The two paradoxes of point-like nature

First of all, point like particles are simply accepted because they appear to act like point like particle interactions.

This is a misnomer. Particles do not act pointlike at all... they behave as though fields interact. Even the most instructive physicist will inform you... particles never interact directly... it has to do with a geometrical interpretation of how fields interact. There is no evidence that pointlike systems react with pointlike systems... this attribute is only assumed.

Secondly, it is hard to imagine in a logical sense, how a zero-dimensional particle has any real interaction in the world. Classical physics restricts the mind to understand that for anything to have a mass, must have a volume. We do this, often when calculating densities in not only mass (in which some equations treat mass and charge as synonymous), but it appears that there has to be a volume to talk about anything with dimensions. A point in physics, is like saying in geometrical terms, there is something without substance.



... Discuss please, how these conceptual descriptions could be wrong. If they are wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you want to know how particles are observed, why not start with Millikan's oil drop experiment.

Fields don't interact.

It's ok to say charged particles interact with fields, but fields do not interact.

None of that is assumed, so whatever is bothering you here is moot.

No one is claiming zero-D particles, so problem solved.

Volume has little or no meaning at the particle scale. Nor is there anything restrictive about classical physics.

Density is a property of bulk matter, not particles.

No, a point in physics is like saying "I want to know the luminosity of this cluster of galaxies".

Done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's only fields that interact, particles don't ever interact directly, only their fields do.


Anyone else who would like to tackle my questions, because I don't want to talk to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find it amazing that anybody thinks an electron is a point particle. You can diffract electrons. It's quantum field theory, not quantum point-particle theory. The electron's field is what it is.

That gets the thumbs up from me.

I agree. I mean, how can a point particle spin? How can it have a magnetic moment? How could the Einstein-de Haas effect be real?

The point particle concept is wrong. End of story.

I think a big problem in contemporary physics is that this is not acknowledged, and moreover there's no electron model. There's no clear idea of what an electron actually is. I find this pretty amazing myself. For a rough outline remember pair production and annihilation, then see this and note this: "It means that the electron has a spin, that it rotates". Then think Dirac's belt, but remember E is spherically symmetric, so inflate a Moebius strip to a torus, then inflate further until you've got a spindle-sphere torus. See this but try to imagine it without a surface. A hurricane doesn't have a surface. Nor does a spinor. But the spin is intrinsic, it makes it what it is. Take the rotation away from a hurricane and all you've got is wind. Take the rotation away from an electron and all you've got its light.

 

This...I agree with completely! No field could interact with a point particle. Now, consider "particles" to be fields curved back on themselves (solitons) and many puzzlers go away.

 

Everything you are attempting to address is governed by the laws of electromagnetics. They are laws of nature which are well known. You can not repeal the laws of nature by decree.

You are being ignored because your statements indicate that you're never had a course in electromagnetics. There is no merit to anything you've posted.

If you wish to understand the relevant laws, just ask. There are a wealth of educational materials to help you learn.

 

So what? I've actually got more knowledge on the subject you are giving me credit for. I know it is explicitely true in physics and no 'respectable physicist' will argue with me...

... particles do not interact directly, only their fields do.


Now... let's try this and let's try and be nice to each other. The original argument is that this is a paradox. It's a paradox not only in the classical sense in which things with substance have specific volumes but it is a paradox in the sense that we cannot claim that particles actually interact pointlike at all, because the electrostatic field surrounding either a pointlike particle or a classical sphere remains the same, it is perfectly symmetrical.

Now, the problem with this is that we begin with the assumption that particles must behave as point like particles because the energy scales in which we have detected indicates pointlike interaction. But the rules are biased in the sense, because particles never interact. No model in physics has ever been presented that states that particles directly interact with each other. It's always their surrounding fields which interact with fields of other particles. So it doesn't make sense to say they ''interact like pointlike particles'' when they don't technically interact at all.

 

Not being a respectable physicist I have to ask, how about neutron radiation?

 

Evidently the home schooling has made it easy for you to define for yourself what constitutes knowledge.

From this we gather your accumulation of knowledge did not include the chapter on superposition.

"Pointlike" refers to scale, nothing more. It's the kind of thing that you get from by pursuing a formal education.

All you really need to say is that you either accept or deny Maxwell's equations.

 

This is a strange assertion. How do you weigh knowledge?

Home schooled on a subject doesn't make anyone incapable. It just means that they have found ways to understand a subject without official channels and this process might include a wide range of techniques, such as extensive online studies of high class lectures for a number of years. I certainly am not over-estimating my science knowledge, for I never will. There will always be more I need to learn.


It's a bit like my chess career. I have never had a proper tutor, but I currently have a rating between 1900-2200 as indicated from two chess sites I play at. My peak rating has been 2300. Though online ratings can be slightly inflated, this rating was completely home-schooled, I became a good player within a year by studying various tactical and opening knowledge of chess theory.

So what is knowledge and why do you single me out harshly?

 

I think what you mean is that a system is pointlike down to a scale. Don't talk to me like I don't know what any of this means.

The scale indicates pointlike interaction, the point of the OP is that there is no true pointlike interaction, only fields interact... the thing you disagreed with but I corrected you on.

 

No I do not.

You don't

No

You are pontificating

No

No you simply are in denial

 

Is it correct to say that fields interfere, but not interact ?
For example in double slit experiment, there is an interference pattern produced by wave character of light.

I think we should not confuse interaction with interference.

 

The last person who said that finally admitted their mistakes here. You will eventually go the same way, I'm used to catching out internet trolls like yourself.

 

Of course fields interact, if they interact they interfere. Both are synonymous.

Also, particles is what don't interact. You almost never in nature consider two point particles interacting, this was known right back to the days of Schwinger and Feynman.

 

Particles are in fact pointlike down to a scale. From interactions, we believe they are pointlike down to a scale of \(10^{-18}\)m. This may have been refined since my study of the exact values. Point is however, pointlike particles don't interact, so this is a misnomer.

 

This is a logical way to explain point-like particle interaction. It has to do with relativity, time dilation and distance contraction. If the point particle being observed, was actually finite in size, but existed in at a reference close to the speed of light, it would appear distance contracted to a point, in our earth reference. It would also show considerable time dilation allowing it to survive billions of years in our reference, even if it was transient in its own reference. From its POV, it would see the universe contracted in time and space, thereby allowing it to be what appears to be an ancient point, interacting at great distances in our reference.

The way this relativistic situation is possible, requires only the assumption that a speed of the light reference is the ground state of the universe. This is supported by net conversion of mass to energy in our universe, as manifested as mass burn in stellar fusion.

Mass cannot move at the speed of light, with mass burn to energy returning mass from below C, to C as energy. This C ground state keeps matter, at some level, close to C, for ready interconversion between matter and energy.

In particles accelerators, we knock the relativity out of stable matter. This causes the substructure to loose its ability to last for billions of years. Since C is the ground or zero state, the collision increases the potential with the C ground state, thereby removing all traces of contained relativity. Now the same sub particles only show a short life.

 

Hello and welcome! You are correct. Fields add, they do not interact. Trapped never took electromagentics, yet he's preaching to those who did.

 

Deny it all you want. You can't repeal the laws of nature by decree.

 

Good for you, more embarrassing then your are incorrect about fields themselves. You don't seem to understand, that particles don't interact. This might have something to do with you actually not understanding the course you took. I'm preaching to someone claiming that I am wrong about fields and particles. Well I'll say it one more time and hopefully you will listen carefully: I don't care about 'what courses in electromagnetism' you have taken. I couldn't give a rats ass about that. You are wrong. Particles almost never interact directly. Fields do. The respective fields of particles interact.

You have a very classical billiard ball, direct interaction point of view: this is out-dated. We know particles don't directly interact, we know this by studying Feynman diagrams. Fields only interact... or interfere. Both are the same.