How many equilateral tetrahedra can be connected together without any empty space between them?

[DaveC426913]

So the smallest tetrahedron will have faces equal to the Planck length each?

The Planck length is not a hard lower bound on reality. Yes, our physics breaks down in describing such small things - but that does not mean that reality is forbidden from having four points equidistant from each other that are less than a Planck length apart.

What we are discung here is merely semantics - what you and I think certain words mean. In the relam of the subatomic, words cease to be descriptive. If you really want to explore the wolrd of the subatomic, you'd have to study the math and physics of it. All we're doing here in this discussion is stamp-collecting.

 

[Olga]

The Planck length is not a hard lower bound on reality. Yes, our physics breaks down in describing such small things - but that does not mean that reality is forbidden from having four points equidistant from each other that are less than a Planck length apart.

What we are discung here is merely semantics - what you and I think certain words mean. In the relam of the subatomic, words cease to be descriptive. If you really want to explore the wolrd of the subatomic, you'd have to study the math and physics of it. All we're doing here in this discussion is stamp-collecting.

Нет. Возможно, для вас это семантика, а для меня это желание понять основы материального мира. Мы же здесь уже не раз встречали предположения о том, как должна выглядеть фундаментальная частица. Кто то думает, что это маленький шарик, кто то - что волна, и т.д.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. Perhaps for you it's semantics, but for me it's a desire to understand the foundations of the material world.

You will not understand the foundations of the material world by asking how long the face of a tetrahedron is that's smaller than the Plnack length. Those words are inadequate. Debating what words mean is semanatics.

To understand the foundations of the real world, you will have to study the language of physics, which is the math.

This is, after all, the Physics and Math forum, not the Words forum.

We've already encountered many speculations here about what a fundamental particle should look like.

They don't look like anything. They are defined by their equations.

Some think it's a small ball,

They would be wrong.

If you want to discuss wrong things, we should move this out of the Physics and Math forum into the Wrong Things forum.

 

[Olga]

You will not understand the foundations of the material world by asking how long the face of a tetrahedron is that's smaller than the Plnack length. Those words are inadequate. Debating what words mean is semanatics.

To understand the foundations of the real world, you will have to study the language of physics, which is the math.

This is, after all, the Physics and Math forum, not the Words forum.



They don't look like anything. They are defined by their equations.


They would be wrong.

If you want to discuss wrong things, we should move this out of the Physics and Math forum into the Wrong Things forum.

Т.е. вы считаете, что частицы - это не материальные объекты, а просто уравнения?

 

[DaveC426913]

So you think that particles are not material objects, but simply equations?

I did not say that. They are certainly material objects. But they cannot be described using mere words.

Here's a simpler, macroscopic example:

What is the shape of a magnetic field?




Is it a donut? A torus?
Those words might give a rough idea of the broad shape, but it's inaccurate. "Shape" is a useless word for something that extends to infinity.
We do not have words that describe the overall "shape" of such a phenomenon.

What you need is a way of describing the strength of the field at specific locations.
And that is done with the equation that describes the field in mathematical terms.

Same with particles.

An electron is not a ball. Its physicality is in its electric charge, which is defined mathematically.

 

[Olga]

I did not say that. They are certainly material objects. But they cannot be described using mere words.

Here's a simpler, macroscopic example:

What is the shape of a magnetic field?


View attachment 7204

Is it a donut? A torus?
Those words might give a rough idea of the broad shape, but "shape" is a useless word for something that extends to infinity.
What you need is a way of describing the strength of the field at a specific location.
And that is done with the equation that describes the field in mathematical terms.

Я это понимаю. Любой объект постоянно движется, поэтому не имеет какой либо определённой формы. И поле постоянно колеблется. Но это всё касается составных частиц, а мы сейчас говорим о гипотетической фундаментальной.

 

[James R]

Welcome back, Olga.

Mathematics is a tool that physics uses. And yes, I meant the real, physical tetrahedron.

If a physical solid shape has four equal-area triangular faces and four vertices arranged such that each pair of vertices is the same distance apart, then the shape is a tetrahedron.

Hope this helps!

 

[Olga]

Welcome back, Olga.

If a physical solid shape has four equal-area triangular faces and four vertices arranged such that each pair of vertices is the same distance apart, then the shape is a tetrahedron.

Hope this helps!

Привет, Джеймс. Спасибо, что дали мне определение тетраэдра. Где ещё я могла бы об этом узнать? Но у меня вопрос: допустим, наш тетраэдр неподвижен. Каков может быть его миримальный размер?

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for defining a tetrahedron. Where else could I have learned this?

Basic geometry?

But I have a question: let's say our tetrahedron is stationary. What's its maximum size?

I think this is another one of those questions you know the answer to but are just looking to keep things stirred up.

 

[Olga]

Basic geometry?


I think this is another one of those questions you know the answer to but are just looking to keep things stirred up.

Дэйв, первая часть моего комментария - это ирония, а во второй я писала "минимальный", а не "максимальный". Ошибка перевода?

Я про тетраэдр не просто так спросила. На мой взгляд - это идеальная равновесная фигура. Ну и к тому же он идеально подходит для трёхмерности.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, the first part of my comment was ironic, and in the second I wrote "minimum," not "maximum." Translation error?

You asked "let's say our tetrahedron is stationary. What's its minimum/maximum size"?

Whether you meant minimum or maximum, the same illogic is present: stationary or moving has nothing to do with size.

 

[DaveC426913]

Point of order (As if it needs to be repeated):


Definitely critical translational errors happening here.

This is a screen snippet of what Olga posted:


This is a screen snippet of how it was translated in my browser:




However, when I remove the context and translate that specific word, this is what I get:




i.e. the browser translator didn't merely get it wrong, it provided a direct antonym as its translation.


Olga continues to allow herself to be routinely misunderstood, and it often (contributes to) making her look foolish. It adds a lot of skidding - but little traction - to her threads that others are trying to follow.

The real pity here is that Olga continues to think it is the rest of the world's responsibility to translate her thoughts into words. She has said she 'does not care'.

 

[Olga]

Point of order (As if it needs to be repeated):


Definitely critical translational errors happening here.

This is a screen snippet of what Olga posted:

View attachment 7210
This is a screen snippet of how it was translated in my browser:


View attachment 7209

However, when I remove the context and translate that specific word, this is what I get:

View attachment 7208


i.e. the browser translator didn't merely get it wrong, it provided a direct antonym as its translation.


Olga continues to allow herself to be routinely misunderstood, and it often (contributes to) making her look foolish. It adds a lot of skidding - but little traction - to her threads that others are trying to follow.

The real pity here is that Olga continues to think it is the rest of the world's responsibility to translate her thoughts into words. She has said she 'does not care'.

Дэйв, мне не всё равно. Но я не вижу как ваш переводчик переводит для вас. Я могу это увидеть, только когда вы мне отвечаете.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I care. But I can't see how your translator translates for you. I can only see it when you reply to me.

Then do your own translations and post in English. That way you can be sure you got your message across.

 

[James R]

DaveC:

The same word was translated as "peaceful" by the translator I used. Here is that translation:

Hi James. Thank you for giving me the definition of a tetrahedron. Where else could I find out? But I have a question: let's say our tetrahedron is stationary. What can be its peaceful size?

Olga:

Atoms are very small things. If you consider a molecule such as carbon tetrafluoride, the way that the fluorine atoms arrange themselves around the carbon atom is that the fluorine atoms are located at the vertices of a regular tetrahedron. It might be fair to say, then, that a carbon tetrafluoride molecule is a tetrahedron.

On the other hand, though, a carbon tetrafluoride molecule doesn't have any flat "faces" like a mathematical tetrahedron has, and it doesn't have sharp vertices either. So, is it really a tetrahedron?

Ah, philosophy.

 

[James R]

I asked about the tetrahedron for a reason.

What was the reason?

In my opinion, this is an ideal balanced figure.

What are your criteria for deciding whether a figure is "ideal" or "balanced", as opposed to "non-ideal" or "unbalanced"?

Is your opinion on this matter valuable?

And besides, it is ideal for three-dimensionality.

What criteria do you use to determine whether something is or is not ideal for three-dimensionality?

 

[Olga]

What was the reason?

What are your criteria for deciding whether a figure is "ideal" or "balanced", as opposed to "non-ideal" or "unbalanced"?

Is your opinion on this matter valuable?

What criteria do you use to determine whether something is or is not ideal for three-dimensionality?

Я думаю, что ни атом, ни молекула, не могут быть тетраэдрами. Скорее, это должна быть та гипотетическая фундаментальная частица, из которой всё состоит. Она должна быть стабильной, равновесной, идеально сбалансированной. Это даже не кварк, а то, из чего состоят кварки.

 

[James R]

I think that neither an atom nor a molecule can be tetrahedra.

I think that, also.

Rather, it should be the hypothetical fundamental particle that everything is made of.

What makes you think there is a fundamental particle that everything is made of?

Why do you think it is a tetrahedron?

It must be stable, equilibrium, and perfectly balanced.

It will be a problem if it is stable, since a lot of known particles aren't stable.

It's not even a quark, but what quarks are made of.

As far as I am aware, quarks aren't made of any smaller particles.

 

[Olga]

I think that, also.

What makes you think there is a fundamental particle that everything is made of?

Why do you think it is a tetrahedron?

It will be a problem if it is stable, since a lot of known particles aren't stable.

As far as I am aware, quarks aren't made of any smaller particles.

Кварки имеют массу, значит, они составные. Все массивные частицы - составные.

 

[DaveC426913]

Quarks have mass, which means they are composite. All massive particles are composite.

Demonstrably false. Electrons have mass, yet they are fundamental particles. They have no internal structure.

Who told you this?