Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental'

Posted by DickT on July 22, 2002 at 10:45:22:

In Reply to: Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental' posted by Jfnewell7 on July 22, 2002 at 08:08:20:

Jim,
I'll just respond to this.
First, I doubt that very many people think an electron is really a mere zero-dimensional geometric point. It may be represented as a point in some equations, but an electron is represented in other contexts as a wave in three or four dimensions. When it is "rotating" around a nucleus, there is a probability distribution in the form of a wave, and that is certainly not a zero-dimensional geometric point. But perhaps you are not really saying an electron is zero-dimensional, but are rather trying to get at a property of an electron acting as a single unit (acting as a point, even though it really isn't a mere point in reality). Acting as a point could imply many possibilities, so points to a need for more research.

The electron has both a particle and a wave nature. Its Compton wave length is part of its wave nature.

As a particle, on the one hand attempts to measure its size have produced no sufficient reason to ascribe a radius > 0 to it. On the other hand, attempts by Peierls and others to build theories of it modelled as a little ball have all failed miserably. QED treats it as a point and makes super accurate predictions. Must be doing something right.

The probability distribution does not describe parts of the electron but the probability of finding it. Obviously uncertainty makes it impossible to specify the place and momentum of the electron exactly.

I think if you concentrate on the electron and review both the experimental and theoretic sources, you will see that your case here is weaker than you suppose.

Regards,
Dick


(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

Post a Followup