When and how can I apply Born rigidity condition?

[Lluis Olle]

Right, but them I don't understand why the people don't get it, when I say: "Alternative scenario, different to Bell's one, in which..." And, believe me, some people don't get it at all.

So, if you consider your "test particle" - no problem for me at all - and I then make a post that reads "considering a different scenario, in which the particle has the smallest mass even measured... what would be the outcome? I think that...", then is criticism to you? That would make your tolerance pretty fragile, in the sense of the Bell string as you consider.

 

[Dale]

What you describe then is not a string, is a mathematical line than extends from point to point with a defined length, and some properties defined by an Euclidian geometry or whatever, but has no physical material properties - such as tensile strength. That line can't neither break because lines don't break and then you have two lines, or a lot of bits of lines.

You can complain about the terminology if you like, but what I described is what every scientist understands by the term.

You yourself have repeatedly been misunderstood when describing this scenario. This is why. When you say “Bell’s scenario except for this F/m change” people include Bell’s fragile thread they understand to mean a thread which breaks with the slightest tension. And with that inclusion they conclude that it is the Bell’s scenario.

If you wish them to understand that your scenario is different from Bell’s then you have to describe to them that you do not want them to make the assumption that the slightest tension is intolerable. You need to explain that a certain finite tension is tolerable.

You can complain to me about terminology, but that is rather unproductive and you will continue to be misunderstood.

I don't understand why the people don't get it, when I say: "Alternative scenario, different to Bell's one, in which..."

Do you really not understand now? Or are you just complaining?

 

[Lluis Olle]

I'm not a scientist, nor a physicist, and reading what Bell's paradox wrote in his book, for me "fragile" means being a physical tangible thread, but that in the relative scale of the scenario, can be considered "fragile".

I can consider an spider thread to be fragile, if I'm talking about Naval ships that displace 300,000 Tons, and everybody will agree. If I say the same thing talking at the scale of an ant, people will say me that I'm not right, that the spider thread has a huge tensile strength for an ant.

Any way, I "conceptually" changed (I can't do it physically) the statement and summary of the post, so, where's the problem? I've already said so... another thing is that you change my mind about the "fragility" property and its context... you won't change it, and will be futile and unproductive discussion.

That's closed for me.
Thanks

 

[Dale]

I'm not a scientist, nor a physicist, and reading what Bell's paradox wrote in his book, for me "fragile" means being a physical tangible thread, but that in the relative scale of the scenario, can be considered "fragile".

Yes, that is why I explained the issue to you. You were communicating to physicists and being misunderstood.

Any way, I "conceptually" changed (I can't do it physically) the statement and summary of the post, so, where's the problem? I've already said so... another thing is that you change my mind about the "fragility" property and its context... you won't change it, and will be futile and unproductive discussion.

That is fine. I am just explaining the communication issue you were facing. How you choose to think about it is your own business. At least now, you know how to communicate your idea to this audience.

 

[PeterDonis]

EXAM PROBLEM

This belongs in the homework forum, not this one.

 

[PeterDonis]

At this point the thread topic has been sufficiently explored. Thread closed.