[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Bob; The problem with using the proton/electron - neutron as a basic building block of matter is the problem of what makes up the proton and neutron. I have a highly speculative theory regarding this at: ( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...03-idea-4.html ) You'll have to scroll down 8 posts to #40. Easy to follow and understand, but speculative. Hi Neutralino; I know the electron may be viewed as a point particle anywhere in space, but once manisfested with a proton isn't it " Larger " than the proton in that it is viewed as a " cloud " Best to both of you, Pat

Hi Profpat,

Your comments are very relevant.
There is a lot of convincing evidence that electrons and protons do exist as hard little lumps of particulate matter. The photon is a bit different. To the extent that a whole neutral atom has particle characteristics then it is the photon that lends the atom as a whole its spherical boundary. Perhaps it is better to say boundaries since they are closed energy shells somewhat like the skins of an onion. Photon energy within the atom is orthogonal to its linear transmission outside the atom. Its linear transmission is quantized by the discontinuous projection of space in a sequence of synchronous frames that constitute linear time, like a sequence of frames in an ordinary movie only much faster. Light travels like a series of pulses in successive still space frames. Although each pulse is quantized this is not the same as electrons and protons that exist as hard little lumps.

Electrons orbiting within the atom are sometimes described as electron clouds, because of the difficulty in determining exact position due to the discontinuous projection of the whole atom. The electron is stationary in each frame of the movie, but makes successive quantum jumps in position around the orbit, even while the atom as a whole may be rotating or spinning in quantum jumps from frame to frame. It takes N cubed electron jumps to make one orbit where N is the principle quantum number that identifies the orbit. The momentum and position can obviously not be known at the same time, and there is no possibility of making a measurement that can determine the exact position of an electron in a single space frame. The operation of the most sophisticated experiment would take a number of successive frames in which the electron would continue to move frame by frame. The uncertainty principle is thus strong evidence of a discontinuous universe.

This does not mean that the electron is not a particle like a hard little lump. If one believes in a spacetime continuum then there is no explanation for the apparent inability to pin down the position and momentum of the electron. The uncertainty principle then becomes translated into probability theory that Einstein objected so strongly too. So in a sense Einstein was objecting to implications of his own assumptions. Space and time are quantized. They are not infinitely divisible thus placing a minimum on the increment of the differential in the calculus. Current mathematical techniques can only reach so far.

All the evidence, including that from particle accelerators, indicates that what we know as solid particles are all structured from energy in a continual state of discontinuous recurrence. The forms that the structures take are implicitly determined by how the structural dynamics of the cosmic order works. You can review how this works on my website if you wish. It will at least make you wonder in some unexpected ways.

Best wishes,
Bob