7 ms·
As other commenters have noted, the title is mildly annoying. Electrons are structureless, one of the most beautiful facts about nature. Euclidean points actual
by riemannzeta 7y ago
As other commenters have noted, the title is mildly annoying. Electrons are structureless, one of the most beautiful facts about nature. Euclidean points actually exist all over. And have spin. :-)
Why try to sex that up? Already sexy.
- Koshkin 7y agoWell, 'Euclidean points' (can) have precise coordinates, whereas elementary patricles don't. (Besides, thinking of particles as points is at odds with their being excitations in the respective field.)
- amelius 7y agoAre you sure they are structureless, or is that just based on the accuracy by which we can measure this?
- ianai 7y agoThey’re theorized to be fundamental particles. Nothing smaller exists within them. There’s no nuclear decay of or fusion which produces electrons. Similar to how photons are quanta of energy. Edit: clarified that electrons don’t decay. Of course things decay into electrons plus other things.
- hpcjoe 7y agoEr ... there are lots of nuclear decays which produce beta particles electrons. Neutrons have a short half-life when free of a nucleus, and decay into a proton, electron and an electron anti-neutrino (to conserve momentum). [1] Electrons are posited to be fundamental, and e-e e-e<sup>+</sup> collisions haven't, as far as I know though well outside my original field of study, produced any data suggesting internal structure. This doesn't mean that they don't have structure, we simply have no theory (that I know of, but then again, I'm a former solid state guy) that predicts structure, nor do we have sufficiently powerful colliders to get us to a point to see such structure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#%CE%B2%E2%88%92_decay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#%CE%B2%E2%88%92_dec...
- ianai 7y agoThanks, I tried to clarify that.
- shwouchk 7y agoI don't think you're saying what you think you're saying.