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]

Re: really "quantization"



On Thu, 14 May 1998, William J. Larson wrote:

James McLean wrote

==>But charge comes only in multiples of a single fundamental amount,
==>while as far as I know the same is not true of mass.

True, but outside of high energy situations (which on the Earth means
outside of particle accelerators and cosmic rays) everything is made of
up and down quarks, which although quite similar, are clearly different.
The mass of the d quark is 1.4 to 4 times the mass of the u
(as of the 1992 Particle Properties Data Booklet)

The charge within a given system can only vary in steps of e (or 1/3e if
that system is a proton?) Particle mass might be quantized, but if energy
is not, then mass in general is not. Look at the potential energy of a
system. The potential energy affects the mass. In other words, is
POSITION quantized? Take for example a benzene ring molecule. Can't we
add an arbitrarily small amount of mass/energy to it by subjecting it to
an arbitrarily small amount of bending? I was under the impression that
the possible bond angles in a molecules was a continuum.

Or look at a pair of macroscopic objects in space. Can't we alter their
relative velocity by an arbitrarily small amount, hence altering the KE
and the mass of the system? Is velocity quantized or is it a continuum?
If velocity is not quantized, then energy and mass in general are not
quantized.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L