Re: Just what is a particle?

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

In the context of what Hugh wrote (see below) we can say that the
word particle represents an abstract idealization of an object. It
ignores everything about the real object (temperature, size, color,
smell, etc.) except the location of the center of mass and the mass
itself. That is what David wrote this morning. And it is probably
enough for a high school student. A car can be treated as a particle
in one problem, as a rigid object in another problem, and as a
flexible object in the third problem.

Other attributes, such as charge or velocity, are often associated
with the concept (we say "charged particle" or "swift particle").
The spinning, on the other hand, is not consistent with the simple
idea of a point-like particle, in classical physics.
Ludwik Kowalski

Hugh Haskell wrote:

> So far, I don't disagree (much) with anything anybody has written
> about this topic. but I think it is important that we remember just
> how it got started. It was written in response to a high school
> student's question forwarded to PhysShare by the student's teacher.
> Everything people have said about particles and photons is
> technically correct, but to involve the student to whom I was
> responding in this discussion would, I think, just serve to confuse
> him or her further, and therefore, I chose to minimize the
> wave-particle duality issue in the interests of getting to a concrete
> answer to the student's question.