What's an Electron made out of?

Allah's will. PBUH

Electrons are an arbitrary concept with no empirical evidence or basis in reality and are mostly just used to plug into math to make it correct, (much like every particle). Since I know I'm going to get posters with massive butt hurt replying to this comment I will kindly ask said posters to:

Denote what a field is and what causes a field (try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
Explain what a wave is as opposed to what it does (because we now don't understand the difference betweem a verb and a noun)

>aether

Be careful, that's a cancer word here. They like to call it "Dark matter" nowadays.

Humans can't see yellow, which is why red and green mixes appear as "yellow" to us.

>t. Bill Gaede.

Go back to making songs you crank.

Fuck off brainlet.

>Since I know I'm going to get posters with massive butt hurt replying to this comment
>lets make a dumb comment and get people to call me dumb, that'll show them

>no empirical evidence or basis in reality
we've measured their mass, how spherical they are, their larmor precession, their charge, how electricity works, etc

>Denote what a field is
something that has a value at every point in space (leave a footnote for blackholes)

>what causes a field
moron

>(try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
moron

>Explain what a wave is
a value that oscillates on an axis

>as opposed to what it does
moron

>They like to call it "Dark matter" nowadays.
>thinking dark matter and the aether are in any way related

That's just being pedantic. If you accept that the word 'exists' has any meaning beyond the physical model, you accept the model is referring to something outside the model. We call that the electron.

Strings

That's it, let the butthurt flow.

>couldn't answer simple questions so he ad hominems.

>we've measured their mass, how spherical they are, their larmor precession, their charge, how electricity works, etc

How do you measure something that is incommensurable? Also I would be interested to see if you can actually tell me how electricity works. (protip: no there are no "electrons" flowing through the solid copper lines like a water pipe)

>(try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
moron

So if nothing is physical then how does it have mass?

>a value that oscillates on an axis

So a wave is not a thing then? It's a "value" but of what?
Keep it coming Veeky Forums I have many more holes to push people into.

lul3d this bait is premium

electronite

Tiny vibrating strings, you should know this S M H...

Hitler.

Hitler is literally the constituent particle of reality.

Electrons aren't real

Electrons are made of electrolytes (lighter electrons, basically).

2010 is that you?

node for back end and v8 for front end

A value in the electron field

Isn't electrons made of quarks? What am I missing here?

>the electron is made of a value in the electron field

So is nobody going to answer:
smartest post so far.

Particles and fields are indistinguishable.

It's just as valid to speak of a particle as it is a field, because the field is uniquely defined by the particle and vice versa.

A field is just a vector function defined by the physics being discussed.

atoms

Electron is made from matter.

>Particles and fields are indistinguishable.
Really? Particles are supposed to be physical concepts i.e. something that existing outside our mind. Fields are mental concepts.

They aren't. This post:
was a joke.

Caloric

QFT

What is a force ? Try to use a different definition than Newton's second law,

The loss of inertia.

>nd fields are indistinguishable.
>Really? Particles are supposed to be physical concepts i.e. something that existing outside our mind. Fields are mental concepts.
>>>
this guy is singlehandledly exposing Veeky Forums
op what do u suggest it is?

If QFT is true, then what exactly are emitting the fields or do they just... appear?

But even if you can't detect a particle, its field necessitates its existence. We know a given field is uniquely defined by its corresponding particle, so which one is more real? In my opinion, they're two sides of the same coin, so it doesn't really matter which view you take.

You got it backwards m80

wtf

electron membrane/field

I think the interactions between whatever vertical particles (mostly photons and some higgs bosons) that don't cancel themselves out after an increment of time at a particular point in space are what define an electron, but every time you measure it you affect(and effect) the state of those interactions, so I guess it's impossible to really know.

>le two sides of the same coin

Yeah well I'm not concerned with how many sides the coin has, I'm interested in what the coin contains(silver/gold/nickle).

Everything is fields and fields are most certainly not particles. The reason "electrons" seem to appear out of nowhere is because they aren't even a thing. It's an interaction of something else, so you can't say that what something does is what something is. In fact you can even say this about photons or "waves" of light in general because you cannot differentiate what light is as to what it does (illuminates). Light doesn't even move, nor is it emitted. The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism.

An "electron" quite simply is a bloch wall perturbation between magnetism and the inert "zero point" of an "atom"(incommensurate). This is why they seem to magically "disappear" and "reappear" out of reality, because they were never a real thing to begin with and are simply the result of change in another medium. However to call it a "medium" would be wrong as the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there is no luminous ether OF MEASURABLE OR TANGIBLE VALUE. This was mistaken as "there is no ether, period" which is a totally wrong conclusion based on an incorrect hypothesis (believing the ether was measurable).

You cannot measure or define what has no origin, locus or "beginning".

underrated

Would you say its ether or dark matter?

This post is the best bait I have seen on sci so far.

that guy is single handedly retarded

Where do you get your drugs?

You guys are dangerously close to multiverse at this point.

Do you want to refute my points or?

Let's start off with light. What do you actually think light is?

>le wave-particle duality!

waves of what?

particles of what?

duality? So it can be both because???

Seriously, I fucking dare you to try and explain why "light" is a noun. I'm not trolling in the slightest, see for yourself how there is no difference between light and illumination.

Tinier particles.

Fields and particles are literally describing the same thing. The only difference is the math you use to describe it.

If you take two fields and allow them to interact, the resulting field (s) is representative of the corresponding particle interaction.

In other words, it is impossible by definition, to separate the field from the particle. We often use particles in describing systems because it's been the convention for 200 years, and makes the most sense to us. If instead we only conceived of waves and never particles, the physics would still be the same.

So, to say that one is more fundamental than the other is misguided at best.

Dude so far your points have essentially been "but why" "but what is it" ad infinitum. No one knows why or how wave particle duality works, just that it exists and is observable repetitively. We say particles have mass in physics because of mass energy equivalence and we know that what we are trying to model has a non zero value. Similarly thinking applies when we deal with fields in physics. Finally the difference between light and illumination is one of concept, generally people use the word light when talking about photons specifically and illumination when the mass they strike is relevant.

No one in physics pretends to have magic answers to any of these questions among others like what causes gravity and is there an arrow of time. Pseuds on here claim retarded shit all the time and it is well to flame them for it, but unless you have a workable model you have developed that is superior to any in use now arbitrary criticism of the extant models is moot.

Idk if this second post here was also you, I'm guessing not based on it being unsubstantiated unprovable nonsense mixed with existential truism. But in case:
>Everything is fields and fields are most certainly not particles. The reason "electrons" seem to appear out of nowhere is because they aren't even a thing. It's an interaction of something else, so you can't say that what something does is what something is. In fact you can even say this about photons or "waves" of light in general because you cannot differentiate what light is as to what it does (illuminates). Light doesn't even move, nor is it emitted. The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism.
As I said literally none of this is substantiated in any way and would require completely new physics to validate. In particular the statement " The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism." shows you have an extremely weak grasp on both general and special relativity.

>An "electron" quite simply is a bloch wall perturbation between magnetism and the inert "zero point" of an "atom"(incommensurate). This is why they seem to magically "disappear" and "reappear" out of reality, because they were never a real thing to begin with and are simply the result of change in another medium. However to call it a "medium" would be wrong as the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there is no luminous ether OF MEASURABLE OR TANGIBLE VALUE. This was mistaken as "there is no ether, period" which is a totally wrong conclusion based on an incorrect hypothesis (believing the ether was measurable).
Again there is no evidence to substantiate this idea. If something cannot be measured by definition it moves from the realm of physics to the realm of philosophy full stop. Saying something that cannot be measured cannot be measured isnt a point, its a tautology not worth discussion.

>As I said literally none of this is substantiated in any way and would require completely new physics to validate. In particular the statement " The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism." shows you have an extremely weak grasp on both general and special relativity.

If you think that light moves or is emitted, then you are as dumb as the rest of the physicists that believe that the "speed of light" is constant or a speed limit. It's nothing more than a field perturbation. Saying light is a thing that does something is like standing in the middle of a pool of water, flapping your arms and creating waves in the water and then saying that you are emitting water. No you moron that's not how it works. Waving is what something DOES not what it is.

>Again there is no evidence to substantiate this idea. If something cannot be measured by definition it moves from the realm of physics to the realm of philosophy full stop.

Holy shit, what a revelation. Metaphysics and physics are the same thing :0.

>Saying something that cannot be measured cannot be measured isnt a point, its a tautology not worth discussion.

Good. You may all now stop believing in particles.

Ok explain how a solar sail is functional then lmao, you are beyond retarded.

I think it would be far more hilarious if you were to try and explain how a solar sail works.

To put it simply though, it creates a pressure difference with light.

Wrong

I agree

>how a solar sail is functional
Has this been experimentally verified? Just a third party here, by the way.

Yes, you can do it here on earth with a vacuum sealed container.
Your claim is nonsense. You can consider light as a perturbation of em fields, but it doesn't happen instantly. The perturbation travels at precisely c. Furthermore, you can demonstrate the the light itself generates its field. What is it youre really trying to say exactly?

fossilized tree sap

>Your claim is nonsense. You can consider light as a perturbation of em fields, but it doesn't happen instantly. The perturbation travels at precisely c.

Transverse waves have a limit, longitudinal "waves" do not. Therefore you have one component of light that does not abide by postulates or theories.

>Furthermore, you can demonstrate the the light itself generates its field. What is it youre really trying to say exactly?

What is it that YOU'RE trying to say? "Light" cannot generate anything because it is the result of something else that "generated" it. When I turn on the lights, what makes the fucking lights run are two copper wires hooked up to spinning magnet and said wires are hooked up to a vacuum sealed tube with a filament that will respond a certain way when said perturbations from spinning magnet vibrate down the copper line and hit it. If you think "light" is something that is generated, something that moves (as in travels, waves are transverse motions and do not "move" anywhere) , or even something that is a thing in itself and by itself then you are pants on head retarded.

If youre talking about group vs phase velocity, then fine. But generally group velocity is the only relevant property.

The electricity doesn't generate light in a bulb, it's the emission of electrons due to atomic interaction, or emission of light from em perturbation in the atom. Do you really think the em field from any star varies so little that its perturbation is seen here on earth? Good luck explaining that with your absent minded concepts.

>The electricity doesn't generate light in a bulb, it's the emission of electrons due to atomic interaction, or emission of light from em perturbation in the atom.

No if you "emit" something you lose it. There is nothing "lost" in such a perturbation, it is simply a change in the medium already present. You can call the change "electrons" or "light" or "waves" it doesn't really matter because they're all POSTERIOR ATTRIBUTES of what is occurring.

>Do you really think the em field from any star varies so little that its perturbation is seen here on earth? Good luck explaining that with your absent minded concepts.

The only difference between a laser and a light bulb is field coherency. I never said it "varies so little".If a massive object such as a sun has the ability to induced intense coherent EM then the perturbations will of course be large and have a larger magnitude that will decay as it travels.

quirks

Gimme more sources on your theory.

If electrons dont exist, explain to me how a diode works.

What the fuck do you mean sources? This is how light works. What part of this is illogical to you?

The lightbulb is a vacuum, what do you think is being exchanged? Do you think that photons are magically snowing down from the light bulb and hitting things below? It's all a perturbation of what's already there. Why the fuck do you think the double slit experiment produced the results it does? Because you're shooting something in a medium that is comparable to water, it makes waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes.

Again if you stand in the middle of a pond and flap your arms around and make "waves" you're not emitting anything. You're not moving anything either (in the perfect wave) as the waves just go up and down and they won't move anything else floating on top of it like a buoy or something. You're DISPLACING the water present and the same is the case with light.

That's why a 5 watt laser can burn you and a 5 watt light bulb is barely enough to read by, they both DISPLACE the MEDIUM different because one has more COHERENCY in it's waves.

This is also why light slows down on glass and them magically speeds up again. Glass is a dielectric capacitor because its structure is coherent and straight and as such it "stores" the light and discharges it in scattered colors because each color of light has a different wavelength. Red has larger wavelengths and blue is smaller, the smaller the space the higher capacitance which is why blue/purple light gets "diffracted" the most, it has more wavelengths that have to pass through the dielectric material.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode

>it has low (ideally zero) resistance in one direction, and high (ideally infinite) resistance in the other.

So in short it allows things to flow better in one direction. Don't know why you think that relies on "electrons" as you can do that with any medium in existence.

The point is what you're claiming is not the currently accepted explanation of how light is created and propagated. You should present a formal presentation on your ideas so we can tell you more about how you're wrong.

>Not a single Veeky Forums fag can answer this guy
Holy moly this dude is exposing the fuck out of y'all

I already answered you. Stop samefagging.

>You should present a formal presentation on your ideas so we can tell you more about how you're wrong.

>we

Go right ahead. Throw "virtual photons" in there too for shits and giggles.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I.e. you. Your understanding of em and qm are flawed at best. Your statements are contradictory. Please say something unambiguous so I can evaluate its worth.

Light is literally a physical thing and we have recorded it moving you fucking retard.
youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk
You're just pissed off that physics shows that your intuitive understanding of logic isn't relevant to the universe.

Sorry man but i call bullshit on that.

The video is right there from MIT.

>So in short it allows things to flow better in one direction
You are so close! What does it allow to flow in one direction? Through what mechanism? Im fully aware of the currently accepted theory as to how diodes work. Tell me how one works when electrons dont exist.

I know, saw it but i doubt what we are seeings is light slowed down.

>I aim my laserpointer at my wall
>I take a picutre of it
>I shift the laserpointer by 1 mm
>Take another Shot
>I combine the shots in moviemaker

Look the light moves lmao I Love science please gib me grants

The only one claiming that light moves is you right now. Tell me why the speed of light is "constant" when we have clearly proven otherwise. It is nothing other than EM and EM DOESN'T MOVE GODDAMMIT, IT PERPETUATES. It is exactly like a buoy in (perfect) water waves, it bobs up and down but it doesn't go anwhere. It vibrates so to speak but it's position is the same. And that is where your retarded misconception of the "wave particle duality" comes from. "Wow this perturbation of magnetism and electricity met in the same space, lets give it physicality and call it a "photon" and then also call it a "wave" even though the waving is what it is doing and isn't a fucking noun.
>Light is literally a physical thing

You are (-literally) retarded. You are a deluded materialist that believes things have "physicality" to them when in the end it is nothing more than inertia and the loss of inertia in change. I do not shoot "photons" out of my flashlight when I illuminate something with it. Cameras do not capture little magical little unicorn particles in the lense when they take a picture.
So if light is a physical thing then logically a AAA battery sure has a lot of "light" stored in it. All you need is a copper coil and a tungsten rod and you can "extract the light" out of the battery. You are an idiot.

>"You're just pissed off that physics shows that your intuitive understanding of logic isn't relevant to the universe"

Actually I think it's fucking hilarious how stupid some of these people are. Like you who thinks that this video proves that light is a thing. Are you retarded or something? All they did was once again take trillions of images of an event occurring AFTER it occurred and then assembled the after effects of a PERTURBATION of INERTIA in the form of visible light that humans can see.

Why don't you just point to a book so people can read what you are talking about. The buoy is a very poor analogy and indicates you are making shit up as you go along.

>its another mentally deranged dumbass who forgot to take his pills and thinks that he has the world figured out by himself and every other scientist is a retarded brainlet
Nigga, go back to high school, as other people have stated you have a very flawed understanding of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and relativity.
I actually believe that you're not just baiting and that you actually think you're onto something, you're a prime example for the Dunning-Kruger effect my friend.

every single book written on magnetism and electricity you dumb ass.

Hey man, just want to thank you for posting.

>What the fuck do you mean sources?
I meant what I said. Give me sources, preferably with math that models your description of electrons (and light) and testable consequences of this theory.

>This is how light works.
So you say. I want evidence, not words.

>Why the fuck do you think the double slit experiment produced the results it does? Because you're shooting something in a medium that is comparable to water, it makes waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes.
So why does it stop making waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes when you measure through which slate the photon passes?

>through which slate
slit*

You mean... the ones that talk about electrons being physically real?

oh man

Hey, you. Im still waiting on an answer to this...

>falling for the electron meme

just a trick because retarded physicists still don't understand gravity properly

Because you are measuring it. Literally.

Try to measure anything without it affecting your results, see if it's possible. I literally mean the photons are "interacting" with whatever instrument you are using, doesn't matter what it is.

Tiny ducks that go quack, and there are different colors and types of quacks

But you said photons don't exist. How are they interacting with the measuring instrument?

Should have written in my post, I'm not the guy you were arguing with.