infinity ...
in [Math]
|
Prev: math
Next: The proof of mass vector.
From: Randy Poe on 4 Nov 2005 10:59 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > I really want to not misquote or incorrectly use his phrase, but Mati > Meron calls that "coffee table book" physics. > > To measure the mass of subatomic particles more precisely, the measured > value doesn't converge to a finite positive value, it appears to go to > zero, ie, it's infinitesimal. What are you referring to? In what sense does the measured mass of a subatomic particle "converge", let alone converge to zero? Do you think protons, neutrons, electrons, have zero mass? As far as I know, the only particle besides photons that may be massless is the neutrino, and there the question is still open. We have upper bounds on neutrino mass, but as far as I know no good way to pin down a lower bound. - Randy
From: Ross A. Finlayson on 4 Nov 2005 15:04 Randy Poe wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > I really want to not misquote or incorrectly use his phrase, but Mati > > Meron calls that "coffee table book" physics. > > > > To measure the mass of subatomic particles more precisely, the measured > > value doesn't converge to a finite positive value, it appears to go to > > zero, ie, it's infinitesimal. > > What are you referring to? In what sense does the measured mass > of a subatomic particle "converge", let alone converge to zero? > > Do you think protons, neutrons, electrons, have zero mass? > > As far as I know, the only particle besides photons that may be > massless > is the neutrino, and there the question is still open. We have upper > bounds > on neutrino mass, but as far as I know no good way to pin down a lower > bound. > > - Randy Aren't there theoretically any number of kinds of spin-0 bosons like photons and neutrinos? That are multiple varieties of neutrinos, various virtual particles. Let me tell you, you're asking a guy who probably don't know, in terms of bosons. http://www.cpepweb.org/cpep_sm_large.html To more "accurately" measure the mass of a hadronic particle like the electrons, protons, and neutrons or their constituent particles quarks, for which there is no theoretical limit to their smaller particles eg Technicolor in QCD, Quantum Chromodynamics, to more accurately measure their mass it takes a higher energy experiment. The running coupling "constant", in scare quotes because it's running and yet it's "constant", leads to that the more "accurately" the particle's mass is measured, the smaller it appears to be, which is why as that data is experimentally produced over the years in largescale subatomic particle experiments, the datum of a given type particle has been decreasing by around an order of decimal magnitude every ten years or so. Are we still talking about ZF? Listen, indiscernibles are another one of these concepts, apparently with monographs about it penned by Leibniz, sets contain no duplicates. Om. Ohm. The universe is infinite. Ross
From: Randy Poe on 4 Nov 2005 15:40 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > To more "accurately" measure the mass of a hadronic particle like the > electrons, protons, and neutrons or their constituent particles quarks, > for which there is no theoretical limit to their smaller particles eg > Technicolor in QCD, Quantum Chromodynamics, to more accurately measure > their mass it takes a higher energy experiment. The running coupling > "constant", in scare quotes because it's running and yet it's > "constant", leads to that the more "accurately" the particle's mass is > measured, the smaller it appears to be, which is why as that data is > experimentally produced over the years in largescale subatomic particle > experiments, the datum of a given type particle has been decreasing by > around an order of decimal magnitude every ten years or so. As usual, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying or if this is the answer to my question. Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure that value to be? > Are we still talking about ZF? No. You made a statement about measurement of particle masses, so I'm trying to find out what you were saying about measurement of particle masses. That would be a question of physics, not mathematics. - Randy
From: Ross A. Finlayson on 5 Nov 2005 15:59 Randy Poe wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > To more "accurately" measure the mass of a hadronic particle like the > > electrons, protons, and neutrons or their constituent particles quarks, > > for which there is no theoretical limit to their smaller particles eg > > Technicolor in QCD, Quantum Chromodynamics, to more accurately measure > > their mass it takes a higher energy experiment. The running coupling > > "constant", in scare quotes because it's running and yet it's > > "constant", leads to that the more "accurately" the particle's mass is > > measured, the smaller it appears to be, which is why as that data is > > experimentally produced over the years in largescale subatomic particle > > experiments, the datum of a given type particle has been decreasing by > > around an order of decimal magnitude every ten years or so. > > As usual, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying or if > this > is the answer to my question. > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > that value to be? > > > Are we still talking about ZF? > > No. > > You made a statement about measurement of particle masses, so I'm > trying to find out what you were saying about measurement of particle > masses. That would be a question of physics, not mathematics. > > - Randy HI, That makes sense to me. Randy, I was looking at the masses of the hadronic particles as they have been measured the other day, after describing how my intuitive notion was that the universe was infinite so that the more information that is known about the universe, the larger it will appear to be, with the origin being everywhere, anywhere, but actually in one place, right here and now. The experimental particle physicists measure the quantity of mass of these particles, as they use more more energy to get a more accurate measurement, the measurement gets smaller, tighter within a range, but smaller. That's how those quantities are examined. That only appears to take place upon the subatomic particles, which is perhaps a good reason to consider the atoms atomic, indivisible, in the sense that the resumption of their divisibilty leads off into the INFINITE. The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent. Ross
From: Randy Poe on 5 Nov 2005 16:10
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Randy Poe wrote: > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > that value to be? > > > The experimental particle physicists measure the quantity of mass of > these particles, Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these particles"? > as they use more more energy to get a more accurate > measurement, the measurement gets smaller, tighter within a range, but > smaller. Are you asserting that measurement of proton mass has this property? > That's how those quantities are examined. For which particles? Are you asserting proton mass is measured this way? > That only appears to take place upon the subatomic particles A proton is a subatomic particle. Are you asserting that your description above covers protons? If not, which specific particles are you talking about? - Randy |