Only brainlets fall for the conservation of energy Mem, pic related

>synthetic

there more than one definition of the word, and you're using the wrong one.

Im using the definition as "not genuine"

I'm Korean, thanks for letting me know.

oh shit, im glad i withheld from being a complete ass haha

im sure the quality of whether or not they are "genuine" is up for some debate though

I guess so. Still though my thread has yet to be disproven, using c as your only argument against conservation of energy failing under the model of an electron is very weak.

Well, the electron does not spin, nor does it have a location, nor is is a sphere or have any volume or shape, etc..

So the application of newtonian mechanics in a system described only by quantum mechanics is of course going to seem silly.

Or are you referring to virtual particles?

Im not actually sure what you meant by your original post, but i am certainly curious.

Those are assumptions based on the mere fact physics doesn't want to recognize c could be incorrect. Read

Right which has consistently and overwhelmingly been confirmed experimentally.

Do you have any evidence of experimental results which suggest a different alternative? Or are you just riffing off on what-if scenarios?

>Right which has consistently and overwhelmingly been confirmed experimentally.

the speed of light i mean and for more than 100 years.

>We have yet to confirm it is a point particle.
If it's not a point particle it does spin.

This is not logical. We have not confirmed it as a point particle yet we assume that an object with no volume or position physically spins? That does not make any sense.

The idea of a spin is a conceptual crutch, not a reality, and no one worth their snot with a bachelors in physics would claim that an electron physically or in any way actually spins, volume or not. And there is absolutely no experimental data supporting the idea that it is objectively true. In fact the entire foundation of QM is based on it's subjectivity from measurement.

Was this really what you were getting at?

also the post you refer to still confuses me as to how this in any way this relates to conservation of energy?

can you explain it to me like i am a brainlet, because i really dont understand what you're getting at..

Please link me to the scientific papers that show the speed of light is the fastest anything can travel, thats right you simply can't it's a question of not enough information.

Also consider that if an electron had a volume > 0 and was perfectly smooth by the very definition of perfect it would not have to "push" against space-time to rotate and would not have any "information" traveling FTL.

>Please link me to the scientific papers that show the speed of light is the fastest anything can travel, thats right you simply can't it's a question of not enough information.

This is a textbook logical fallacy called appeal to ignorance. Literally you could not have been more spot on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So, it is a yes to the idea you're really just riling up a what-if circle jerk.

Decent bait, i mean i spent my time posting on this page afterall.
I cant tell if you're falling for your own bait..
>Also consider that if an electron had a volume > 0 and was perfectly smooth by the very definition of perfect it would not have to "push" against space-time to rotate and would not have any "information" traveling FTL

Thus electrons do have a volume greater than 0 which i would tentatively agree with. And thus information does not travel faster than light which is the current norm in every theory of QM. What is being violated if what you suggest is literally the experimental findings as of today which are consistent with the presented axioms?

Git gud.

>... No volume or position physically spins
You didn't grasp what I was saying, since we haven't confirmed it's a point particle IF it truly does have a volume AND has angular momentum(already confirmed) it would physically spin and have a position.

Also Boone in academia would admit it your right, but when Galileo said we weren't at the center of the solar system most of his peers would've never said it either. (Not comparing myself to him, just an example)
An electron can never stop spinning (as far as we know) and it has angular momentum it's not hard to grasp the picture if you can critically think.

If they have a volume > 0 they aren't a point particle
>Git gud/shitty ignorant post
Pointing out simple conclusions and showing the problem occuring in the standard model is ignorant.

Reddit is waiting for you, bro.

To tie it all together, as this isnt a troll thread.

>We've shown that an electron can have volume
>If it has volume it's not a point particle
>If it's not a point particle the angular momentum measured in numerous studies is due to a physical spin on an electron
>The physical spin has yet to be observed as 0
>An object with a physical spin/angular momentum that collides with another object transfers energy
>You can figure it out from there I'm sure

>F it truly does have a volume AND has angular momentum(already confirmed) it would physically spin

This is unsubstantiated by any theory or experiment.

Electrons do are consistently shown to have volume experimentally, yet no person in the field who is taken seriously says anything about a physical spin. So there is a disconnect in your assumption and the experimental/theoretical consensus as of today. \

Einstein fell for the same meme. Get some evidence or take a philosophy class, but ideas void of any mathematical structure or experimental results is literally a what-if circle jerk.

Just because the reality of a system does not make sense to you (object with volume which also has an angular momentum does not have a physical spin to it) does not make it wrong. It does not have to make sense to make it right. Experiments, theory and general consensus for more than a hundred years are all weighing against you.

And you have nothing to suggest any alternative theory or idea rather than instead appeasing to a logical fallacy more than once.

>If it's not a point particle the angular momentum measured in numerous studies is due to a physical spin on an electron

Literally nothing exists experimentally or physically to suggest this holds any amount of weight. I would be genuinely interested if you had evidence to prove the opposite.

>If it's not a point particle the angular momentum measured in numerous studies is due to a physical spin on an electron

In fact we have experiments proving the opposite to this idea. Electrons behave as both wave an particles. WE can do the double slit on electrons. How in any way can a propagated electromagnetic wave have a spin? How does a wave spin?

I mean if you're sincerely unconvinced would a person with a PhD in physics suffice?

van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=29645&t=how-fast-does-the-electron-spin

The jury is out, arguing based on a logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance will get you no where.

Most importantly can you appreciate that measuring an electron's angular momentum purely based on its magnetic field is wildly different and in no way the same as measuring the rotational inertia of a physical, literal, touchable particle without using itt's magnetic fields?

A point particle is literally defined as a particle with 0 dimensions meaning it can't be both.

I guess you could assume (as the field does) that they don't spin, but this seems to be circlejerking more than I could ever.
They don't want to say that this is the case for the simple fact that if it was we would have a violation of conservation of energy and they would be heavily scrutinized and, most likely, shunned as a crackpot.

This is really the problem with academia, something is 'proven' and once academia accepts it then any attempt to refute it is deemed absurd.

TL;DR The experimental evidence is there, but they dismiss the idea of a physical spin in favor of some unexplained property of an electron in the most handwaving explanation possible.

Refer to my OP, conservation of energy is a meme at best.

Are you kidding me? Read the first 3 lines they are assuming it's a 0 dimensional particle when you and I have agreed it's highly possible it isn't. At this point I'd have to assume you are trolling.

Meant to reply to this, here: