- Thank you received: 0
The nature of force
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
You are making too fine a distinction. Relative to a proton, Earth and Moon are the same size and they are also the same density.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
"Zeno" is about an infinite number of finites summing to a finite. I don't see that here. Since no particle's constituents in MM can sum to a finite cross-section required for any understandable collision sans "field".
As I understand it, MM rejects the "point particle" as unphysical ... and also rejects a finite geometrical sphere (a "ball-particle") for any number of sound reasons [though this type could conceivably sum to a finite cross-section in the Zeno manner since each sphere has a finite cross-section].
What then is a particle to be composed of ... ?? If it is not composed of either finite little balls of various sizes or point-particles ... what's left? Are we speaking here of collisions between "densities"? That could sum to a finite ... but that begs the question "How does a density collide with another density?". This seems to be non-physical as well.
When two MM particles collide ... in terms of constituents, exactly what is hitting what?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<br />
As I understand it, MM rejects the "point particle" as unphysical ... and also rejects a finite geometrical sphere (a "ball-particle") for any number of sound reasons [though this type could conceivably sum to a finite cross-section in the Zeno manner since each sphere has a finite cross-section].
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You have to concede that a "point particle" does have various obscurities. For if you take the function f(x)=arctan(x), then it is seen that the real line, for points x in (-inf,inf), maps into the interval (pi/2,-pi/2). Now, the real line looks "solid" to me on paper, having "no gaps", yet it is possible to place all points of the real line next to each other in an arbitrary small interval (epsilon, -epsilon). Hence, an infinite "solid" horizon of seemingly touching points fits into an arbitrary interval in a one-to-one manner.
Returning to physics, the above problem can be explained by arguing that point particles are actually composed of other particles with (infinitesimal) space in between. Their size is not "fixed" but can be described by a limiting procedure only, such as the infinite sum that Tom tries to impart.
Does this seem to be a fair assessment?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.