Debate What can move but has no room to

[dimension-1hacker]

You have the right idea about electrons but they do essentially have a volume but like a photon occupy 0^0 energy and has confused the logic of classical physics and energy physics to an extent because the value of 0 to the power of 0 is 1-0. An electron has a negative volume integer of ~10−30 m^3 so while containing volume be it negative, do hold a constant of energy.

electrons on many sites are listed of having x amount of mass, is that the equivelent to the amount of energy an electron is coverted to mass.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

Incorrect.
Electrons are examples of "point particles." Such particles are considered to be like geometric points - they occupy no space because their volume is zero. Google it.

Harte

if there is no volume there is no energy correct? If there is nothing there to be something nothing is there, hence there is no space for energy to be.

 

[Harte]

if there is no volume there is no energy correct? If there is nothing there to be something nothing is there, hence there is no space for energy to be.

Wrong again.
Energy itself takes up no volume at all, and there are many different levels of energy for an electron - which itself occupies no volume at all.

Every single thing known about electrons points to them having zero dimensions.

Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure, not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero.
For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the size of an electron is less than 10−18 m.[6] This is consistent with the expected value of exactly zero. (This should not be confused with the classical electron radius, which, despite the name, is unrelated to the actual size of an electron.)

That's from Wiki. It's a reasonable explanation though, if you read through it.

Harte

 

[Discord]

Wrong again.
Energy itself takes up no volume at all, and there are many different levels of energy for an electron - which itself occupies no volume at all.

Every single thing known about electrons points to them having zero dimensions.

That's from Wiki. It's a reasonable explanation though, if you read through it.

Harte

You're right; Elementary particles do not take up space in Quantum-Theory. It's time to disavow the outdated and wrong Relativity!

electrons on many sites are listed of having x amount of mass, is that the equivelent to the amount of energy an electron is coverted to mass.

if there is no volume there is no energy correct? If there is nothing there to be something nothing is there, hence there is no space for energy to be.

In Relativity, Mass = Energy yet Photons dont have mass nor volume so they shouldn't contain any energy, Right? Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness. They're virtual particles and arent visualized but they say we know due to effects they produce. So energy doesn't take up any mass nor volume in any sort of physical space. So particles are not regarded as bits of curved space-time, but rather as excitation's of quantum fields.

 

[Harte]

You're right; Elementary particles do not take up space in Quantum-Theory. It's time to disavow the outdated and wrong Relativity!
In Relativity, Mass = Energy yet Photons dont have mass nor volume so they shouldn't contain any energy, Right?

Wrong. It's not true that Relativity wouldn't allow a zero mass photon.
In fact, it is relativity that gave us the zero mass photon.
That's because the zero part is a photon's "rest mass." Of course, like everything else, they're never "resting."
The mass of the photon that gives it momentum (so that a light sail would work, for example) is it's relativistic mass. The momentum of photons has been known about for quite some time now. This thing was invented in the late 1800's:

A photon gains mass with velocity, just like you do.

You can read more about photon mass here: Link

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness. They're virtual particles and arent visualized but they say we know due to effects they produce. So energy doesn't take up any mass nor volume in any sort of physical space. So particles are not regarded as bits of curved space-time, but rather as excitation's of quantum fields.

All true, and virtual particles might provide insight into how the Big Bang happened.

Harte

 

[TimeFlipper]

Incorrect.
Electrons are examples of "point particles." Such particles are considered to be like geometric points - they occupy no space because their volume is zero. Google it.

Harte

Hartey, you reminded me of that very bad joke where an electron goes into a bar and orders a Scotch Whiskey....The bar tender pours the Whiskey into a glass and the electron asks him how much he wants?..The bar tender says its ok sir, no charge...

 

[Harte]

Either the electron or the bartender has to be a neutron for that joke to work.

Harte