point particle vs particle with structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.4: One-Way Entanglement in Expansion-Contraction
From: Puppet_Sock on 20 Jul 2010 10:49 On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > being nothing more that a point is > untenable. > How can a point have any attributes at all? > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > Yet when I suggest an electron has > structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > involving energy radiation and absorption > at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > 'word salad'. > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? The answer to your question appears in the previous paragraphs of your post. Socks
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 11:16 On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > being nothing more that a point is > > untenable. > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > Why would one point be any different from another point? Write this as: It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all circustances. How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and attributes? What makes points unique, and do they need to be? > > Yet when I suggest an electron has > > structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > > involving energy radiation and absorption > > at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > > 'word salad'. Yet when I suggest an electron has structure in equilibrium. This is possibly and emission absorbtion balance below the threshold of measurement. I am accused of 'word salad' as crouton soup is too meaty. > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? Point particles must be something arround the point centroid.
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 11:22 On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > > being nothing more that a point is > > > untenable. > > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > Write this as: > It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all > circustances. > How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and > attributes? Why would you believe that volumetric density needs to be a property of all physical things? Density is a property that only applies to certain substances and objects. If you'll note, those are all in the class of *composite* objects. > What makes points unique, and do they need to be? > > > > Yet when I suggest an electron has > > > structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > > > involving energy radiation and absorption > > > at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > > > 'word salad'. > > Yet when I suggest an electron has structure in equilibrium. > This is possibly and emission absorbtion balance below the threshold > of measurement. > I am accused of 'word salad' as crouton soup is too meaty. > > > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? > > Point particles must be something arround the point centroid.
From: Jacko on 20 Jul 2010 11:53 On 20 July, 16:22, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > > > being nothing more that a point is > > > > untenable. > > > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > > > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > > Write this as: > > It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all > > circustances. > > How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and > > attributes? > > Why would you believe that volumetric density needs to be a property > of all physical things? > Density is a property that only applies to certain substances and > objects. If you'll note, those are all in the class of *composite* > objects. The inverse is true. That the external volume presents a field density to react with things in this volume. This makes me wonder how these things experience this field. If they do not have volume, then how is attraction of the object to itself in it's own field expressed?
From: gulaman on 20 Jul 2010 16:42
On Jul 20, 2:29 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:36 pm, gulaman <regala...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some advice > > > 1. Study more elementary physics > > No need > > > to appreciate that the point particle representation is only for > > convenient solving of physics problems where some factors affecting > > the "particle" are not considered. > > That's what I said > > > 2. Study complex analysis and your math > > to know that x/0 is a singularity > > I understand math just fine, thanks. You can get a mathematical > singularity when x=0 in 1/x (for example), that's not the only way, of > course. x/0 isn't a singularity as it gives an infinite value for ALL > x, not just at a particular x value (ie a singularity). > > Try again I was referring to Jacko. |