0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?
Seems like you agree to encode them with charge. This leads away from point particles. Being able to state it in words is not enough: the statement has to be physically encodable.
"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.
Quote from: Kryptid on 13/09/2020 23:07:53"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?
What "mathematical language" do you have to say (paraphrased) "point particles can't have properties"?
Infinitesimal things should be a no-no in physics.
I don't support that argument.
Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
(the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
Why no comment about this:Quote from: talanum1 on 16/09/2020 17:41:29Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
There's no reason to believe it would, given that gravity acts on mass and the electromagnetic force acts on electric charge.
Since GR came along, gravity is seen as warping of space-time, not a field. While you think the Newton-style formula shows up a "divide by zero error", I don't see how that's an issue.
You don't follow the logic
if the properties are just specified by the force laws
Particles can't be points since then they would need infinite density.
And why is that a problem?
How are they specified (implemented) then?
It should be an axiom of physics that: anything infinite is unphysical.
If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.
there is no difference between charge and mass (since we may arrange: GMm = kQq).
There is a very obvious difference.Like charges repel.
How is that implemented into physical law?
The QED/QG vacuum must read the particle to create a relevant field around the particle. It cannot operate from the rule "Like charges repel." by testing if two particles repel, that would be circular. It must compute if two particles will repel or attract.
So it is me against an unknown?
Because infinity is a mathematical idealization, and nothing in physics is ideal.
It must compute
This, again, implies that the Universe is a computer. Do you have evidence that it is?