[Kryptid]

How would you encode "They simply have ..." in physical (mathematical) terms?

"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming. You'd probably want to ask a computer expert. Not that it would be relevant to physics...

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.

Assuming that we aren't in some kind of Matrix-style simulation, the Universe isn't a computer. So talking about "encoding" something into particles doesn't make sense.

[talanum1 (OP)]

"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.

How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?

[Bored chemist]

M_e =9.10938356 × 10^-31 kilograms

[pzkpfw]

"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"?

(To a certain extent, I do see where your argument from incredulity is coming from. My car is red. That seems to be possible only because my car is big enough to have some red paint on it. BUT sub atomic particles are not like my car, and the properties they have are not like the properties my car has.)

[talanum1 (OP)]

What "mathematical language" do you have to say (paraphrased) "point particles can't have properties"?

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).

Infinitesimal things should be a no-no in physics.

[Bored chemist]

Infinitesimal things should be a no-no in physics.

So, what's the probability that they are infinitesimal?

I don't support that argument.

You have yet to support any argument.
That's the problem.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Why no comment about this:

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).

[Kryptid]

(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.

[pzkpfw]

Why no comment about this:

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).

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

 

There's no reason to believe it would, given that gravity acts on mass and the electromagnetic force acts on electric charge.

You don't follow the logic: if the properties are just specified by the force laws, there is no difference between charge and mass (since we may arrange: GMm = kQq).

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.

  The force law equation reduces to Newton's Law in the mild field limit. He who has eyes: let him see.

  Particles can't be points since then they would need infinite density.

[Kryptid]

You don't follow the logic

Because it's wrong. Charge and mass are different things.

if the properties are just specified by the force laws

They're not.

Particles can't be points since then they would need infinite density.

And why is that a problem?

[talanum1 (OP)]

They're not.

How are they specified (implemented) then?

And why is that a problem?

It should be an axiom of physics that: anything infinite is unphysical.

[Kryptid]

How are they specified (implemented) then?

If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.

It should be an axiom of physics that: anything infinite is unphysical.

Why?

[talanum1 (OP)]

If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.

So it is me against an unknown?

Why?

Because infinity is a mathematical idealization, and nothing in physics is ideal.

[Bored chemist]

there is no difference between charge and mass (since we may arrange: GMm = kQq).

There is a very obvious difference.
Like charges repel.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

How is that implemented into physical law?

Did you miss this?

If you're asking why particles are the way they are, I don't think anything knows that.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Do you agree with this:

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.

[Kryptid]

So it is me against an unknown?

I don't know what you are try to ask here.

Because infinity is a mathematical idealization, and nothing in physics is ideal.

You could argue that zero is a mathematical idealization as well, but we know of quite a few things that are zero (like the net electric charge on the neutron, the electrical resistance of a superconductor, the friction of a superfluid, or the probability of an impossible event occurring).

It must compute

This, again, implies that the Universe is a computer. Do you have evidence that it is?

[talanum1 (OP)]

This, again, implies that the Universe is a computer. Do you have evidence that it is?

Every physics experiment assumes the universe is a mechanism, but any mechanism can be said to do a logical or mathematical computation.