Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: mbkennel

Virtues of particle physics

1. Actually connected to enormous quantities of experimental results
2. Actually connected to quantum mechanics
3. Actually connected to relativity
4. Actually publishes falsifiable theoretical proposals
5. Actually falsifies them

I agree with your first three points, but not the last two. I will take up number 5 first. When it comes to the standard model, what possible experiment could be done that would falsify it? Relativity, yes. Quantum Mechanics, yes. Those are falsifiable theories. But the standard model? Any new particle just gets kluged in, there is no predictability on masses at all, and an enormous number of parameters have been arbitrarily fudged or made up just to fit the data. Please let me know if you can think of anything that would cause the standard model to be falsified, rather than just seeing parameters adjusted, new ones added, or elementary particles or forces added as new things are found.

Well, then if modification of models doesn't count as 'falsification' as a result of experimental results, what does count?

One falsification or at least major blow to Standard Model would of course be seeing no Higgs ever. If you start introducing new particles and new forces then that counts.

In practice, what falsification means is that there are numerous proposals for extensions to SM, many of which have experimental predictions.

resonaances.blogspot.fr...

resonaances.blogspot.com...

jsfiddle.net...

www.nature.com...

Here you go, hundreds of papers regarding the sniff of a signal in 750 GeV 'diphoton' observations at CERN. A jillion potential models. inspirehep.net...

Nearly all of them, or all of them will end up rejected by future data and theoretical analysis.

a reply to: mbkennel

Well, then if modification of models doesn't count as 'falsification' as a result of experimental results, what does count?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. I don't see how the standard model can ever be falsified. It isn't really a single scientific model. Rather it is a collection of models and observations.

One falsification or at least major blow to Standard Model would of course be seeing no Higgs ever. If you start introducing new particles and new forces then that counts.

I disagree. If the Higgs had not been found, the standard model would likely have just claimed that it either had too small of a cross section to see yet, or that it was at a higher mass, or some such thing. As for introducing new particles - well, that is how the standard model has come about! It started with up, down, and strange. Then charm was found, and that was going to be it. But then the intermediate vector bosons came, as well as the bottom and top quarks. The standard model just absorbed them and marched along. It didn't predict all of them before they were found, and never predicted ahead of time with any specificity. It's not really a scientific theory in that respect. (I do believe there was some idea where the W and Z masses would be; and the top was indeed predicted, but not its mass.)

In practice, what falsification means is that there are numerous proposals for extensions to SM, many of which have experimental predictions.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly that many falsifiable extensions are allowed and encouraged by the practitioners. I would also stipulate that additional, falsifiable epicycles were allowed and encouraged by the practitioners of that day. My problem is that some falsifiable proposals are dismissed by nearly every practitioner before they even get a hearing - if that falsifiable proposal does not meet certain "minimum standards". Of course, for me it has been a bit personal, as I have made falsifiable proposals that didn't meet the prevailing "minimum standards", yet I maintain that my proposals do three things: 1) they agree with all experimental data to date; 2) they are logically self consistent; and 3) they logically lead to an experimental test that can differentiate them from the existing theory.

One example of my problem is discussed above in this thread when it comes to whether a fermion can be a force carrier. I have had other similar issues. Such as the fact that quarks are now part of the "minimum standards" for consideration of any theory, even though no quark has ever been isolated (nor can one be, by the theory).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'd like your opinion on a question. (See my post on the bottom of page 296 for background.)

Can a fermion be a force carrier?

a reply to: delbertlarson

All that is not nothing is a 'force carrier'. That which is not nothing can force and be forced.

The concept and observation and the physical fact of what the term 'mass' is used for; is an intrinsic conceptual and real unavoidable fact of something existing. (at least I think)(which is why I also think the higgs concept is unnecessary; because even with no higgs mechanism, mass would still be the fact that, something exists, and it would require something to alter that somethings momentum; though I know the higgs mechanism is used to describe a certain type of mass, though I have not looked into it all in a while, I remember justifiably confidently dismissing the higgs concept).

Could theoretically, hypothetically, a large amount of something existing (one of the most awesome things about reality, appears to be how much stuff exists, (and not only that high quantity, but high quality as well) be absolutely eternally massless? What would that even mean?

Imagine if 10000000000000000000000000000^99999999 particles/fields/waves/strings existed and they were all eternally gureenteed to be massless; what would that mean, is that conceivable?

What is the meaning of any not no thing, being massless? How can the opposite of nothing exist (how can something, a particle, a wave, exist) and have no mass? What does that mean?

So the higgs was suggested as to why different fundamental particles have different masses?

Can a fermion be a force carrier, can an electron be a force carrier? Does an electron exist? Is an electron not purely nothing? Can an electron interact with anything that is not nothing? When two things that are not nothing interact is there a reaction? Is that reaction called a forceful interaction? Does an electron have mass? Is it partly the electrons mass which would cause a forceful interaction? Does that electron carry its mass? Is the potential force of the electrons mass interacting with another electron carried by the fact that an electron is an electron and has mass?


A photon is not massless;

A photon cannot be 'pure energy';

'pure energy' is 'pure movement' and movement cannot exist on its own. If absolutely nothing existed, 'movement' could not exist.

Whenever movement (energy) exists, there needs to be 'a real, that' which is moving.

A photon must be 'some thing' that is moving. Some thing, must have mass, in the rawest form of the conceptual meaning of 'mass', as I mentioned above.

Well, yes, now I see, it is thought photon is massless, because 'it cannot be stopped';

Waves of water, can be stopped; (by freezing them).

Photon cannot be frozen.

Well, all this has led me to conclude, that the EM field is a material substance that exists throughout the universe, and that is the mass of the photon, that is the sea; and a photon is that mass, sea, waving; and the photon wave cannot be frozen or preserved in its form, the wave itself is the movement of the sea; the sea is equal to itself, a wave is not a physical fundamental massive change, but an energetic change, a change of movement; like your moving hand is not a physical change of your hand, the concept of movement is added; the realized concept movement is not a thing (I have mused about that before and do not recall what exactly I concluded), it is a quality of things; So then the question is, why can a photon, a wave in the photon field, not be frozen, the movement is massless, the movement is not a thing, if you freeze the movement (a photon is movement of photon substance medium), you lose the movement;

So a bowling ball at rest, and then a bowling ball moving, no physical substance, mass, was added to the moving bowling ball, the movement of the bowling ball itself is not mass, movement is not mass, movement is the movement of mass;

A photon is the movement of mass, mass which exists, before and after it is moved, just like bowling ball, just like sea, just like all that is not nothing.

How can you freeze the movement/energy of the moving bowling ball, preserve it in space and time;

How can you keep a piece of music playing encoded in radio waves in one particular place and time, to say, that radio wave, its exact design, has mass, because it can be paused in transit, and then be forced as a collective whole, to move this way or that way, as a bowling ball can. Yeah, I know, I messed up a bit or a lot, but some trains of thought that may have some intriguing destinations.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'd like your opinion on a question. (See my post on the bottom of page 296 for background.)

Can a fermion be a force carrier?

I'm not a particle physicist but it's not my understanding that a fermion can't be a force carrier, but rather that they don't end up being such in interactions which can be ascribed a kind of 'classical potential'.

What about the photon-photon scattering in QED at one loop level where two photons exchange an electron-positron pair in a 4-fermion box? Of course this is such a tiny predicted effect that as far as I know it's never been observed, but it does involve fermions theoretically.

By the way if you don't know who Imafungi is, he wants to team up with Nima Arkani-Hamed or some other brilliant open-minded physicist for 5 hours to re-write modern physics. He needs a grunt to do the heavy math lifting part since math is not his forte. He mentioned that about 150 pages ago so that's why I doubt you would have read it, only joining the thread recently.

Imafungi, have you asked him if he has 5 hours to spare you yet?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: delbertlarson
A photon is not massless;

Beginning students in physics are taught it's massless, but at higher levels students should understand we can't prove the mass is precisely zero, we can only put upper limits on the mass, based on more and more precise measurements.

The current upper limit for photon mass is something like 1×10^−18 eV/c²

There are reasons to think it might be zero in spite of the fact we can only prove it's very close to zero.

Photon Mass?

Giving a mass to photons is unappealing not because it violates special relativity – it doesn’t – but because it violates gauge-invariance, the most cherished principle underlying the standard model.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Thanks for the response. Quite a stream of consciousness. Some thoughts in there I support, such as an implied aether to support electromagnetic phenomena such as photons, or the fact that an electron can transmit momentum. However, I side with established physics in other areas, such as a belief that the photon is massless. A photon does have momentum, but no mass that has ever been measured.

The force carriers of the standard model are all bosons. They include the photon, W and Z particles, gluons and gravitons. In my ABC Preon Model, I propose that it is the neutrino that carries the force that binds the preons, and that is the reason for my question. In an earlier post, on page 296 of this thread, I mention an issue regarding Feynman diagrams as it relates to fermion force carriers. I believe it is a misunderstanding of Feynman that leads to the proclamations about fermions not being allowed as force carriers, and I am soliciting other opinions on this matter.

But again, thanks for the response. I enjoyed the read!

originally posted by: delbertlarson

I disagree. If the Higgs had not been found, the standard model would likely have just claimed that it either had too small of a cross section to see yet, or that it was at a higher mass, or some such thing.

Up to a point, but it would mean that certain previous predictions were in fact falsified and what is considered "SM" updated as result of new experimental results.

The SM as it stands today has been heavily guided by past experimental results, and many past theoretical predictions or extensions discarded along the way.

The overall structure is very unlikely to change---we are going to continue to see electrons and protons and neutrons forever, and electrons aren't going to change their charge or mass.

As for introducing new particles - well, that is how the standard model has come about! It started with up, down, and strange. Then charm was found, and that was going to be it. But then the intermediate vector bosons came, as well as the bottom and top quarks. The standard model just absorbed them and marched along. It didn't predict all of them before they were found, and never predicted ahead of time with any specificity. It's not really a scientific theory in that respect. (I do believe there was some idea where the W and Z masses would be; and the top was indeed predicted, but not its mass.)

So the SM is composed of lots of different pieces, that's for sure.

I will agree with you wholeheartedly that many falsifiable extensions are allowed and encouraged by the practitioners. I would also stipulate that additional, falsifiable epicycles were allowed and encouraged by the practitioners of that day. My problem is that some falsifiable proposals are dismissed by nearly every practitioner before they even get a hearing - if that falsifiable proposal does not meet certain "minimum standards". Of course, for me it has been a bit personal, as I have made falsifiable proposals that didn't meet the prevailing "minimum standards", yet I maintain that my proposals do three things: 1) they agree with all experimental data to date; 2) they are logically self consistent; and 3) they logically lead to an experimental test that can differentiate them from the existing theory.

What 'minimum standards' do you mean?

One example of my problem is discussed above in this thread when it comes to whether a fermion can be a force carrier.

I'm no expert here, but googling that question leads to these answers which do need to be addressed.

physics.stackexchange.com...

In some sense if you had a force carrier be a "fermion" then it really wouldn't be a force carrier, it would be like a virtual particle created and taken into account in the Feynman diagram.

I have had other similar issues. Such as the fact that quarks are now part of the "minimum standards" for consideration of any theory, even though no quark has ever been isolated (nor can one be, by the theory).

Well the symmetries and observations predicted by quarks are pretty clear.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Giving a mass to photons is unappealing not because it violates special relativity – it doesn’t – but because it violates gauge-invariance, the most cherished principle underlying the standard model.

As I suggested, the difference in x ray photons and radio wave photons is not a difference of mass;

Maybe...

But the difference between 4, 5 feet ocean waves; and 4, 1 foot ocean waves, is a difference of mass... and energy...

A string for example, can be made to wave, in different manners, it can be wiggled, moved, and this is energy; no mass is added to the string;

The EM field, is like the string example, supposed; when an electron accelerates in relation to the field; when a hand accelerates in relation to its holding the string; no mass is added to the field; movement is added to the field;

But as I suggested; the field itself must have some concept of mass; Just as the sea is mass; the sea made to move, does not add mass, it adds movement;

The movement of a photon, cannot be stopped; so it is said to have no mass (no rest mass.... it cannot rest);

But the EM field itself, is the rest mass and mass; It is the movement of the EM field that cant be made to rest, that cant be an object;

A photon cannot be preserved, because a photon is a particular movement of the Em field;

To preserve, rest, that photon movement, makes it no longer the characteristic movement it was; so that characteristic movement that was, is said to 'not be mass', not be able to rest, as an object;

When you touch a still pond; and ripples form; (without freezing the pond), do the ripples have mass? Not the h20, h20 has mass; but does the 'movement' 'itself' have mass?

The difference between relatively motionless h20, and rippling h20, is not a difference of mass;

The difference between relatively motionless EM field, and local EM field producing photons, is not a difference of mass;

I guess, what I should be asking, is if it is thought the EM field has rest mass?

(I do not necessarily subscribe, to expanding or accelerating expanding theory, but if you do, perhaps that has something to do with why EM field is the way it is, and said to be massless);

I think you subscribe to that spiraling e makes h makes e model, which is just bizarre, so its not like you think photons are like bb bullets, there is definitely something weird going on;

So you think, if no charged particles (and I know you hate these hypotheticals because they potentially show how little you understand your beliefs) existed, there would be a motionless EM field, with no photons?

And you think that EM field would have no mass because?

Where there are no photons does the EM field exist as a real not nothing 'thingness'?

Where there is no matter or energy that is not a photon; is there full of photons?

There is not a single point in space that is not occupied?

There is not a single point in space in which the EM field is motionless?

Well technically, not a single object can ever be made truly motionless? (because at least in our reference frame, we are caught up in the unavoidable motions of solar system and galaxy and earth?)

Could the EM field be motionless, but it is that unavoidable movement I just mentioned, that contributes to our relation to the observations of EM field and photon?

a reply to: delbertlarson

For a quark to occur an atom must be split as thats a side effect from splitting. Splitting molecules produces light and heat. We know full well what splitting atoms has led too. Fusion is a better pathway energy wise of course if that went into chain reaction we'd have an even brighter future in the solar system or a second Sol over time... but thats being silly if reactionary... meaning space travel. As we dont have the fuel for such an event in our atmosphere. Jupiter however... that big red spot is already working on it naturally.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Well, different densities of said mass... of course vibrate at different rates or I suppose you could say spectrums based on whatever particulate conglomerate occupying said space... no mass there? Then there is the potiential for some to accumilate there... typically no different than having a coffee table that collects dust and cups, and not having one doesnt.

When we see rings around a planet theres it's coffee table... this is perhaps why the unseen and unspoken about "godess" likes coasters.

originally posted by: delbertlarson


Some thoughts in there I support, such as an implied aether to support electromagnetic phenomena such as photons, or the fact that an electron can transmit momentum. However, I side with established physics in other areas, such as a belief that the photon is massless. A photon does have momentum, but no mass that has ever been measured.

Well, I think you may have overlooked one of my points; I was trying to think of why photon is considered massless, what a photon is considered and why;

You suggest an implied aether to support phenomena such as photons; then I would ask... does the aether have mass?

In my ABC Preon Model, I propose that it is the neutrino that carries the force that binds the preons, and that is the reason for my question. In an earlier post, on page 296 of this thread, I mention an issue regarding Feynman diagrams as it relates to fermion force carriers. I believe it is a misunderstanding of Feynman that leads to the proclamations about fermions not being allowed as force carriers, and I am soliciting other opinions on this matter.

Things are binded by their local movements in relation to encompassing substantial medium fields;

The planets are 'binded' to the sun (the sun, and planets, binded to the galaxy) by the collective masses motions in relation to the gravity substance medium;

I do not know why such a principle, mechanism, would not be what occurs on the smallest levels as well;

From my extremely ignorant perspective; I do not know why the gluon, w and z, would not be a smaller scale version of that gravity substance medium; or at least the same mechanism with different medium fields;

Or is it thought gluon, w, and z are like little marbles?

Or is it thought they are like little seas... or blankets?

Is it thought, as EM field, as gravity field, might exist throughout universe, as a real material substance;

Is it thought gluon exists throughout the universe as a real connected material substance? Or only specific gluon particles exist locally in relation to nucleus and a more just scattered around?

And if it is thought the gluons are particle like quanta, and not like 'the gravity medium' or the all encompassing gluon aether;

then it is thought they almost have equivalent of classical chemical reaction, in binding abilities? Could the gravity field act one way macroly, and have different effects (qualitative) microly?

Gluons are not nothing; physically, mechanically, how do they bind? Classically we are aware of different methods of binding; zippers, rope ties, chemical reaction, staple, opposing side bombardment, etcs. There are multiple separate objects that exist in an area; it is said 'some thing/s' besides those separate objects, do 'some movement' to ensure the multiple separate objects are relatively bound;

Hypotehtically, theoretically, what could they possibly do?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Perhaps he means the casual nexus or potiential for the particulate to travel in vibration of the mass harmony... due to their densities, or weights in relation to specific gravities to the whole emulsion... like fish flakes putting in and when cleaning, or your blind moustache experiement and the dust particles and rays... where normally unseen particles can appear based on the specific wave length or seem to exist in, which the light is bent, reflected, or scattered... light of course different as that can be seen as radition or EM fields that perhaps also reflects, scatters, and has varying fields and vectors or vibrations that make them visible... without a light collector on a scope it can be hard to image things in the night sky.

The particles you meantioned earlier I can see why you tossed them out as they exist for too short a time to show a potiential for a vectorization, of course if such could be controlled in it's appearance with certian conditions met? Then the vectorization should be able to be controlled... its likely the conditions in which for the particle to continue in existence is due to its conditions when appearing... as in the environment cannot perpetuate it's "hanging around" to continue in existance. Like us without space suits do not last very long as oxygen is yanked out being so vacuious... yet here on the ground? Enough of them to allow it to sort of stasis.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
End (tail coordinate) of 100 km object would show more elongated when compared to 'nose' of smaller object proportionally.

By how much? You've done the general relativity math to calculate this?

No one needs to. Two physical bodies accelerate toward gravity center at the same rate. What do you want me to calculate? Just watch experiment performed on the Moon by Apollo mission crew once more.


Me thinks, two physical bodies of different mass accelerate at the same rate, then lets assume an opposite -- two bodies of same mass but different size..what should happen in this case based on the first experiment observation?

Noses of both will touch down (cross) imaginary line above the surface at the same time but the tail of more massive body will arrive with delay (will take longer than expected to register crossing imaginary line).

So, as an answer to your question 'By how much', summarizing the above, I'd say you need to specify at what altitude the orbit above the Moon experiment is performed. By how much has to depend on proximity to gravity source, as I understand it.

a reply to: greenreflections
You seemed to be implying that tidal effects under general relativity in our solar system would be significantly different than those calculated from Newtonian mechanics, at least that was my best effort to understand what you wrote when you say things along these lines:

originally posted by: greenreflections
You see, you think of gravity as real force even knowing it is not. My premise is that physical body's reaction being inside gravity affected area is governed by it's dimensions rather then mass.

That's the whole 'juice' about GR.

The reason I was asking you about calculations of "End (tail coordinate) of 100 km object would show more elongated" was to see if you really thought the calculated results would be that much different between GR and Newtonian Mechanics. I wasn't asking about whether a hammer and feather dropped on the moon would fall at the same rate, which is the question you sort of answered.

If you take the Roche limit (which is related to tidal effect, when the "elongation" becomes excessive closer than this limit) for example, calculated in 1848 by Édouard Roche long before Einstein's general relativity, I haven't heard anybody claim those calculations would be off by more than the tiniest amount because of general relativity corrections. If someone wants to be really pedantic, they can point out that there are tiny differences even in everyday situations. For example in Newtonian mechanics if you walk on a train at 2 mph in the same direction as the train moving at 2mph, then you're moving at 4mph. Relativity says not exactly 4 mph, maybe something like 3.999999999999999964 mph, which to me is 4 mph simply because I don't think I can measure the difference between that and 4 mph. So yes GR says it's different in some sense, but if in everyday situations the difference is so small you can't measure it, is it really different or is the difference of any significance?

Based on this I don't really feel compelled to use general relativity calculations when Newtonian calculations will do, and in fact this is common practice by people who know when they need to use GR for things like GPS, and when they don't need to use GR because the difference is too small to matter like 3.999999999999999964 mph versus 4 mph. This doesn't mean I think GR is wrong or that I don't accept it, rather it only means I don't need to do extra work with more complicated math for no benefit in some situations.

a reply to: ImaFungi


Mass is a virtual quality. It is similar to the concept of potential energy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

GR is a continuation of Newtonian Mechanic. Newtonian Mechanics does not discuss or meant to include an attribute of space-time metric around massive physical body, like a planet or a star.

a reply to: mbkennel

What 'minimum standards' do you mean?

A need to agree with the present quark model, agree with the Higgs term in the Lagrangian, agree on point-like particles (at least in three dimensions - strings are allowed in higher ones) so that relativity doesn't have a problem, the absense of a classical aether, insisting that all force carriers be bosons just because the present theory is that way... things like that. If you cross anyone of those (and I have crossed them all) then there is little chance of getting a serious review or even readings of your works.

Yet again, it is my view that only by crossing such lines that we can make fundamental breakthroughs. Every postulate must be amenable to questioning. As long as a new theory: 1) is consistent with experimental evidence; 2) has no logical or mathematical flaw; and 3) proposes new experimental test to provide differentiation from existing theory then I would claim that the items in the paragraph above are meaningless as objections. Rather, they are a clinging to the epicycles of the present time. In fact it is only when you challenge the whole epicycle paradigm that will be able to make revolutionary progress.

This isn't to say that working on the epicycles is bad in and of itself. Getting the data is great. Organizing the data is great. It is just that when you are so wedded to an underlying dogma that you immediately reject alternatives that you are then practicing a very poor religion and you have abandoned science.

I'm no expert here, but googling that question leads to these answers which do need to be addressed.

Thanks. I checked out the reference. It is what I have come to believe. The entire objection of fermions as force carriers is essentially because of a mis-interpretation of present theory (and theory alone). When Feynman first came up with his diagrams he emphasized that they were calculational tools and not a depiction of what is really going on. Even back in the 80's there were more and more physicists who took the diagrams literally. And now I suspect that problem is worse. But even then, just because a process is first order suppressed wouldn't mean it is forbidden totally - it just would only present itself at higher orders. Yet even that gives the entire mathematics too much sway - it is experimental result that must rule the day in the end. If a new process obeys a different mathematics that is almost to be expected.

Well the symmetries and observations predicted by quarks are pretty clear.

Yes sir, they are. However, the ABC Preon model predicts the same symmetries and observations yet does so in a way that involves far fewer elementary particles, one less force, and can predict the actual masses for events now understood to be the Higgs and top quark. It makes further predictions for HEP results at specific energies with specific signatures. I have produced videos online about it, and published in Physics Essays. But it is pretty much ignored. I had it up for a while at Wikipedia, but some minions of the prevailing guild made sure it didn't last long there.

In a few weeks my plan is to start posting threads here about the ABC Preon Model.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You suggest an implied aether to support phenomena such as photons; then I would ask... does the aether have mass?

In my two component solid aether, one component has mass and the other has anti-mass. I wasn't thrilled with the latter, but when I developed the theory I didn't see a way around it. I have videos online that start with some very simple propositions for the aether and then go on to do a rigorous derivation of Maxwell's equations from that starting point. From your writing here I think you might like that approach better than the prevailing one. (Google "Delbert Larson YouTube" and you should be able to find them if you wish.)

Or is it thought gluon, w, and z are like little marbles?

Or is it thought they are like little seas... or blankets?

Is it thought, as EM field, as gravity field, might exist throughout universe, as a real material substance;

Is it thought gluon exists throughout the universe as a real connected material substance? Or only specific gluon particles exist locally in relation to nucleus and a more just scattered around?

In the presently prevailing view, all interactions are point-like. This is needed to save relativity. There is then a fuzziness as to what things "really are" that comes into play due to quantum mechanics. What really exists however are equations. That's it. Mathematical equations. When people start asking questions like the ones above, those "in the know" will snicker since they have been asked a question by someone who has now openly revealed that they are at best a novice or more likely a fool. The prevailing view is that the experts have gone beyond asking the question "what is the world made of" since they are now so much smarter than that. They are so smart that they know (not believe, but know) that certain questions are simply beyond mankind's capability to understand. The belief is that we've moved beyond such silly notions now.

I believe otherwise. I think your question is very good and deserving of an answer. And my answer is that the gluons, w's and z's don't exist at all. W and Z events are evidence of two freed preons. The binding force of nuclear matter is neutrinic, not gluonic. The preons themselves are like little marbles in that they have some small size internally, but they normally exist as a diffuse cloud prior to any interaction. Only if an interaction has an extremely high momentum will we be able to discern their size during the collapse of their wave function.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur

GR is a continuation of Newtonian Mechanic. Newtonian Mechanics does not discuss or meant to include an attribute of space-time metric around massive physical body, like a planet or a star.

True, but the unexplained mystery is why you make such a big deal of the distinction in a discussion of gravitational tidal effects when the math usually comes out so close the difference isn't worth mentioning, as it would for the examples you suggested, which didn't get into things like frame-dragging where you would see the difference.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur

GR is a continuation of Newtonian Mechanic. Newtonian Mechanics does not discuss or meant to include an attribute of space-time metric around massive physical body, like a planet or a star.

its more like time/dark matter metric. space does not bend. read thread in my signature