statement and started asking questions about the Standard Model?

Is there anything about the Cohen paper that you'd like to discuss with regards to the pointlike nature of particles?

[RussDill]

I see it this way. A point has no dimensions and exists only in the realm of math. Ditto for a line and a plane the first two "plane".

Why?

(And per the rest of the comment, the idea of assigning different states and properties of a system to dimensions of some space is very common in modern physics)

[Dorfl]

I just have a conceptual problem with zero-dimensional particles, that is all :(

Lots of people do, but it always turns out you get worse problems assuming they're not 0-d.

But try imagining a particle of some finite size. You'll have no problem imagining a slightly smaller one, right? So just try imagining that electrons are smaller than any particle of finite size. That might make it easier to visualise. Or not. It's hard to know in advance which explanation will make sense to someone.

[Singularitarian]

So you try to overturn the entire standard model because your poor little brain has a failure of imagination?

Have you considered that physics might not be the science for you?

I have a paradox for you. Answer it if you can.

If matter is a three-dimensional phenomenon, then how can matter itself be made up of zero-dimensional constituents?

[wollery]

I have a paradox for you. Answer it if you can.

If matter is a three-dimensional phenomenon, then how can matter itself be made up of zero-dimensional constituents?Because their other properties produce 3 dimensional spacing between them.

[Singularitarian]

Because their other properties produce 3 dimensional spacing between them.


It's mathematically known that geometric time is not an emergent property of quantized time. This also includes space.

[wollery]

It's mathematically known that geometric time is not an emergent property of quantized time. This also includes space.Citation please.

[Singularitarian]

Yes, i do have one somewhere but i will need to provide it later when i come back; for now, read this:

Now, according to physicist Fotini Markopoulou, the problems of time in a geometric sense is synonymous with the emergence of space itself - which is geometry. It absolutely requires no time whatsoever. He continues to say, ''By making the geometry not fundamental, we are able to make a distinction between the geometric and the fundamental time, which opens up the possibility that, while the geometric time is a symmetry, the fundamental time is real.''

The qoutation is one reference i will provide later.

[Singularitarian]

Also, read ''The Frozen Lake,'' by Greene. It also talks abot timelessness.

[Dorfl]

Also, read ''The Frozen Lake,'' by Greene. It also talks abot timelessness.
Do you mean "The Frozen River"?

I had it recommended to me a few threads back.

[Dorfl]

I have a paradox for you. Answer it if you can.

If matter is a three-dimensional phenomenon, then how can matter itself be made up of zero-dimensional constituents?

They are still distributed in a three-dimensional space, aren't they? Are you asking why things do not instantly collapse into black holes?

[Tumbleweed]

Mechanics mechanic mechanics! Those not versed in your field of expertise will never get the gist of what you are saying, unless you can do like Einstein did and play "what if" as in the case of the space twins and the ball thrown on a moving train.
So do singularities HAVE to contain an entire universe? Can't there be empty singularities. And maybe an electron/ atom et al are inflated singularities. What would make a singularity inflate? Does a singularity become a "flatlander" before it tosses in the third dimension and inflates to volume? Do singularities really exist in this "volume with motion" universe or are they the figment of a mad mathematician like the square root of -1 and ONLY exist as represented by point 0,0 on a two dimensional graph, which itself doesn't really "exist" on its own in a multi dimensional universe. Its just an abstract thought shown on paper

[Tumbleweed]

Yes, i do have one somewhere but i will need to provide it later when i come back; for now, read this:

Now, according to physicist Fotini Markopoulou, the problems of time in a geometric sense is synonymous with the emergence of space itself - which is geometry. It absolutely requires no time whatsoever. He continues to say, ''By making the geometry not fundamental, we are able to make a distinction between the geometric and the fundamental time, which opens up the possibility that, while the geometric time is a symmetry, the fundamental time is real.''

The qoutation is one reference i will provide later.
Yes I like that. But you consider the powers of time as dimensions, isn't the logical step in creating dimensions to give mass or "volume" motion? Spin, velocity, acceleration, and jerk don't seem so exotic or hard to comprehend. They are everywhere, because everything from electrons to galaxies possess them all through relative motion
And motion gives geometry time

[Tumbleweed]

V= d/t. So - Does time and space (represented by distance) have to exist to get velocity? Or does velocity have to exist to get space and time. 0 = 0/0 so I guess so. All three must exist simultaneously or none of it works. A definition of NOT having any of them could be called a singularity, no? So in the equation V=d/t it would be shown as 0=0/0 or in actuality a defintion of zero divided by itself. So 0/0, THAT Is what a singularity is:and that equals the number zero!

[sol invictus]

It's mathematically known that geometric time is not an emergent property of quantized time. This also includes space.

That's false. It also has little or nothing to do with the question of whether particles are point-like or not.

[Evilgiraffe]

I have a paradox for you. Answer it if you can.

If matter is a three-dimensional phenomenon, then how can matter itself be made up of zero-dimensional constituents?

That's not a paradox. As wollery and Dorfl have already stated, matter is created from point-like particles distributed in 3-dimensional space.

The fact that you are unable to imagine such an assembly is hardly the fault of reality.

[Mr.D]

I just have a conceptual problem with zero-dimensional particles, that is all :(

Lots of people do, but it always turns out you get worse problems assuming they're not 0-d.


Are you ready to concede this point Singularitarian? It's not hard to convince yourself of the problems with finite sized electron models once you start doing the math. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309) Really - A semester of non-calculus based physics is all you need.

You cited the Cohen paper - is there something about it you'd like to discuss or did you just google up the abstract? I'm very rusty on the material - and it's really not my specialty, but I'll slog through it if there's an actual reason for your citation.


But try imagining a particle of some finite size. You'll have no problem imagining a slightly smaller one, right? So just try imagining that electrons are smaller than any particle of finite size. That might make it easier to visualise. Or not. It's hard to know in advance which explanation will make sense to someone.


Try this first approximation: Think of a neutrino as a massless, sizeless bundle of angular momentum. (Q: But what's spinning? A: Nothing; it's just a packet of angular momentum).

[Singularitarian]

That's false. It also has little or nothing to do with the question of whether particles are point-like or not.

Actually its not false, and has everything to do with the question of spatio and temporal distances, between zero-dimensional objects. Correctly stated, space and time are one entity. If time on the geometric level does not exist as current theory holds, then the dimensions of space do not exist linearly at all. Instead, we have a quantized space and time which remain fundamentally true, whilst, the geometry of space is not necesserily dependant on it. As i said early;

Now, according to physicist Fotini Markopoulou, the problems of time in a geometric sense is synonymous with the emergence of space itself - which is geometry. It absolutely requires no time whatsoever. He continues to say, ''By making the geometry not fundamental, we are able to make a distinctionbetween the geometric and the fundamental time, which opens up the possibility that, while the geometric time is a symmetry, the fundamental time is real.''

Concerning time, this imaginary dimension, which is not meaning it is ethereal in anyway without proof, takes off this spacetime triangle making the four-dimensional manifold of spacetime what it is, and what unifying them means. The math which described this was a new geometry:
s^2=-(c\Delta t)^2+(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2+(\Delta z)^2
This equation is a Cartesian Coordinate of spacetime. In a Minkowskian Row Vector Notation in a bilinear form can be given as: V=(0,0,0,1). The Row Value of the Matrix is given as:
\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}
This makes a smooth manifold consistent of time and space as single entities.

Now, if we are to take relativity seriously, then the problems markopoulou mentions can we replace ''time'' with the equally problems of the geometry of real space. The timelessness of the geometry of space means that only the quantization holds any relevence or importance. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is \hat{H}\psi>=0 where the right hand side of the equation is the quantity of time, which is zero. This is how the timelessness is involved on large scales. Going back to the original question, ''space between two pointlike objects'' actually would mean we are to believe that a mass collection of zero-dimensional particles can make three-dimensional objects, using space. Geometry at the fundamental level does not exist, and any space between two zero dimensional particles is not very rewarding. The matter still does not make a three dimensional self. It's only an illusion if this be the case.

[Singularitarian]

Are you ready to concede this point Singularitarian? It's not hard to convince yourself of the problems with finite sized electron models once you start doing the math. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309) Really - A semester of non-calculus based physics is all you need.

You cited the Cohen paper - is there something about it you'd like to discuss or did you just google up the abstract? I'm very rusty on the material - and it's really not my specialty, but I'll slog through it if there's an actual reason for your citation.



Try this first approximation: Think of a neutrino as a massless, sizeless bundle of angular momentum. (Q: But what's spinning? A: Nothing; it's just a packet of angular momentum).


It's not the math. If anything, the math gives us an opportunity to express things zero-dimensionally; but the indivisibility is in question. How finite must something be not to have a surface area? And note, a surface area must imply some kind of dimensions. How can something with a radius, for instance, like the electron (which vary's between calculations) be actually zero-dimensional, when the radii of something is a width?

[Dorfl]

Secondly no question is a stupid question. I am asking sincerally, whilst the radii is a measurement of a width, how can the electron have a width/radius?

I don't think I've heard anyone claim electrons have a radius until today. Do you have a source for this?

[Dorfl]

Now concerning what i was talking about, the radius of the electron. This is where i have become confused. A year ago, i was debating that the electron could not have a structure if it was poinlike, because someone was debating the radii of electrons. I was aware at that time that all measurements to calculate a radius have failed miserably, and if it has one, its extremely small.

Is it the language of physics which is giving me a hard time. When someone says to me, ''something has a mass'' i immediately associate a ''structure'' to that mass. How can something which has a mass not have some kind of internal structure?

I don't know how we can help you there. Sometimes we instinctively visualise things in a way which is feels right, but really is unfounded. Isn't it enough to say that, mathematically, point-masses work just fine, and that we cannot expect our intuition to depict things correctly on scales that small?

[Singularitarian]

Well yeh, i'd be happy about that. But it would mean that essentially, these conceptual things are being described by an abstractual mathematics which seems to either confuse the language we use, or it distorts the very rationality of what is being suggested.

Either way, it would seem the universe does not like to have its complexities reduced so easily.

[sol invictus]

Is it the language of physics which is giving me a hard time. When someone says to me, ''something has a mass'' i immediately associate a ''structure'' to that mass.

Your intuition is based on human-scale objects. Your intuition is totally wrong when you apply it to particles like electrons.


How can something which has a mass not have some kind of internal structure?

Can you give any reason it ought to other than "it seems that way to me"?

[Tumbleweed]

That's the thing about math: it trumps physics because it can delve into what at least seem to be impossibilities. Take the square root of minus 1 for example, or infinity. Or zero -. But whether or not extraneous roots REALLY exist? Is that the foundation of string theory? Taking extraneous roots and running with them, making the theory more in the realm of math guys than the physicists?

[sol invictus]

That's the thing about math: it trumps physics because it can delve into what at least seem to be impossibilities. Take the square root of minus 1 for example, or infinity. Or zero -. But whether or not extraneous roots REALLY exist?

When extra roots appear in an exact equation, they always mean something physically. Sometimes they appear in an approximate equation as an artifact of the approximation, and in that case they just tell you the approximation is breaking down.

Is that the foundation of string theory? Taking extraneous roots and running with them, making the theory more in the realm of math guys than the physicists?

Not really. String theory is based on a single physical assumption: that fundamental "particles" are really 1-dimensional extended objects rather than point particles. The rest of it is the exploration of that assumption, using standard methods of physics and mathematics.

The assumption might be wrong, but I think if it's not the physical consequences as worked out by string theorists are probably correct.

[Singularitarian]

That's the thing about math: it trumps physics because it can delve into what at least seem to be impossibilities. Take the square root of minus 1 for example, or infinity. Or zero -. But whether or not extraneous roots REALLY exist? Is that the foundation of string theory? Taking extraneous roots and running with them, making the theory more in the realm of math guys than the physicists?

''"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. ...''

Albert Einstein

[Dorfl]

Well yeh, i'd be happy about that. But it would mean that essentially, these conceptual things are being described by an abstractual mathematics which seems to either confuse the language we use, or it distorts the very rationality of what is being suggested.

Either way, it would seem the universe does not like to have its complexities reduced so easily.

I like to think that abstract mathematics straighten things out in situations that everyday language is already confused about. I mean, no language was invented with discussions of sub-atomic physics in mind, so it's not that surprising that doing so leads to some degree of ambiguity and to some seeming paradoxes. Simply doing the numbers however, you get around all those assumptions of how things "ought", "rationally" to work—which really are just based on observations of the macroscopic world anyway.

[Singularitarian]

Your intuition is based on human-scale objects. Your intuition is totally wrong when you apply it to particles like electrons.



Can you give any reason it ought to other than "it seems that way to me"?

My intuition however is not as rigid as you are evidently making out. I have considered these things, but as i said also once before, ''Geometry at the fundamental level does not exist, and any space between two zero dimensional particles is not very rewarding. The matter still does not make a three dimensional self. It's only an illusion if this be the case.''

[Dorfl]

'Geometry at the fundamental level does not exist, and any space between two zero dimensional particles is not very rewarding. The matter still does not make a three dimensional self. It's only an illusion if this be the case.'

If you like, you can say that the space taken up by a bunch of 0-d particles in a 3-d space is just an "illusion", since their total volume is, after all, zero. I don't see what difference it makes to choose to call it that, however. For all practical purposes, they do manage to take up space.

Note that even if they turned out not to be zero-dimensional, that would not be the reason they manage to take up as much volume as they do. The sum of the particles' individual volumes in a large mass would be much less than that mass's volume. So you still would have to call it an illusion.

[Singularitarian]

Then, if this is an illusion, the geometric space is not very considerable. In fact, the geometry of space does not depend always on matter. In Einsteins sense, yes - it always does. He has his little fluctuations curl the space around them. I remember reading a scientist once say ''the particles are like knots in spacetime, tiny little curvatures.''

In my sense, the geometry we have perception about, is not a pre-requisit then for a particle to exist. You could have a zero-dimensional particle for instance, existing on a one-dimensional line.

[Dorfl]

Then, if this is an illusion, the geometric space is not very considerable. In fact, the geometry of space does not depend always on matter. In Einsteins sense, yes - it always does. He has his little fluctuations curl the space around them. I remember reading a scientist once say ''the particles are like knots in spacetime, tiny little curvatures.''

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I meant that if all fundamental particles are 0-d, you can say "This litre of water appears to have a volume of 1 dm3, but that is an illusion. The sum of volumes of it's constituent particles is zero!", but I didn't really see the point of doing that. First of all, it will still have a volume of 1 dm3 for all effective purposes. Also, even if fundamental particles turned out to have a volume, you would still be able to say "This litre of water appears to have a volume of 1 dm3, but that is an illusion. The sum of volumes of it's constituent particles is only barely above zero!" if you wanted to.

How the geometry of space itself relates to this, I admit I'm not sure. Are you certain it is actually relevant to this thread?


In my sense, the geometry we have perception about, is not a pre-requisit then for a particle to exist. You could have a zero-dimensional particle for instance, existing on a one-dimensional line.

Intuitively, I see no problems with any <n-dimensional particle in an n-dimensional space.

[Singularitarian]

Geometry to us, makes a paradoxical three-dimensional world. The final theory, or a theory which can describe the origin of everything will depend not on a geometrical view, but one which must arise from the fundamental calculations. If what we percieve is an illusion, then the final theory will not care for the world we see when origins are taken into account.

The geometry of space was used as a way to discredit my question, ''how do two dimensional particles make a three dimensional object?''

Someone answered that it was the space between the points which made the three dimensions. For all considerable sake, there is no dimensions in question at the end of the line seperating the two points, nor is the geometry of spacetime a pre-requisit of the fundamental description itself.

[RussDill]

Is it the language of physics which is giving me a hard time. When someone says to me, ''something has a mass'' i immediately associate a ''structure'' to that mass. How can something which has a mass not have some kind of internal structure?

Soo.....because you are confused, you are right? One of the biggest problems people have with physics seems to be that they try to use their everyday experience to express how physics "works". Your everyday experiences have nothing to do with physics.

How can something have mass without internal structure? Wha? Why would internal structure be a requirement for mass?

[Dorfl]

Geometry to us, makes a paradoxical three-dimensional world. The final theory, or a theory which can describe the origin of everything will depend not on a geometrical view, but one which must arise from the fundamental calculations. If what we percieve is an illusion, then the final theory will not care for the world we see when origins are taken into account.

The geometry of space was used as a way to discredit my question, ''how do two dimensional particles make a three dimensional object?''

Someone answered that it was the space between the points which made the three dimensions. For all considerable sake, there is no dimensions in question at the end of the line seperating the two points, nor is the geometry of spacetime a pre-requisit of the fundamental description itself.

I don't see how a three-dimensional world is paradoxical. There is nothing very strange about 0-dimensional objects being distributed in a 3-dimensional space. That they can form composite objects which have three dimensions is a bit trickier, but not really paradoxical either.

The rest of your post seems to be drifting away a bit from the original topic. Are you sure you do not want to start another thread raising your point there, once you have taken the time to formulate it clearly?

[Singularitarian]

I don't see how a three-dimensional world is paradoxical. There is nothing very strange about 0-dimensional objects being distributed in a 3-dimensional space. That they can form composite objects which have three dimensions is a bit trickier, but not really paradoxical either.

The rest of your post seems to be drifting away a bit from the original topic. Are you sure you do not want to start another thread raising your point there, once you have taken the time to formulate it clearly?

It is strange. For me, even a point has some kind of width. If it existed with no dimensions, how can it exist for real in something which is encompassed as a dimension?

[Singularitarian]

Are you just making some attempt to sound like Brian Greene? You are doing a very poor job. You've posted nearly 700 posts, and not a single one has made any testable prediction. Nothing you have posted has any impact on physics. What is your goal?

Russ, this is not a lab. Perhaps i will be more vigourous in these assertions when a more reputable place is taken into account. I have no intentions eve replying to your last two posts niether, so don't hold your breath. You assume a lot, by assuming the way i operate. I never said science was wrong, nor have i ever stated that in any way. I said i believed that perhaps science could be wrong in its interpretaton.

[Tricky]

A number of posts moved to AAH for off-topic and bickering. Please try to keep it civil.

[Singularitarian]

Ok, one testable prediction.

If the electron is not pointlike, then it should be possible to split the electron.

[Singularitarian]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/08/13/NEWS1154.dtl

Maybe we have evidence it is possible already!

[Mr.D]

It is strange. For me, even a point has some kind of width.

One more time. Your inability to understand the concept is not a failure of the physics.

[Reality Check]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/08/13/NEWS1154.dtl

Maybe we have evidence it is possible already!
Not really. This is a 9 year old science article. It and the press release (quoted here (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae348.cfm)) mention ongoing experiments to confirm this. No sign of any results.

In fact Maris just calls the separated parts of the electron's wave function electrinos. There is no suggestion that these are actually particles. The wavefunction may be separated in the bubbles but as soon as a measurement is done the electron will be in one or other of the bubbles - not electrinos in both bubbles.

[Tumbleweed]

Doesn't rotation give rise to dimensions? Take a line extending on the x axis. Rotate it around point 0 and you have a circular plane. Rotate the circle around the x axis and you have a sphere and space/ volume is created. Now rotate the sphere and time is created as well as velocity. And since velocity has to do with time not squared and acceleration has to do with time that is squared, gravity has got to be created by doing something to that rotating sphere. Or is gravity and acceleration simply characteristics created by the spinning sphere and its creation of time, no further action needed. But how does a line arise from a point? Can't envision rotation there. And how is rotation initiated to create the dimensions, how is the sphere made to spin?

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe it's the Flatlanders or the second dimension (area, plane) that is non existent. Since it is assumed that the universe came from a singularity that inflated and gave us space (and time), perhaps the inflation was multi directional simultaneously, such that volume was created without the process of being an area or plane first. Point goes straight to volume, no second dimension needed. And the velocity, or inherent motion of the inflation, gave us time and relativity

[Dorfl]

It is strange. For me, even a point has some kind of width. If it existed with no dimensions, how can it exist for real in something which is encompassed as a dimension?

Mathematically, a point has no width, and that is what makes it a point.

Physically, once more, I think your requirement that they have extent is still based on experience of macroscopic objects. Asking how something can "exist for real" under any circumstances, is a philosophical question which will never be answered.