The "smear" is what makes it work. What's in the middle of the

The "smear" is what makes it work. What's in the middle of the
electron that makes it different from the outer surface of the
electron? There's no middle of the electron and there's no outer
surface of an electron. It's the quantum physics equivalent of,
"What existed before God?" from our human theological past:
There's no before, before. In an electron, there's no there,
there. In both cases, it's one of those, omg-woah-mind-blown
things when it clicks in... one from the world of theology and
one from the world of QM. [not asserting God but rather a
similar experience to the thinker] === I love the omg-woah
moments when trying to understand concepts. I remember my
omg-woah moment as a kid in Sunday school and I remember my
omg-woah moment when I was first trying to 'get' black holes in
high school (a year before Hawking's book too. He had a sightly
different take on things than I got... the hard way.. going
through encyclopedias... ugh. His book would've made it easier)
Black holes helped me 'get' Einstein. I particularly loved the
Einstein-Rosen bridge thing. It was the gravity thing.
Theoretical black holes helped me 'get' electrons vs classical
mechanics: I could treat electrons in the same way I would treat
the center of gravity of a theoretical black hole: It's just a
thing. There's no inside of the center of gravity nor is there
an outside of the center of gravity. You've at the 'it'. The
'point'. Electrons to me were similar to centers of gravity in
that you had to treat it as a point: there simply WAS no further
in to go. It is what it is, it does what it does, and that's
that. No further peeking allowed or possible. Buck stops here.
No where else to go. smile emoticon Of course I still want to go
further and in my mind, I do smile emoticon == Now, I don't know
if he has the reference in your edition [1]Jes Scott - but in
the edition I downloaded, he gives a reference to an obscure
paper offering an _alternative_ viewpoint + treatment of Spin.
It's from 1986 and HE bases it upon an equally obscure work done
in 1939, a point at which such an idea would also have been
unpopular. For your perusal:
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54(6)_p500.pdf

References

Visible links
1. https://www.facebook.com/jesonpiano?hc_location=ufi