Elementary Particles not Elementary

From Steve Puetz:

Hello Glenn,

I've run into a couple of problems that I have not yet been able to solve.  Both are related to measurements of "elementary" particles.

Of these, the most important are the measurements for the mass of an electron.  Two of the methods involve averaging millions of electrons -- thus, calculating an average -- from bending of electron streams and from Millikan's oil drop experiment.  Hence, these can be dismissed as averages rather than true measurements of a single electron.  The other method is called a Penning Trap.  Supposedly, a single electron can be weighed, and it matches the value from the other methods. The Penning Trap involves a number of events that prepare the electron for measurement, including dropping the temperature to near absolute zero.  The fact that all of these measurements arrive at the same answer is given as proof that electrons are elementary -- they all have exactly the same size and no subcomponents.  This contradicts neomechanics and the Ten Assumptions.

The other problem is with the atomic weights of the various isotopes.  They exist in approximate increments of 1 -- for every isotope.  For example,

Hydrogen-1 ~ 1
Hydrogen-2 ~ 2
Hydrogen-3 ~ 3
Helium-4 ~ 4
Helium-5 ~ 5

Similar to electrons, this gives the appearance that protons and neutrons are elementary -- each one always has a weight close to 1 atomic unit -- suggesting that they too are elementary.

Have you found any explanation for this?  I don't believe in elementary particles, but the measurements support this idea.

Good question.  I also  agree that there are no elementary particles. The INFINITY chapter in TTAOS and the section on INFINITY in TSW is a good review of the assumption.  One also has to remember that the CW (conventional wisdom) assumes finity, so almost all of their interpretations and statements will have a tendency to “prove” that identities exist.

There are at least 3 different kinds of electrons, so that leads to rejection of the electron as a true elementary particle.  To be different, a microcosm must contain submicrocosms (parts) that are different either quantitatively or qualitatively. Every time we explore a thing in detail, we find that no two of them are identical (a la RELATIVISM).  Nevertheless, nature produces only possible objects; impossible objects cannot exist.  So the ether “dust devils” that produce electrons require perhaps a billion ether particles to form an electron.  If an electron has a billion and one ether particles it still behaves as an electron. We are not able to measure the difference in mass.  The mass of a single electron and the average mass of millions of them could be similar within the +- of the measurement.  One could claim either that the two electrons were identical or that they were not.  No measurement could settle this question.  That is why we need TTAOS.  Ultimately, no experiment can prove INFINITY or finity to be valid.  That is the nature of fundamental assumptions: they cannot be proven and they always have opposites.  An electron with 1.5 billion ether particles probably cannot exist, just like a dust devil or tornado with a 1000-km diameter cannot exist.  It all depends on the univironment.

This question came can up in a different form when I was day-dreaming by the side of one of my favorite Sierra lakes.  In front of me was a 100-ft tall tree.  Why wasn’t it taller? Why couldn’t a tree be a mile high? Of course, the answer was that the univironment would not allow for that possibility.  Even if the tree had a mind and wanted to be a mile high, it could not fight gravity and all the other components of the macrocosm to achieve that goal.  As always, it is the interaction between microcosm and macrocosm that determines what is possible.  Your question is good because it still leaves open the puzzle about why some univironments exist and others do not.  We can never know (UNCERTAINTY) the answer completely, but we always can study existing univironments for clues to their formation.  The general rule is that similar univironments produce similar microcosms.  Thus, all “elementary” particles are like snowflakes.  Each snowflake has some characteristics similar to all other snowflakes and some characteristics dissimilar to all other snowflakes.  We can reduce this infinite variability by absolutizing it to “one” snowflake.  For many purposes, this works fine, especially for anything involving math.  But we should never think that any two things are really identical. 

No comments: