Wait.. what's an "electron"?

File: goat.jpg (511KB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 3024x4032px

>>9074601
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Tl;dr it's like a really tiny goat

a photon but it spins instead of going straight

A point particle with the properties of mass, charge, and angular momentum that can interact with other point particles.

>>9074611

No such thing as point particles, even quarks have size.

>>9074604
Is this actually true or are you parroting someone who told you?

>>9074619
Quarks are bigger than electrons

>>9074619
>According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent. Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle are considered ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius

>>9074601
A miserable pile of secrets

>>9074619
There's no way to experimentally measure the size of a quark, electron, etc., so as far as current models are concerned, they are absolutely point particles.

Really they should be thought of as a field though.

>>9074621
its actually true

Point particles aren't real.

>>9074659
Solid objects occupying 3 dimensional space aren't real.

>>9074601
"A subatomic particle with a negative charge of negative electricity" which doesn't mean anything since it's a description not an explanation.
Everything revolving around them is based on theories and equations that are derived from observing what they cause other things to do, but as far as we're concerned they don't exist.

>>9074683
>a negative charge of negative electricity
what does that even mean

>>9074684
Meant to say electrically negative charge, but that doesn't really make the description any better. It means absolutely nothing because it's a crock of shit to convince mental midgets that a particle that has not been explained or observed exists.

it's an anti-positron

File: 1461858132159.jpg (8KB, 255x149px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x149px

>the smallest particles don't occupy space
>the smallest particles make up everything
Which one is it?

>>9074698
Both. Why would you think those two are mutually exclusive?

>>9074698
It's not like those point charges are compacted together infinitely to make us up; they're spaced out.

>>9074656
i don't think you know what spin is

>>9074712
what's a point

>>9074601

>>9074683
In addition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD6pSP-E6pc

this is the best explanation. Main channel is "Theoria Apophasis" and he (Ken Wheeler and Eric Dollard are probably the only people on the planet that could tell you what an election is.

>>9074717
A position in space.

>>9074717
A point particle is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space. A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

>>9074721
But you just said particles don't occuppy space.

File: 1458729847952.png (170KB, 403x393px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 403x393px

>>9074699
Here is a simple experiment for you to try. Find the nearest object there is that you can hold with your hand, besides maybe your mouse. A bottle or cup of water, a coin, whatever. Hold it with your right hand. It's currently occupying space. Now, change hands, hold the object with the left hand. It's occupying a different space. If the particles that make up the whole don't occupy space, then performing the experiment would be impossible, which proves that the object does, indeed, occupy space.

If the smallest particles don't occupy space, how come your penis can fit into your mom's ass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffAFlvLaHBM

>>9074736
>>9074741

Everything you see and feel can be explained as different points in space with certain properties that allow them to interact with other points in space (other "particles") via fundamental forces. When I pick up that water bottle, I'm feeling the Coulomb force from different points in space pushing back to prevent my hand from getting through. You don't need the idea of 3D-space occupying objects to explain that.

>>9074760
Many words, but no message... There is a fundamental point at which things occupy space. Another thing I don't understand is: if everything is made up of massless particles, how come there is mass?

>>9074769
permittivity, permeability, acceleration and a few other factors all related to magnetism and electricity (Which is most likely what causes gravity)

>>9074773
>(Which is most likely what causes gravity)
Ah, I see. You're just full of bullshit.

>>9074769
>There is a fundamental point at which things occupy space
Quantum field theory is a pretty well established field by now, it's not wrong. It's still possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that we might find elementary particles do have a "size". But physics can be explained perfectly without it.

>if everything is made up of massless particles, how come there is mass?
What? Of course there's mass. A particle with mass simply means a particle that can interact with another massive particle via gravity.

>>9074777
That wasn't me, but physicists have been working on the problem of unifying the fundamental forces for over a century. That's what the whole theory of everything is about. We already know that electromagnetism and the weak interaction are the same thing at high enough energies, so it's not crazy to think that the same thing could happen with gravity at even higher energies.

>>9074777

There is no other explanation of what causes gravity, only theories.

File: 1497222989434.jpg (18KB, 470x336px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 470x336px

Wait so hold on... What's an "electron"?

>>9074714
i know you are wrong

>>9075257
Jk dude you're so smart

>>9074736
They exist in space but don't extend over a volume of space

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+an+electron

It is an aspect of Divine Thought or Idea. Everything in the universe can be abstracted, and it actually exists as an idea in the mind of God. It is simply an indivisible unity with extension in space which follows basic laws.

>>9074785
>We

>>9074718
the electron is one mathematical function (and there is only one such function)

>>9074601
Electron is excitation of electron field. It has mass, spin(intrinsic angular mom.) and charge.

File: Fidget_spinner_red,_cropped.jpg (122KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x1200px

>>9074601

>>9075662

What is this "one function" you're on about?

>>9075672
>Electron is excitation of electron field.

Why would anyone accept this as an explanation? What is this "Charge" you speak of?

>>9074674
>everything is just a 2D projection
>the universe is basically an anime
at last, anime became real

>>9074604
but why does it spin?

>>9076658
it doesn't spin, it has spin

>>9076651
It's the property of particles that dictates their behavior in an electromagnetic interaction.

Physics doesn't say anything about the intrinsic nature of elementary particles themselves, only how they relate to other particles. You wouldn't be able to find out anything from an electron (e.g. it's charge, mass, even position) if it existed by itself.

>>9076699
>Physics doesn't say anything about the intrinsic nature of elementary particles themselves, only how they relate to other particles.

Exactly, so electrons and particles do not exist by physics own definition. There is no electron just as there is no proton or neutron. They are merely after effects of magnetism and the perturbation of an incommensurate ether central point (which would be dielectricity) and recorded by our instruments.
Particles have been and have always been a lie. Tesla knew this, Steinmetz knew this and even J. J. Thompson was skeptical about his discovery of the electron as a thing.
>>9076658
>>9076660
an object stays in motion unless acted upon by another force...Except when everything around you on a universal scale is ALWAYS in motion moving at god knows what speed. You get "excitation" and "spin" or "energy" from the loss of inertia and nothing else, a difference so to speak aka a wave function. Much how like your car works fine in 70 degree weather, but the engine wouldn't budge if you tried to drive it on venus (providing the atmosphere was hot oxygen and nitrogen instead of sulpher and death) because there would be no difference between the combustion temp and the ambient outside temp.

File: green-field-and-blue-sky-1446458468c5i.jpg (92KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 615x410px

It's fields. Everything is fields.

>>9076660
How retarded are you?

>>9076758
Are fields also fields?

>>9076782
yes. The field field.

>>9075655
laaaaaaaaaaame

>>9076758
this tho

>>9076758
>>9076782
>>9076784

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jov9C3PeWH8

>>9074604
Electrons have mass, dipshit

>>9074604
"Electrons" emit photons, cuck

>>9074741
>what are fields
>what are forces
>what are force fields
>what are nuclear forces
I could go on and on.
We are factually composed of mostly empty space.
Even if electrons, proton, and neutrons were solid, the space between nuclei and orbits, and the space between atoms, and the space between molecules would all add up to dwarf the space occupied by tiny subatomic particles.

Asking how you hold something if both you and it are made of empty space is to ignore that a multitude of forces fill the spaces between objects.

>>9074601
An excitation of spin 1/2 dirac field.

>>9076658
Because, you cannot have zero angular momentum (spin 0) for fermions. They always have to have angular momentum in multiples of h/2

>>9074698
There is inherent uncertainty in position and momentum stemming from commutation relations. While the smallest particle do occupy space in literal scene (Pauli excision principle says two fermions cannot occupy same space) but the space they can be in is explained in terms of the probability that the particle can be here and not by saying it is exactly here.

>>9076758
this would make a great golf course

>>9077781
Hello Mr President.

>>9077816
seriously though it would
golf is based as fuck

>>9074604
I lol'd.

>>9074723
> For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

How does one go about showing a proof for that claim?

>>9074601

a collection of strings

>>9078649
Sometimes, due to specific combinations of properties, extended objects behave as point-like even in their immediate vicinity. For example, spherical objects interacting in 3-dimensional space whose interactions are described by the inverse square law behave in such a way as if all their matter were concentrated in their centers of mass. In Newtonian gravitation and classical electromagnetism, for example, the respective fields outside of a spherical object are identical to those of a point particle of equal charge/mass located at the center of the sphere.

>>9078688
Forgot to add.
In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume. For example, the atomic orbit of an electron in the hydrogen atom occupies a volume of ~10^-30m^3. There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure: A proton is made of three quarks. Elementary particles are sometimes called "point particles", but this is in a different sense than discussed above.