How many equilateral tetrahedra can be connected together without any empty space between them?

[Olga]

Demonstrably false. Electrons have mass, yet they are fundamental particles. They have no internal structure.

Who told you this?

Электрон - это разворачивающийся клубок, позитрон - сворачивающийся(если говорить образно). Конечно же, у них есть структура.

 

[DaveC426913]

An electron is an unfolding ball, a positron is a coiling ball (figuratively speaking). Of course, they have structure.

I see you are back to just making shit up.

Just a few minutes ago, you claimed to care what people think of you. So why throw it away with both hands by making up nonsense?

(I checked the translation independently:



This one's all on you.)

 

[TheVat]

Quarks have mass, which means they are composite. All massive particles are composite.

I'm recommending Sean Carroll's book for laymen, The Particle at the End of the Universe. And as Dave noted, leptons are not composite.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm recommending Sean Carroll's book for laymen, The Particle at the End of the Universe. And as Dave noted, leptons are not composite.

Yeah. Olga's gonna read a science book...

 

[Olga]

I'm recommending Sean Carroll's book for laymen, The Particle at the End of the Universe. And as Dave noted, leptons are not composite.

Не только, Теват. Все массивные частицы являются составными, и имеют внутри себя вакуум. Я когда то давно вкратце излагала здесь эту модель. Наверное, вы о ней не знаете. Но Дэйв знает. И тогда он никак не мог её опровергнуть, и Джеймс тоже.

 

[Olga]

I see you are back to just making shit up.

Just a few minutes ago, you claimed to care what people think of you. So why throw it away with both hands by making up nonsense?

(I checked the translation independently:

View attachment 7216

This one's all on you.)

Вы уже придумали, как опровергнуть мою модель, которую вы назвали "Ольга- Вселенная"? Если нет, тогда о чём речь?

 

[DaveC426913]

Not only that, Tevat. All massive particles are composite and have a vacuum inside them.

This is false.

I briefly outlined this model here a long time ago. You probably don't know about it. But Dave does.

Stuff you made up? You'll have to be more specific. You make up a lot of stuff.

And back then, he couldn't refute it at all, and neither could James.

We have no need to refute ideas that are founded in falsehoods. They are self-refuting.

For example, if your "model" has all massive particles containing vacuum and being composite then it is already wrong, no refutation needed.

Point of order: there is an alternate theories forum available where Olga can post her ideas and we can give them their due. This is the physics and math forum. Let's not have a repeat of Olgas trolling made up nonsense. Further dalliances into made up nonsense will be reported.

 

[James R]

All massive particles are composite, and have a vacuum inside them.

There is no evidence that electrons are composite. Nor is there evidence that neutrinos are composite.

Why do you make the claim, without any evidence?

 

[Olga]

There is no evidence that electrons are composite. Nor is there evidence that neutrinos are composite.

Why do you make the claim, without any evidence?

В свёрнутом виде электроны выглядят как частицы, в развёрнутом - как волна. Вы легко можете это проверить.

 

[James R]

When folded, electrons look like particles, and when unfolded, they look like a wave. You can easily check it.

Electrons don't "fold". But you didn't address what I wrote. Electrons are not composite. There is no evidence that they are made up of smaller particles.

 

[Olga]

Electrons don't "fold". But you didn't address what I wrote. Electrons are not composite. There is no evidence that they are made up of smaller particles.

Я писала не "складываются", а "свёрнуты". Вы когда-нибудь видели свёрнутую верёвку, Джеймс? Ну вот примерно так же выглядит и электрон. В свободном состоянии он "свёрнут", и выглядит как частица. Там, где на него влияет вакуум, например вокруг ядра, он выглядит как волна, а когда их(электронов) много, то как облако.

Я вам уже как то объясняла, как вакуум даёт массу. И почему фотон безмассовый. Если вы считаете, что электрон не составной, тогда объясните - почему он имеет массу, и почему он может быть и волной, и частицей?

 

[James R]

I wrote not "folded", but "folded".

Those two words are both translated to the same English word by my translator.

Have you ever seen a twisted rope, James?

Of course.

Well, the electron looks about the same.

Not as far as I'm aware.

In the free state, it is "folded" and looks like a particle. Where it is affected by a vacuum, for example, around the nucleus, it looks like a wave, and when there are many of them, it looks like a cloud.

I'm quite familiar with the quantum mechanical descriptions of free electrons and of electrons bound in atoms. Nothing about those descriptions suggests that electrons are made of smaller particles. Why do you keep failing to address that point?

I have already explained to you how a vacuum gives mass.

I don't recall your explanation. Are you referring to the Higgs mechanism?

And why the photon is massless.

Why is the photon massless, according to you? Remind me.

If you think that an electron is not composite, then explain why it has mass, and why it can be both a wave and a particle?

The answers to those questions are irrelevant to whether the electron is a composite particle or not.

However, I have already given you an answer to your first question: the electron has mass because it couples to the Higgs field.

As for your second question, I have nowhere asserted that an electron can't be both a wave and a particle. However, it is better to say that the electron can behave like a wave or a particle, depending on the circumstances of its observation. It is neither a wave nor a particle, really.

 

[Olga]

Those two words are both translated to the same English word by my translator.

Of course.

Not as far as I'm aware.

I'm quite familiar with the quantum mechanical descriptions of free electrons and of electrons bound in atoms. Nothing about those descriptions suggests that electrons are made of smaller particles. Why do you keep failing to address that point?

I don't recall your explanation. Are you referring to the Higgs mechanism?

Why is the photon massless, according to you? Remind me.

The answers to those questions are irrelevant to whether the electron is a composite particle or not.

However, I have already given you an answer to your first question: the electron has mass because it couples to the Higgs field.

As for your second question, I have nowhere asserted that an electron can't be both a wave and a particle. However, it is better to say that the electron can behave like a wave or a particle, depending on the circumstances of its observation. It is neither a wave nor a particle, really.

Нет, не механизм Хиггса. Когда частица замкнута, и имеет внутри себя вакуум - она массивна. Чем больше в объекте частиц - тем он более массивен. Не трудно догадаться почему. А фотон - это колебания вытянутых, незамкнутых струн - поэтому он безмассовый. Глюон тоже безмассовый, потому что глюон - это перетекающие внутри протона друг в друга кварки.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, not the Higgs mechanism. When a particle is closed and has a vacuum inside, it is massive. The more particles an object contains, the more massive it is. It's not hard to guess why. A photon, on the other hand, is the vibrations of elongated, unclosed strings—that's why it is massless. A gluon is also massless, because a gluon is made up of quarks flowing into each other inside a proton.

Nonsense.

I think this is the culprit:

It's not hard to guess why.

Try to avoid guessing.

Have you considered getting educated? That's how we do it in the West.

 

[Olga]

Nonsense.

I think this is the culprit:

Try to avoid guessing.

Have you considered getting educated? That's how we do it in the West.

Есть что возразить по существу, Дэйв?

 

[James R]

When a particle is closed, and has a vacuum inside it, it is massive.

What do you mean by "open" or "closed" particles?

Which particles do you think have vacuums inside them, and which particles do not?

What evidence do you have that some particles are open while others are closed?
What evidence do you have that some particles have vacuum inside them, while others do not?

The more particles there are in an object, the more massive it is.

You mean macroscopic objects made of atoms, for instance? That makes sense, because each individual proton or neutron or electron in regular matter has a specific mass, so the mass of two electrons, say, is twice the mass of one electron.

It is not difficult to guess why.

We already have a scientific theory that explains why. A new one is not needed.

And the photon is the vibrations of elongated, open strings - therefore it is massless.

What evidence do you have that the photon is made of elongated open strings?

A gluon is also massless, because a gluon is quarks flowing inside a proton into each other.

Gluons are not made of quarks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you have any substantive objections, Dave?

Yes. It's all made up. You're up to your old tricks again.
I don't know why you think we'd want to entertain stuff you're just pulling out of your butt for fun.


My theory:
Atoms are made of pixie dust! Negative ions are pink dust; positive ions are blue dust. Discuss!

I don't think you're serious. I think you're bored. I'm out.

 

[Olga]

What do you mean by "open" or "closed" particles?

Which particles do you think have vacuums inside them, and which particles do not?

What evidence do you have that some particles are open while others are closed?
What evidence do you have that some particles have vacuum inside them, while others do not?

You mean macroscopic objects made of atoms, for instance? That makes sense, because each individual proton or neutron or electron in regular matter has a specific mass, so the mass of two electrons, say, is twice the mass of one electron.

We already have a scientific theory that explains why. A new one is not needed.

What evidence do you have that the photon is made of elongated open strings?

Gluons are not made of quarks.

Глюоны - это маленькие струны между кварками.

Джеймс, вы читали мою "теорию равновесия", о которой я вам рассказывала несколько месяцев назад? Если нет, то мне придётся начинать объяснять всё сначала.

У нас сейчас интернет отключат, его обычно отключают теперь по вечерам у нас.

 

[Olga]

Yes. It's all made up. You're up to your old tricks again.
I don't know why you think we'd want to entertain stuff you're just pulling out of your butt for fun.


My theory:
Atoms are made of pixie dust! Negative ions are pink dust; positive ions are blue dust. Discuss!

I don't think you're serious. I think you're bored. I'm out.

Всё когда-нибудь было придумано, Дэйв. Как говорил Эйнштейн: главное - это хорошее воображение.

 

[James R]

Gluons are small strings between quarks.

What evidence do you have for that?

I keep asking your for evidence that supports your claims. You keep neglecting to provide any. Why is that?

James, have you read my "equilibrium theory" that I told you about a few months ago?

I'm sure that I must have read it, months ago. But I apparently didn't find it impressive enough to retain any of the details in my memory.

Did you read my posts that commented on the issues I had with your "equilibrium theory", months ago?

You disappeared from sciforums around the time when the discussion was getting a little heated, if I recall correctly. You struggled to have an honest discussion, if I recall correctly.