06 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidIf you want to understand the mathematical framework, you'll have to study it.
Are you saying electrons are one-dimensional?
06 Jan 20
@KazetNagorra
That would mean he would have to believe the works being studied and that is another issue.
06 Jan 20
@kazetnagorra saidI don't have to study anything. If you are claiming electrons are one dimensional then it cannot possibly be a particle. Particles are three dimensional.
If you want to understand the mathematical framework, you'll have to study it.
You are in error.
06 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidOf course you don't have to study the topic at hand if you don't want to. I'm just saying that doing so is a helpful step towards understanding that topic.
I don't have to study anything. If you are claiming electrons are one dimensional then it cannot possibly be a particle. Particles are three dimensional.
You are in error.
06 Jan 20
@kazetnagorra saidSimple question:
Of course you don't have to study the topic at hand if you don't want to. I'm just saying that doing so is a helpful step towards understanding that topic.
How can a particle be one dimensional? It can't. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
The excerpt from wikipedia is not referring to an electron. Either that or it is wrong.
06 Jan 20
@metal-brain said
I don't have to study anything. If you are claiming electrons are one dimensional then it cannot possibly be a particle. Particles are three dimensional.
You are in error.
Particles are three dimensional.Why do you think this? Part of the reason for the introduction of String Theory as a speculative theory of everything is that the divergences that plague quantum field theories are due to elementary particles being pointlike.
06 Jan 20
@deepthought saidAre you claiming that the theoretical strings in string theory are particles?Particles are three dimensional.Why do you think this? Part of the reason for the introduction of String Theory as a speculative theory of everything is that the divergences that plague quantum field theories are due to elementary particles being pointlike.
06 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidYou'll be more than happy to give us the dimensions of a quark, then.
I don't have to study anything. If you are claiming electrons are one dimensional then it cannot possibly be a particle. Particles are three dimensional.
You are in error.
In meters, please.
06 Jan 20
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou are NEVER, not in a million years, ever going to convince anyone here that you have even the minutest knowledge and understanding of string theory.
Are you claiming that the theoretical strings in string theory are particles?
Or quantum physics.
You don't even have a working knowledge of relativity.
Does basic physics give you this much trouble too?
06 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidI never claimed or suggested that "electrons are one-dimensional," whatever it is you think that means.
Simple question:
How can a particle be one dimensional? It can't. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
The excerpt from wikipedia is not referring to an electron. Either that or it is wrong.
I copy-pasted the excerpt to help you understand that intrinsic spin and classical angular momentum associated to a rotating object are not the same thing.
07 Jan 20
1 edit
@kazetnagorra saidWell the point traces out a line in 4 dimensional space-time, but he's just asking scatter gun questions.
I never claimed or suggested that "electrons are one-dimensional," whatever it is you think that means.
I copy-pasted the excerpt to help you understand that intrinsic spin and classical angular momentum associated to a rotating object are not the same thing.
Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.
07 Jan 20
@kazetnagorra saidYour excerpt was of no value at all. The uncertainty principal has to do with a path an electron takes, not it's spin. Wikipedia is an unreliable source as well. I think this is a good example. Your excerpt from wiki doesn't make sense.
I never claimed or suggested that "electrons are one-dimensional," whatever it is you think that means.
I copy-pasted the excerpt to help you understand that intrinsic spin and classical angular momentum associated to a rotating object are not the same thing.