Timeline for If particles are points, then aren't atoms empty space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2016 at 19:27 | comment | added | Rococo | Although I know it is a standard usage, I would echo @lemon and suggest when discussing this issue you refrain from using the term 'point-like' and instead exclusively emphasize that you mean 'fundamental' or 'no internal structure.' The former term always seems to lead to confusion about the various notions of what the size of a delocalized particle is. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 18:48 | comment | added | anna v | @lemon the wavefunction is a probability function, and gives the probability of finding an electron at (x,y,z,t) , and it is for a point that this can be calculated. The probability is smeared, not the electron. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 18:34 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @lemon It means that they scatter like a Mott particle down to $10^{-18}\,\mathrm{m}$ and shows no signs of internal structure. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 17:29 | comment | added | lemon | In the context of atoms where (say) the electronic wave function is smeared out over space, what does it even mean to speak of the "size" of electrons? | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 17:13 | history | answered | Luboš Motl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |