It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Size of a Proton and Electron

page: 2
5
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

But since you brought that up, that makes me think, if the mass of a proton is large, then how come the mass of a electron is small? Aren't they suppose to be equal size?

Depends what you mean by "size." If you mean equal mass, then no, they're not the same. If you mean equal volume... then no, they're still not the same.

Electrons have no volume. They're fundamental particles represented by wavefunctions in Quantum Physics.
Protons are composite particles, each having 3 quarks. These quarks are fundamental particles again represented by wavefunctions and again, therefore, having no volume.

"Size" is a probability function in QM.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by john_bmth

Imagination is where it begins.

Having your head in the clouds is one thing, but having your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground is where I'm getting at.

Correction: Spin. The nature of things.

Post

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

But since you brought that up, that makes me think, if the mass of a proton is large, then how come the mass of a electron is small? Aren't they suppose to be equal size?

Depends what you mean by "size." If you mean equal mass, then no, they're not the same. If you mean equal volume... then no, they're still not the same.

Electrons have no volume. They're fundamental particles represented by wavefunctions in Quantum Physics.
Protons are composite particles, each having 3 quarks. These quarks are fundamental particles again represented by wavefunctions and again, therefore, having no volume.

"Size" is a probability function in QM.

Hence, an "electron" can be stretched to any desirable "size." Quantum scale is best described as - velocity and range of positions (possibilities) in my view.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Americanist

Quantum scale is best described as - velocity and range of positions (possibilities) in my view.

Yes...and the more precisely you know one, the less precisely you can know the other.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Americanist

Quantum scale is best described as - velocity and range of positions (possibilities) in my view.

Yes...and the more precisely you know one, the less precisely you can know the other.

Narrowing down the path... And yet, we're still blanketed by the understanding, ad infinitum.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 01:57 PM
That darn "Coppenhagen" chewing cat of Schrödinger's comes to mind...

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

But since you brought that up, that makes me think, if the mass of a proton is large, then how come the mass of a electron is small? Aren't they suppose to be equal size?

Depends what you mean by "size." If you mean equal mass, then no, they're not the same. If you mean equal volume... then no, they're still not the same.

Electrons have no volume. They're fundamental particles represented by wavefunctions in Quantum Physics.
Protons are composite particles, each having 3 quarks. These quarks are fundamental particles again represented by wavefunctions and again, therefore, having no volume.

"Size" is a probability function in QM.

But both of our sides are all theoretical, right? We never seen it up close, yet we feel their effects.

Something like gravity, can't see it, can't breath it, yet we feel it.

But there are somethings that I have never thought of when I was in school that were shown to me when I learned this stuff.

A electron spins in a counter-clockwise motion while a proton spins in a clockwise motion. In quantum physics were you taught that, out of question?

Is there a smaller world that the standard electron and proton?

What makes a neutron?

So many questions I had for this atomic world that I never questioned.

I tried to wrap my head around quantum physics, but somethings in it are not adding up, such as Planck's constant. Put into reality and there are some areas on and in the Earth that can't be explained by quantum physics or mechanics such as why does helium at a low temperature of 2.2 degrees Kelvin have a super fluidity state to the point where it can pass where water cannot and the origin of the Van Alan radiation belt with the experiments that has been done so with it.

Very interesting point on the Van Alan Radiation belt, you all remember Felix Baumgartner's free fall from the edge of space. It was said that his bones were weakened but his muscles were strengthened. This proves another point; If the same thing can be produced on Earth, then we could have harder, yet smaller metals, kind of like speeding up a metal's half-life.

But you know the saying, "Half as long, twice as bright." Same principle.

So many things out in the world that I don't question, but now I'm questioning everything, including what I learn down to tiniest niche there is.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by Americanist

Already knew the correction. But it makes me question; why the spin?

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Are not both sides theoretical and some are able to produce evidence faster than others?

Don't you question why all of this?

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Americanist

Already knew the correction. But it makes me question; why the spin?

The logical question is: What causes the spin?

Questioning why leads to a more intuitive answer...

Check out my signature file.

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Americanist

Very true.

But it's rhetorical for me to answer it since I know the answer.

One answer; Ethers. Ever a constant motion, and ever a constant change.

Informative stuff.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Are not both sides theoretical and some are able to produce evidence faster than others?

Don't you question why all of this?

No, your side is not theoretical any more than the Earth being flat is theoretical. We have proven empirical evidence that your side is wrong. It's a fact, not a theory.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

We know that Protons although a Particle of Mass...is completely comprised of Quantum Particle Wave/Forms. This is why all the Hoopla over the supposed detection of the Higgs-Boson. This is the Quantum Particle/Wave Form that the people at the LHC are looking for that is supposedly responsible for Protons and Neutrons to be able to obtain Mass.

Here in lies the question. Even if a Proton is approx. 1000 times larger than an Electron...which is also a Quantum Particle/Wave Form this does not explain why a specific Quantum particle or specific arrangement or construct of Quantum Particles which completely comprise both Protons and Neutron allow them to obtain Mass.

I have heard to Spin and specific Particle Driven Fields as explanations but this still would not seem to be enough to create such Mass in Protons and Neutrons. Size makes no sense as the Quanta are Energy...so perhaps a possible inter connection between Quantum Particle/Wave Forms and their Doubles withing Multiple Divergent Universal Realities may hold the answer.

Split Infinity

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by FreedomCommander

im more keen to the idea that planetary systems would make up something more like sub atomic particles or even smaller.

id like the universe to be one giant fractal.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by SplitInfinity

My original post was dealing with his claim that there are 1824 MORE electrons than scientists claim there are. There are things that are unknown, his posts do not deal with them. He has fringe beliefs that are 100% proven false.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I was not supporting his position...I was just stating that since Protons are completely comprised of Quantum Particle Wave/Forms as this is also what an Electron is...Energy...it is hard to grasp what it is exactly that allows a Proton to have Mass. Or even a Neutron for that matter.

Many people have presented ideas and theories but the Reality is they just don't know. Even if the supposed Higgs-Boson exists and is as advertised...why would this Quantum Particle/Wave Form allow for Mass?

There is so much to this that even explanations need to be explained. Split Infinity

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by SplitInfinity

While I readily admit there is plenty we do not know, OP has shown they are not a reliable person for information or theories. The things they believe ARE testable, and have been proven false. He simply does not care because he has been given hidden truths and knows better.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Wertdagf

But what if, there are multiple universes in a big spherical shell?

Going off of speculation, if you go out of this said shell, you cease to exist.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

And how much better are you at knowing truth and distinguishing right from wrong?

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by SplitInfinity

Ethers.

If there was a smaller world than the atom or particles then it would be Ethers. Something harder to see since they are so small.

I'm not 100% sure on where they come from other than they exist.

top topics

5