On Mar 16, 12:47 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 mar, 18:29, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 15, 5:16 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > How do you distinguish the volume of the Solar System from the sum of > > > > the volumes of the planets? > > > > This is sophistry. > > > > The electron is a single particle, contrary to the Solar system. > > > It can interact with other particles, including other electrons, > > > which imply that they have at rest (if one doesn't take into > > > consideration their Zitterbewegung) an "interactive" volume. > > > When moving, like in scattering experiments, they are still > > > subject to interactions, but these are not decreased to the > > > point that their volume would reduce to zero. > > > See documentation about the Rutherford scattering experiment so that > > you can learn something about how the size of the nucleus can be > > determined from the "interaction volume" as you describe it. The two > > are not at all identical. This is covered in most basic quantum books > > in glorious detail. > > > You should then read up on deep-inelastic scattering of the proton, to > > see the distinction between proton size and the size of the hard- > > scatter constituents inside the proton. This is a little more > > advanced, in a first-year text on particle physics. > > > If you'd like some reading references, I can recommend some to you. > > As a thought experiment, let's imagine that point > particles having only mass, and free of any interaction, > including between themselves, exist. > > Let's also imagine that an infinity of such particles > replace the infinity of mathematical points contained > in a line segment of arbitrary length. > > That line segment is then no more a mathematical > construct, because it has mass. > > But such mass is infinite, which is physically > senseless. Hence, as no infinite mass can exist, > one has to conclude that point particles don't > exist. > > Such thought experiment vindicates the philosophical > point of view presented in the paper > "The Impossibility of Infinitely Small Particles" athttp://www.massline.org/philosophy/ScottH/infinitely_small.htm > > Marcel Luttgens
Marcel, can we both agree that you just aren't capable of the abstract thought required for physics?
