| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
> So perhaps we can redefine the question, must all zero massYes, you have identified one way in which we were not
charged
> particles be confined, as Jack suspects?
I don't like the term "must". It smacks of the belief that there
are some eternal verities that govern our thinking. That, in fact, is
what troubles me about this whole discussion. I regard us as model
builders, and the restrictions imposed on any given model depend upon
the assumptions made in building that model. Thus, I can understand the
question, "Can I make a model in which charged particles are massless?".
I might not be able to answer it, but I at least understand what it is
that I am supposed to do.
A very different question is, "Can a charged particle be
massless?". That is a question about all possible universes, so I suppose
that I would have to answer, "Yes, if the gods so will it.">>
Jack I thing I understand your point here. However perhaps it is still a
philosophic difference we are talking about. For me physics is a description
of an objectively real Universe. Therefore when I think model, I am talking
about something which directly accords with reality and not just a convenient
tool for calculation of observed phenomena. I believe your view is positivist
and probably a majority view held by most physicist. I wasn't asking if such
an entity was supported by our models but rather if such a thing could really
be. However to talk intelligently about these things we must still speak the
same language of scientific models so the practical results of our different
views is nil.
Bob Zannelli