PD
Posts:
2,970
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
Re: Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
Posted:
Mar 15, 2011 3:11 PM
|
|
On Mar 15, 10:46 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 mar, 11:17, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 10:13 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 14 mar, 10:36, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 9:34 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 12 mar, 11:06, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 11, 8:02 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 11 mar, 19:56, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 4:39 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 11 mar, 14:56, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 11:37 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 11 mar, 10:41, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 8:30 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 mar, 17:54, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 3:17 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only conclusion one can realistically draw is, that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it is experimentally shown that an electron does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have mass, it can NOT be a thingy that has no spatial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expanse, IOW the electron is not a zero volume point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particle,... BUT it comes very close to be so...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely Marcel's presumption as well.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, if the electron were a volumeless box, how could it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contain something physical?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you assume that "something physical" NECESSARILY occupies
> > > > > > > > > > > > nonzero volume.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't have a rationale for believing that this is so. It's
> > > > > > > > > > > > just something you believe.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Mass is something physical, but perhaps not for you.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Oh, but it is. So is volume. But neither property is *intrinsic* to
> > > > > > > > > > being physical, any more than electric charge is. And having mass as a
> > > > > > > > > > property doesn't *necessitate* having volume as a property. Can you
> > > > > > > > > > explain why you think it must?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you explain why the mass of the proton occupies a nonzero
> > > > > > > > > > > volume, but not, according to you, the mass of the electron?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Sure. As we discussed earlier, composites have volume by virtue of the
> > > > > > > > > > nature of the interaction between the constituents. For example, an
> > > > > > > > > > atom (which has mass) has volume not because of the atom's mass but
> > > > > > > > > > because of the interaction between the electrons and the protons, and
> > > > > > > > > > it's this interaction that determines the spacing between the electron
> > > > > > > > > > and the proton and therefore the size of the atom. Likewise, a proton
> > > > > > > > > > has constituents -- quarks and gluons -- and the interaction between
> > > > > > > > > > those constituents determines the spacing between the constituents and
> > > > > > > > > > hence the size of the composite proton.
>
> > > > > > > > > > An electron doesn't give any indication of having constituents.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This is the critical difference between protons and electrons. Protons
> > > > > > > > > > are known to be composite. Electrons don't appear to be so.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't tell me that's because the proton is a baryon, whereas
> > > > > > > > > > > the electron is a lepton. It would be better to show that
> > > > > > > > > > > those masses behave differently, for instance in a gravitational
> > > > > > > > > > > field.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The fact that they have mass doesn't have anything to do with it.
> > > > > > > > > > The difference is that one is composite and the other is not. The mass
> > > > > > > > > > is incidental. It's not like there are two different kinds of mass
> > > > > > > > > > involved.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I thought I explained this all to you previously. Does it help to see
> > > > > > > > > > it again?
>
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for those precisions.
> > > > > > > > > But I keep considering that point particles are
> > > > > > > > > mere abstractions.
>
> > > > > > > > But noncomposite particles are NOT abstractions.
> > > > > > > > These are called the fundamental particles (as we know them) in the
> > > > > > > > Standard Model.
> > > > > > > > Examples are all the leptons and quarks, and all the exchange bosons.
> > > > > > > > Because they are not composite, then they do not have internal and
> > > > > > > > interacting constituents.
> > > > > > > > Because they do not have interacting constituents, which is what
> > > > > > > > CAUSES volume, then there is no reason to presume that they have
> > > > > > > > volume anyway.
>
> > > > > > > > And again, a fundamental particle is not to be IDENTIFIED with a
> > > > > > > > mathematical point, though they share the property of zero volume, for
> > > > > > > > precisely the same reason that a zebra should not be identified with a
> > > > > > > > bird, though they both have spines. The fact that two things share a
> > > > > > > > common property does not mean they are the same thing. This is the
> > > > > > > > fallacy that is invoked in the *philosophy* paper you mention below.
>
> > > > > > > Neither the zebra nor the bird have zero volume. If they both
> > > > > > > were dimensionless, they would be indistinguishable abstractions,
> > > > > > > iow mere mathematical points.
>
> > > > > > I *completely* disagree with this statement. To me, a zero-volume
> > > > > > particle with charge, angular momentum, momentum, energy, parity, and
> > > > > > so on, is *completely* distinguishable from a zero-volume mathematical
> > > > > > point, which does not carry charge, angular momentum, momentum,
> > > > > > energy, parity and so on.
>
> > > > > Let's consider a line segment having a length if 1 cm.
> > > > > It contains an infinity of mathematical points.
> > > > > How many electron could be put on such line?
>
> > > > The spacing between the electrons would be determined by the
> > > > *interaction* between the electrons, not by their size.
>
> > > A line segment contains an infinity of mathematical points.
> > > It cannot "contain" an *infinity* of physical particles, hence
> > > such particles cannot be considered as point (or volumeless)
> > > particles.
>
> > No sir. You seem to be having difficulty reading.
> > The *spacing* between physical particles is determined by the
> > *interaction* between the particles, not by their physical size.
> > I have given you numerous examples of this. I do not see why you are
> > having such difficulty absorbing such a simple notion with lots of
> > familiar cases that illustrate it.
>
> And you gave an interesting precision below:
>
> "That is the point I've made to you *repeatedly*, that volume is
> determined by the interaction between the constituents, not the size
> of the constituents."
The volume *of the composite*, silly, not the volume of the
constituents.
Good heavens, Marcel, the radius of the Solar System is 30 AU and is
composed of 8 planets. Should I conclude that the size of the planets
are on average (30 AU)/8 = 3.75 AU??? This would give me an estimate
of the size of the earth of 350 million miles!
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
>
> As "the spacing between the electrons would be determined by the
> *interaction* between the electrons", they have a volume.
>
> So how can you claim that even if electrons have a volume, they are
> nevertheless dimensionless?
>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
|
|
