Re: electric charge

["D.V.N.Sarma" <narayana@HD1.VSNL.NET.IN>]

On 21 Dec 2001, at 20:06, Larry Cartwright wrote:

> "D.V.N.Sarma" wrote:
> > What is substance?
>
> Well, I've always assumed that a substance is a collection of elementary
> particles such as quarks, leptons and bosons.  But now I think I'm being
> told that the properties of such a substance can also be called a
> substance.  I believe that an aggregation of protons, neutrons and
> electrons is a substance; but I'm having trouble accepting that the
> charge property of their constituent Fermions is also a substance.
>
> Am I wrong in trying to define "substance"?  Do I need a better
> definition of "substance"?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Larry

Quarks, leptons and bosons, protons, neutrons,
electrons etc., all these are the names given to
parts of what we thought as substances.

Defining substance as these does not
enlighten us.

Again, proton is the name given to a bundle of characteristic
properties. So are the other names. That there is an entity
behind each of these sets of properties is an assumption that is
based on layman's vocabulary derived from daily experience.

Q.1
Is a thing different from its properties? If remove all the properties of
a thing, does anything remain?
Q.2
Are we justified in exporting the thinking and the vocabulary of
our daily experiences to the microworld? ( Remember the trouble
of imagining the wave-particle of QM)

The concepts of 'substance' and 'property' and their 'relation' all
these are from common sense. Are these capable of being defined
precisely at all?

regards,

Sarma.