Electrons are not a single entity. Neither is
a “point-like” object. Inability to see an
object because of its distance or smallness
does not mean that it is a “singularity”,
or a point. A multitude looks like a point
from a distance.
Idiots
But then they protest, “Just because every
point-like object that you saw on the horizon
turned into a complex object doesn’t mean
that THAT one will!!”
Very far away is a horizon.
But also, very small is a horizon
So, basically, the argument is, "eventually
there will come a horizon where everything
just remains indistinct blobs (with no shape),
no matter how closely one views it?
So QM is indistinct blobness up close
Or, instead of an indistinct blobness
up close, consider that an electron is
THE most complex body in the
Universe. It is 50 billion stars, just like
every galactic arm and every other
electron.
And yes, it radiates. Just like galactic
arms do, but at a much higher frequency.
And it is these electron-produced
radiations that cause Gravity and
Inertia
Meanwhile, and at all times, some of
those 50 billion points of fusion have
completely run out of stuff to fuse,
and they stop radiating and they DO
spiral in to the proton center. And
this center then becomes ‘active’, and
jets of high-energy charged particles
shoot out in curved pathways- thus
forming a magnetic field
We use instruments made out of electrons to measure electrons. Thus we have reached a limit beyond which we lack the precision tools to see clearly.
Imagine if you could only measure golf balls with other golf balls. You would never be able to know if anything was inside the golf ball, or what it was made of. At best we might smash one golf ball into another at really high speed to see if we could blow it apart… But at such high speeds, heat and short time-scales we would actually be changing what is inside the golf ball thus getting only a very brief and distorted view of what it is made out of-- and even regardless of that, again all we could measure anyway would be things that have a measurable impact on other golf balls nearby.
Difference/scale reduces to relative size. Of course an “elementary particle” is only acting elementary from our hugely removed macro vantage, and is not actually “indivisible”. Indivisibility is a logical contradiction.
Ergo we can deduce that everything point-like is actually inwardly differentiated and consists of ever-more regressed scopes and orders of things. Further deduction gives us that existence at any “point” is infinitely divisible in fact, but practically-speaking will produce relative thresholds of an effective-acting indivisibility for certain larger vantages for which that point’s regressive inner reality becomes reduced to zero.
Why is a star spherical? Why are particles spherical? Why is an EM spectra around an atom and a planet and a star and a galaxy? If a proton or electron are “absolutely different” than a star or galaxy then why are they not actually “absolutely different”?
We exist in the middle-space between atoms and galaxies, but from a great-enough perspective atoms amd galaxies are doing the same thing. And if we could construct a higher mathematica with this equivalence in mind we would see the symmetries in these things.
So far physics has “indivisible forces” and “elementary particles”-- we are still thinking in terms of Democratus. A logical leap is needed to take the next step.