What does a gluon look like?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magentic monopole is half a gluon
Next: X-37B
From: tadchem on 20 Apr 2010 16:25 On Apr 15, 2:07 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > Does it have no volume like an electron? > Does it have no shape like all the > parts of the standard model? Gluon picture: http://cloudking.com/artists/caryn-drexl/works/made-of-glue-and-wire_l.jpg Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 10:21 On Apr 22, 8:48 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Apr 20, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>regurgitated: > > > On Apr 15, 1:07 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> soliloquied: > > > > Does it have no volume like an electron? > > > Does it have no shape like all the > > > parts of the standard model? > > > John, first of all, "look like" is a statement that can only be made > > about things that are larger than a micron or so. The reason is that > > visual appearance relies on bouncing light off the features of the > > object, and visible light (which has a wavelength of a few hundred > > nanometers) will not bounce off objects smaller than its wavelength in > > the usual sense. Visual appearance is something that only applies to > > things of a certain size and above. > > So you are saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist. Not at all. What I'm saying is what's wrong is YOUR claim that if we can't say what it looks like, then we don't know anything about it. For things that really do exist, there are some that we know a ton about but what it "looks like" is just not a sensible question. It'd be like asking what a magnetic field smells like, which would be really important to a dog, but just not a sensible question. > > > Secondly, shape is something that only applies to objects with volume > > and boundaries. A diffuse gas cloud, a macroscopic object, doesn't > > even have a shape, although you can draw an isosurface around the > > region that has a certain density and above (even though the cloud > > will extend quite a bit further than that). Even the clouds in the sky > > don't have the shape you see. That's simply the boundary where light > > scattering off the water vapor crosses a certain threshold -- the > > cloud extends quite a bit further than that and in a way that doesn't > > have a clear boundary. Moreover, volume is a property of composite > > objects only, > > *Everything* is a composite!! That is a statement of faith on your part, not something for which you have evidence. We have evidence that material substances like solids, liquids, gases are composite. We have evidence that molecules are composite. We have evidence that atoms are composite. We have evidence that atomic nuclei are composite. We have evidence that nucleons are composite. We have no evidence that electrons, muons, taus, neutrinos, or quarks are composite. To *presume* that those things are also composite without evidence of it is a statement of religious faith, not science. You can ask "What IF those are also composite? What then should we be able to see in experiment if that's true?" This leaves the question open to experimental test. However, just to state flatly that they ARE composite without evidence of that fact is not doing science. > PD!! List the > non-composites you refer to. > > and the volume is due to the interaction between the> constituents more than it has to to with the size of the constituents. > > Think about that for a minute. A salt crystal has volume, but it is > > NOT the volume of the ions added up. The volume is determined by how > > far apart the ions are held from each other by the quantum mechanical > > electrostatic interactions between the ions. Same is true for the > > atom, where the size of the atom comes strictly from the > > electromagnetic interaction between the electrons and the nucleus. > > Same is true for the nucleus, where the size of the nucleus is not the > > sum of the sizes of the protons and neutrons but is instead due to the > > interactions between the protons and neutrons. > > > To avoid making the mistake that the microscopic world is just like > > the macroscopic world all over again, it will help to understand where > > the properties of the macroscopic world come from in the first place. > > The mistake you are making > is your frame of reference. > Your frame is the object, and when the > object becomes smaller than light it is indiscernable, > and therefore it's edges become blurred. > But zoom in on the edges or any part of *anything*, > PD, and things become blurred. That's right, because light no longer operates the way it does on a macroscopic scale. That's why "looks like" is a property that only applies above a certain size scale. Below that, the statement doesn't even make sense. > > EVERYTHING is a composite, PD. > > There is no smallest. Everything is a composite of a > composite of a composite. You don't know that. You have FAITH that this is the case, but faith is not science. > > Don't you see how nonsensical it is to think > things just get so small that everything becomes > free of form and so, so simple!? > Complexity doesn't diminish as we look smaller. > Neither do we see any change > in galaxy density as we look further and further away from earth. > > You are looking for a smallest, a first, a master particle. > It doesn't work that way- like a pyramid. Because then > the everywhere would have a top and a bottom. > > It's a fractal universe, PD. You don't know that, either. It's just something you'd like to be true. > > Galaxies are atoms are galaxies are atoms > are galaxies are atoms > > john
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 12:18 On 4/22/10 8:48 AM, john wrote: > So you are saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist. >> > Can you see the wind? Can you see the gravitational force? Can you see my word carried on sound waves to your ears? Can you see x-rays? Can you see microwave radiation? Can you see the planets orbiting 47 Ursae Majoris? Can you see a hydrogen atom? Existence is what can be measured, John.
From: john on 22 Apr 2010 09:48 On Apr 20, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com>regurgitated: > On Apr 15, 1:07 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> soliloquied: > > > Does it have no volume like an electron? > > Does it have no shape like all the > > parts of the standard model? > > John, first of all, "look like" is a statement that can only be made > about things that are larger than a micron or so. The reason is that > visual appearance relies on bouncing light off the features of the > object, and visible light (which has a wavelength of a few hundred > nanometers) will not bounce off objects smaller than its wavelength in > the usual sense. Visual appearance is something that only applies to > things of a certain size and above. So you are saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist. > > Secondly, shape is something that only applies to objects with volume > and boundaries. A diffuse gas cloud, a macroscopic object, doesn't > even have a shape, although you can draw an isosurface around the > region that has a certain density and above (even though the cloud > will extend quite a bit further than that). Even the clouds in the sky > don't have the shape you see. That's simply the boundary where light > scattering off the water vapor crosses a certain threshold -- the > cloud extends quite a bit further than that and in a way that doesn't > have a clear boundary. Moreover, volume is a property of composite > objects only, *Everything* is a composite!! PD!! List the non-composites you refer to. and the volume is due to the interaction between the > constituents more than it has to to with the size of the constituents. > Think about that for a minute. A salt crystal has volume, but it is > NOT the volume of the ions added up. The volume is determined by how > far apart the ions are held from each other by the quantum mechanical > electrostatic interactions between the ions. Same is true for the > atom, where the size of the atom comes strictly from the > electromagnetic interaction between the electrons and the nucleus. > Same is true for the nucleus, where the size of the nucleus is not the > sum of the sizes of the protons and neutrons but is instead due to the > interactions between the protons and neutrons. > > To avoid making the mistake that the microscopic world is just like > the macroscopic world all over again, it will help to understand where > the properties of the macroscopic world come from in the first place. > The mistake you are making is your frame of reference. Your frame is the object, and when the object becomes smaller than light it is indiscernable, and therefore it's edges become blurred. But zoom in on the edges or any part of *anything*, PD, and things become blurred. EVERYTHING is a composite, PD. There is no smallest. Everything is a composite of a composite of a composite. Don't you see how nonsensical it is to think things just get so small that everything becomes free of form and so, so simple!? Complexity doesn't diminish as we look smaller. Neither do we see any change in galaxy density as we look further and further away from earth. You are looking for a smallest, a first, a master particle. It doesn't work that way- like a pyramid. Because then the everywhere would have a top and a bottom. It's a fractal universe, PD. Galaxies are atoms are galaxies are atoms are galaxies are atoms john
From: Raymond Yohros on 23 Apr 2010 17:26
On Apr 22, 11:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/22/10 8:48 AM, john wrote: > > > So you are saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist. > > Can you see the wind? > Can you see the gravitational force? > Can you see my word carried on sound waves to your ears? > Can you see x-rays? > Can you see microwave radiation? > Can you see the planets orbiting 47 Ursae Majoris? > Can you see a hydrogen atom? > its hard for some people to navigate under instruments only.) r.y |