Quanta and Statistics in the Meta Model

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />How does the Meta Model reconcile the apparent exact masses of elementary particle with the view that all particles are assemblages of yet smaller units?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have never measured the mass of elementary particles such as the proton apart from their charge. Instead, we measure the charge-to-mass ratio, and note that this ratio appears constant. From that, we infer a constant inertial mass. (Gravitational mass for quantum particles remains totaly unknown.) But in models such as MM, a different interpretation of these experiments applies, and a wide range of masses and charges will give the same apparently invariant charge-to-mass ratio. -|Tom|-

Understood.

Then you are saying that charge and mass are variable such that when their effects in measuring experiments are multiplied together a constant is obtained. And ... large clusters of clusters of galaxies (for instance) might have something akin to a charge on them ... detectable on the next scale if not on this one?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Gravitational mass for quantum particles remains totaly unknown.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
True, the gravitational mass of a single proton has not been measured directly. However, it is strongly inferred by simply "weighing" a large object and counting the protons it contains. The only fly in the ointment is then the influence to the electron.

And ... if it was measured and found to be identical to every other in every instance ... would this be a major hurdle for MM?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Then you are saying that charge and mass are variable such that when their effects in measuring experiments are multiplied together a constant is obtained.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, their ratio is constant. Charge and mass are apparently proportional for quantum particles (only). When many such particles are combined, their average charge and mass will always be the same.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And ... large clusters of clusters of galaxies (for instance) might have something akin to a charge on them ... detectable on the next scale if not on this one?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That might be true, but if so is unrelated to the issue of charge/mass ratios in quantum particles. Most macroscopic matter is obviously charge-neutral.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if it was measured and found to be identical to every other in every instance ... would this be a major hurdle for MM?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It would mean that MM's present best guess about the nature of QM particles is wrong. But MM didn't have even a guess until about two years ago, so the main theory is not affected by QM considerations. But if it's a good theory, I would expect it to be right, or nearly so, about QM too. -|Tom|-

On a QM scale, how can observers distinguish whether they are looking at two seperate particles or two parts of the same parcel?