An alternative to quarks?

[newts]

It is interesting how physics-believers on here always demand testable predictions and a mathematical basis for theories; yet when that is actually provided they completely ignore it. But humans are highly religious creatures, and that is entirely normal human behaviour. I guess the foremost professors at Galileo’s university challenged him to provide evidence for the Copernican System; and then when he tried to, they refused to look through his telescope.

 

 

[questionposter]

physics-believers

 

 

Oxymoron

 

Also, there's a double-entendre with "oxymoron".

Edited April 18, 2012 by questionposter

[uncool]

It is interesting how physics-believers on here always demand testable predictions and a mathematical basis for theories; yet when that is actually provided they completely ignore it. But humans are highly religious creatures, and that is entirely normal human behaviour. I guess the foremost professors at Galileo’s university challenged him to provide evidence for the Copernican System; and then when he tried to, they refused to look through his telescope.

Actually, I've been busy recently; the holidays combined with a surprising amount of homework. I'll get back to you when the current spate of homework is done.

 

It is interesting how you never manage to respond to the testable predictions and mathematical basis for quantum field theory. Do you really not manage to realize that figuring out the mass of a completely new particle 2 years before it was ever found is a spectacular prediction?

=Uncool-

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

newts, this forum is not a place where we tolerate trolling ( = going off topic to insult). Stop it now.

Do not respond to this post.

[swansont]

It is interesting how physics-believers on here always demand testable predictions and a mathematical basis for theories; yet when that is actually provided they completely ignore it.

 

I missed where you actually provided testable predictions. I did see where you admitted that you are merely fitting your model to existing data. It has already been pointed out that your model "predicts" a bunch of particles that don't exist, and that basically any particle that is found will be consistent with it. That's a very weak model.

[uncool]

I missed where you actually provided testable predictions. I did see where you admitted that you are merely fitting your model to existing data. It has already been pointed out that your model "predicts" a bunch of particles that don't exist, and that basically any particle that is found will be consistent with it. That's a very weak model.

Just last page he provided a prediction and a test - posts 198 and 200. 198 specifies the prediction without any specific bounds; 200 specifies the bounds on the predictions.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Just last page he provided a prediction and a test - posts 198 and 200. 198 specifies the prediction without any specific bounds; 200 specifies the bounds on the predictions.

=Uncool-

 

I kinda meant successful predictions. There are no particles for n = 1-7 and 10 - 15, and there are what, 10 particles in the table that exist but are not predicted? And the equation is ad-hoc, AFAICT.

 

The predictions were post-processed by eliminating predictions that didn't work out and then claiming success — the "Texas Sharpshooter" gambit. The gross predictions cover a range of 21 guesses, since there is no a priori explanation of which numbers should work and which shouldn't. Each guess is ± 10 MeV, which means that the model covers 420 MeV out of just under 1800, i.e. about 24% of the energies are covered. 6 of them work, so that's a 29% success rate. Newts must now make the case that for such a small sample, the slight difference is statistically significant. (While the sampling error for 21 samples is ~21%)

[newts]

Oxymoron Also, there's a double-entendre with "oxymoron".

I do not think I am allowed to reply to this comment.

 

 

 

Actually, I've been busy recently; the holidays combined with a surprising amount of homework. I'll get back to you when the current spate of homework is done.

Sorry, the comment was not aimed at you, it was a comment about the fact that according to my Wordpress site stats there were only a couple of views of the relevant pages, at least one of which must presumably have been yourself. I never thought that you were still a student. There is no hurry, and no obligation to reply.

 

It is interesting how you never manage to respond to the testable predictions and mathematical basis for quantum field theory. Do you really not manage to realize that figuring out the mass of a completely new particle 2 years before it was ever found is a spectacular prediction?

I have enough to do, trying to make sure my theory agrees with astronomical data, and relativity, as well as particle physics. So I do not really have time to study the details of all existing theories. However if people who have studied the theory would translate quarks into simple mathematical language, then I could appreciate what it does predict. Thanks for saying that you are not able to do this yet.

 

I kinda meant successful predictions. There are no particles for n = 1-7 and 10 - 15, and there are what, 10 particles in the table that exist but are not predicted? And the equation is ad-hoc, AFAICT.

Compared to quarks my theory is simple, and all my calculations are applied directly to observed data; however to understand exactly what I have done would still require a lot of work, so you may not have the necessary time to do this.

 

My theory of the strong nuclear force, implies that protons are roughly spherical. My calculations of particle mass differences, implies that a proton would have a radius of 17 charges. The theory is still at a very basic stage; so the only thing I could really predict is that for particles of similar mass to the proton, the formula might work; and for unknown reasons it seems to work much better than expected.

 

For n=1 we have the positron and electron, but obviously the formula will not work because there can be no binding energy. n=2 implies a particle of 4 charges, which clearly is not going to be spherical, and perhaps for that reason cannot form; and the same applies to subsequent values. On reflection I do not think the formula does work for the pion, I think it more likely that the muon would have a diameter of 9, and the pion 10, as these particles must be far from spherical. If the particles fitted my formula exactly, then doubtless somebody would already have spotted the pattern. Clearly my formula predicts that there might be a new particle with a mass of around 650 MeV, but unfortunately I do not have a particle accelerator in my kitchen.

Edited April 18, 2012 by newts

[uncool]

I do not think I am allowed to reply to this comment.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, the comment was not aimed at you, it was a comment about the fact that according to my Wordpress site stats there were only a couple of views of the relevant pages, at least one of which must presumably have been yourself. I never thought that you were still a student. There is no hurry, and no obligation to reply.

Given your behavior in this thread, I doubt that there are many people actually even following it any more. Honestly, I only do so because I'm still hoping that you eventually figure out even how to think about this properly. I don't expect you to accept QFT, but I do expect you to at least learn how to think about scientific theories in general; right now, you don't.

 

I have enough to do, trying to make sure my theory agrees with astronomical data, and relativity, as well as particle physics. So I do not really have time to study the details of all existing theories. However if people who have studied the theory would translate quarks into simple mathematical language, then I could appreciate what it does predict. Thanks for saying that you are not able to do this yet.

I can tell you the one basic step I don't currently know:

 

QFT has a simple Lagrangian; the Lagrangian determines pretty much everything relevant. The Lagrangian comes in the form

[LATEX]\sum D_\mu A_\nu D^\mu A^\nu[/LATEX]

where the sum is over all the different kinds of fields included. This, however, is the Lagrangian that works for quarks. In order to determine the mass of the non-elementary particles, you have to come up with a Lagrangian based off of this but without the quark terms; I don't know how to do so.

 

Compared to quarks my theory is simple, and all my calculations are applied directly to observed data; however to understand exactly what I have done would still require a lot of work, so you may not have the necessary time to do this.

 

My theory of the strong nuclear force, implies that protons are roughly spherical. My calculations of particle mass differences, implies that a proton would have a radius of 17 charges. The theory is still at a very basic stage; so the only thing I could really predict is that for particles of similar mass to the proton, the formula might work; and for unknown reasons it seems to work much better than expected.

 

For n=1 we have the positron and electron, but obviously the formula will not work because there can be no binding energy. n=2 implies a particle of 4 charges, which clearly is not going to be spherical, and perhaps for that reason cannot form; and the same applies to subsequent values. On reflection I do not think the formula does work for the pion, I think it more likely that the muon would have a diameter of 9, and the pion 10, as these particles must be far from spherical. If the particles fitted my formula exactly, then doubtless somebody would already have spotted the pattern. Clearly my formula predicts that there might be a new particle with a mass of around 650 MeV, but unfortunately I do not have a particle accelerator in my kitchen.

650 MeV is an extremely low energy; if it existed, it would have been found by now unless there's a specific reason why it would "hide itself", which your theory doesn't seem to have. Even if first-order effects were hidden, we're at over one thousand times that energy in accelerators now; we should have noticed second-order effects. If it predicts a charged particle, then your hypothesis can be considered falsified.

 

I hadn't realized that your theory did have a "hole"; that certainly takes your hypothesis down quite a large notch from the 1 in 1024 chance.

=Uncool-

[newts]

Given your behavior in this thread, I doubt that there are many people actually even following it any more.

Actually it does seem that quite a lot of people do follow the thread; but apparently mostly to hear you put the heretic in his place, rather than to find out about my theory.

 

650 MeV is an extremely low energy; if it existed, it would have been found by now unless there's a specific reason why it would "hide itself", which your theory doesn't seem to have. Even if first-order effects were hidden, we're at over one thousand times that energy in accelerators now; we should have noticed second-order effects. If it predicts a charged particle, then your hypothesis can be considered falsified.

 

I hadn't realized that your theory did have a "hole"; that certainly takes your hypothesis down quite a large notch from the 1 in 1024 chance.

 

So there is no chance of new particles at low energies being discovered. Thanks for that info. What I do not know, is if two high-energy protons collide, what could be produced in a single collision? For instance does it result in the creation of only one or two new particles, or can it result in many different particles?

 

Apparently quark theory predicts the existence of 30 baryons that have never been observed, but you do not consider that falsified. I would not say my theory is sufficiently developed to positively predict the existence of any particles, it is just that some of the observed particles fit my theory very well, in fact rather better than my quick calculation indicated. But I did select the optimal range from which to calculate. However the strength of my theory is more that it could be falsified by the difference in mass between particles.

 

 

Just from looking at Wikepedia's lists of particles, I think I can see how quark theory was assembled. First they decided that protons and neutrons were composed of three quarks, then they extended the idea to other particles like the lamda. When they discovered that the lamda decayed into a proton and a pion, they concluded that one of the quarks must have split into a new quark and a quark/antiquark pair. That is why pions and other mesons are thought to be made of quark/antiquark pairs. A pion decays into a positive muon, so quark/antiquark pairs must be allowed to decay into other elementary particles or anti-particles. Basically quarks are about the most obliging creatures ever invented, hence their longevity.

 

The reason I speak of physics-believers, is that people seem to think that quarks must be as true as well-proven theories like the theory of atoms, because both are part of the standard model. Comparing quarks to atomic theory, is a bit like comparing Brian the Cool Fox to Isaac Newton, but probably some physics-believers would stoop to both.

[Bignose]

What I do not know, is if two high-energy protons collide, what could be produced in a single collision? For instance does it result in the creation of only one or two new particles, or can it result in many different particles?

 

Aaaaaaand we're back to admitting that you know next to nothing about what you are trying to tear down. Really and truly -- why so reluctant to actually learn about the wealth of evidence that supports the current model, rather than just dismissing it because you don't particularly care for it? As I've written several times now, plenty of opportunity to improve on the current model, plenty of room for alternative models, too, but shouldn't you at least know a little something about the baby you throw out with the bath water?

[uncool]

Actually it does seem that quite a lot of people do follow the thread; but apparently mostly to hear you put the heretic in his place, rather than to find out about my theory.

And once again you demonstrate that you haven't managed to learn a single thing in this thread so far.

So there is no chance of new particles at low energies being discovered. Thanks for that info. What I do not know, is if two high-energy protons collide, what could be produced in a single collision? For instance does it result in the creation of only one or two new particles, or can it result in many different particles?

For one thing, that would depend on the precise energy of the protons.

Apparently quark theory predicts the existence of 30 baryons that have never been observed, but you do not consider that falsified. I would not say my theory is sufficiently developed to positively predict the existence of any particles, it is just that some of the observed particles fit my theory very well, in fact rather better than my quick calculation indicated. But I did select the optimal range from which to calculate. However the strength of my theory is more that it could be falsified by the difference in mass between particles.

 

 

Just from looking at Wikepedia's lists of particles, I think I can see how quark theory was assembled. First they decided that protons and neutrons were composed of three quarks, then they extended the idea to other particles like the lamda. When they discovered that the lamda decayed into a proton and a pion, they concluded that one of the quarks must have split into a new quark and a quark/antiquark pair. That is why pions and other mesons are thought to be made of quark/antiquark pairs. A pion decays into a positive muon, so quark/antiquark pairs must be allowed to decay into other elementary particles or anti-particles. Basically quarks are about the most obliging creatures ever invented, hence their longevity.

You apparently have yet to read a single thing about quark theory in the first place. The basics of quark theory are famous. They are very well-known. The origin was with Murray Gell-Mann and the Eightfold way. The fact that there are 8 low-energy mesons (8 mesons that only use the original 3 kinds of quarks) was theorized to be related to the fact that one of the lowest-dimension representations of SU(3) has 8 dimensions (and can be visualized as a hexagon with two dots at the center, although you need advanced math to understand how); that representation is a summand of the tensor product of the standard representation and the dual representation of SU(3), which is why there is a quark and an antiquark. The next-lowest dimensional representation of SU(3) has dimension 10 (and can be visualized as a triangle of 10 dots) and is a summand of the tensor product of the standard representation with itself 3 times, which is why there are 3 quarks. The visualizations I spoke of relate to the two charges of the objects: electric charge and strangeness. 9 of the particles had been found already, and they could be visualized as a triangle missing one vertex; the Standard Model made the prediction that the triangle was filled in a certain way based on the representation theory. When that was found to be true, the Standard Model was validated.

 

The reason I speak of physics-believers, is that people seem to think that quarks must be as true as well-proven theories

That is what makes you a believer in your own theory: quarks are a very well-proven theory. You may deny it, but it is true.

=Uncool-

[questionposter]

That is what makes you a believer in your own theory: quarks are a very well-proven theory. You may deny it, but it is true.

 

Wait, I'm all for quarks and I practically go about physics as if there's no debate that they are real, but since when were they actually "proven" to exist?

 

Actually it does seem that quite a lot of people do follow the thread; but apparently mostly to hear you put the heretic in his place, rather than to find out about my theory.

 

 

 

So there is no chance of new particles at low energies being discovered. Thanks for that info. What I do not know, is if two high-energy protons collide, what could be produced in a single collision? For instance does it result in the creation of only one or two new particles, or can it result in many different particles?

 

Apparently quark theory predicts the existence of 30 baryons that have never been observed, but you do not consider that falsified. I would not say my theory is sufficiently developed to positively predict the existence of any particles, it is just that some of the observed particles fit my theory very well, in fact rather better than my quick calculation indicated. But I did select the optimal range from which to calculate. However the strength of my theory is more that it could be falsified by the difference in mass between particles.

 

 

Just from looking at Wikepedia's lists of particles, I think I can see how quark theory was assembled. First they decided that protons and neutrons were composed of three quarks, then they extended the idea to other particles like the lamda. When they discovered that the lamda decayed into a proton and a pion, they concluded that one of the quarks must have split into a new quark and a quark/antiquark pair. That is why pions and other mesons are thought to be made of quark/antiquark pairs. A pion decays into a positive muon, so quark/antiquark pairs must be allowed to decay into other elementary particles or anti-particles. Basically quarks are about the most obliging creatures ever invented, hence their longevity.

 

The reason I speak of physics-believers, is that people seem to think that quarks must be as true as well-proven theories like the theory of atoms, because both are part of the standard model. Comparing quarks to atomic theory, is a bit like comparing Brian the Cool Fox to Isaac Newton, but probably some physics-believers would stoop to both.

 

The problem is that so many experiments have been done that saying many of these unobserved particles don't exist is a lot like saying air doesn't exist. There's still some theoretical particles, but there's pretty solid evidence for many, people wouldn't just make them up on the spot or for the fun of it and the existence of these particles is taught in college for a reason and there are consistent patterns that can be seen in particle collisions.

Edited April 19, 2012 by questionposter

[uncool]

Wait, I'm all for quarks and I practically go about physics as if there's no debate that they are real, but since when were they actually "proven" to exist?

Proven is used here in the sense that newts used it - meaning that they have an abundance of evidence to support the theory behind them. And since the 1960s.

=Uncool-

Edited April 19, 2012 by uncool

[Bignose]

Wait, I'm all for quarks and I practically go about physics as if there's no debate that they are real, but since when were they actually "proven" to exist?

 

Go back in the thread -- I cited the specific paper with the experimental evidence for them several times in this thread. Despite the thread going on for quite some time, it saddens me that newts hasn't bothered to find himself a copy of that paper and read it. He's never really given any kind of reason his model should show the three-point like bodies that the original paper reported. And, of course, since that paper in the 1960s, there have been quite a wealth of further evidence. Again, I think he should know the baby he's trying to throw out with the bathwater.

[questionposter]

Go back in the thread -- I cited the specific paper with the experimental evidence for them several times in this thread. Despite the thread going on for quite some time, it saddens me that newts hasn't bothered to find himself a copy of that paper and read it. He's never really given any kind of reason his model should show the three-point like bodies that the original paper reported. And, of course, since that paper in the 1960s, there have been quite a wealth of further evidence. Again, I think he should know the baby he's trying to throw out with the bathwater.

 

I understand that quarks can be proven in the sense that black holes are proven, but I don't think we've actually directly measured them to see that they exist, and I don't know how we ever could. Doing that would require isolating quarks, which is impossible because theoretically the energy needed to isolate a quark theoretically ends up making more quarks which form particles with the quark your trying to isolate, and thus we can never observe an isolated quark and confirm its existence. Also, what type of photon would a single quark even emit?

[Bignose]

Three point-like bodies observed inside a proton due to scattering is rather compelling. How much more direct do you want? We'll never be able to build a microscope powerful enough to actually 'see' them if that is what you're waiting for. Like newts, why don't you review the literature for all the evidence? Without a great deal of compelling evidence, the idea of them wouldn't have survived the last 40+ years of particle physics scrutiny.

[questionposter]

Three point-like bodies observed inside a proton due to scattering is rather compelling. How much more direct do you want? We'll never be able to build a microscope powerful enough to actually 'see' them if that is what you're waiting for. Like newts, why don't you review the literature for all the evidence? Without a great deal of compelling evidence, the idea of them wouldn't have survived the last 40+ years of particle physics scrutiny.

 

3 point like bodies? That makes no sense, the quarks are all in the same quantum state and would act as one particle, there is no way to distinguish between multiple particles that share the same quantum state which is why you use a combined wave function to describe their probability...even neutrinos combine and form a single oscillation pattern, and they barely interact with the electro-magnetic force at all. You don't observe 3 neutrinos at once from the same wave, you observe one of the 3 since they are all part of the same wave and any measurement would collapse the wave into only a single finite probability.

What photons do individual quarks give off? Because seeing 3 different points would have to mean we somehow observed a single photon being radiated off of individual quarks, so I want to know what color photon they emit, especially considering isolating quarks is currently impossible.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[swansont]

3 point like bodies? That makes no sense, the quarks are all in the same quantum state

 

The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that they are not. And for a neutron or proton, you have up and down quarks, i.e. different types.

[questionposter]

The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that they are not. And for a neutron or proton, you have up and down quarks, i.e. different types.

 

So your saying at least one quark would have to occupy a different state, which is understandable, but if you look at neutrino oscillation, you have 3 different types of neutrinos all occupying the same probable area and thus you only measure one of the 3 at a time, which is why scientists had to construct probability models of measuring a specific type of neutrino at one single finite time, even if they do have different energies.

Also, wouldn't you only be able to distinguish "two" point like bodies anyway? And still, what photons do individual quarks actually emit? Because to my knowledge by the physics of quarks themselves they can't be isolated.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[newts]

Aaaaaaand we're back to admitting that you know next to nothing about what you are trying to tear down. Really and truly -- why so reluctant to actually learn about the wealth of evidence that supports the current model, rather than just dismissing it because you don't particularly care for it? As I've written several times now, plenty of opportunity to improve on the current model, plenty of room for alternative models, too, but shouldn't you at least know a little something about the baby you throw out with the bath water?

 

That is a lovely open-minded post; but what you are suggesting is like saying since epicycles make good predictions, lets not ditch them altogether. I think quarks, like epicycles, are the bathwater, and all that can be saved is the experimental data about the composite particles.

 

If I could somehow fuse my model to the standard model, it might make it more acceptable; but since my model does not include gluons or fractional charges, that will not be easy. But perhaps you have an idea how it could be done?

 

For one thing, that would depend on the precise energy of the protons.

It would also depend whether the two protons actually collided with each other. However I was really hoping for a link, or a reply like "at a particular energy the collision sometimes produces two sigma particles and sometimes a whole spray of muons and pions".

 

Wait, I'm all for quarks and I practically go about physics as if there's no debate that they are real, but since when were they actually "proven" to exist?

Protons and neutrons are inferred from the rock solid atomic theory, also their masses have been directly measured with great accuracy. Quark masses are quoted with wide margins, so the only reason I can see for physicists to be so confident about their existence is that all their colleagues are.

 

It is hard to accept that their can be no experimental evidence for quarks; but then again the Higgs is being hailed, despite the fact that the standard model predicts everything about it except its mass, whilst the experimenters only record its mass, leaving little scope for falsification.

 

Go back in the thread -- I cited the specific paper with the experimental evidence for them several times in this thread. Despite the thread going on for quite some time, it saddens me that newts hasn't bothered to find himself a copy of that paper and read it. He's never really given any kind of reason his model should show the three-point like bodies that the original paper reported. And, of course, since that paper in the 1960s, there have been quite a wealth of further evidence. Again, I think he should know the baby he's trying to throw out with the bathwater.

I think last time I misinterpreted what inelastic scattering involves. At low energies the electrons were observed to bounce off the proton as if off a sphere. In inelastic scattering, it seems that the electrons break the proton apart creating new particles. The idea of an electron smashing a proton into new particles, is consistent with my model; but as is typical of recent physics, there are loads of pages assuring us that inelastic scattering proves that quarks exist, but none that actually describe the experiment properly. If we are to discuss the experiment somebody needs to explain exactly how it was done, and where the newly created particles, as well as the electrons were detected.

[questionposter]

Protons and neutrons are inferred from the rock solid atomic theory, also their masses have been directly measured with great accuracy. Quark masses are quoted with wide margins, so the only reason I can see for physicists to be so confident about their existence is that all their colleagues are.

 

Nope, that's not it, they observe patterns that would seem to only occur if there were 3 particles in a certain region with certain masses. I'm not sure if the extreme localization of quarks compared to electrons is because they combine to form one massive particle or because they actually carry a lot of that weight. Actually, most of an atom's mass is energy, so if scientists release a bunch of energy in an atom but still infer a piece of matter left over that's not an electron, it's probably quarks.

I just don't think we've directly observed them.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[uncool]

It is hard to accept that their can be no experimental evidence for quarks;

It is hard to accept the false. There is plenty of experimental evidence for quarks; it's been linked to you multiple times, and you specifically have discussed one recently - the prediction of the omega baryon. Why do you continue lying?

but then again the Higgs is being hailed, despite the fact that the standard model predicts everything about it except its mass, whilst the experimenters only record its mass, leaving little scope for falsification.

Err. No. That's not how it works. In any experiment, the experimenters first note that there were particles that followed certain paths; by the paths they followed, the experimenters determine everything about the particle - mass, electric charge, hypercharge, strangeness, etc. They do not "only record its mass".

=Uncool-

[swansont]

So your saying at least one quark would have to occupy a different state, which is understandable, but if you look at neutrino oscillation, you have 3 different types of neutrinos all occupying the same probable area and thus you only measure one of the 3 at a time, which is why scientists had to construct probability models of measuring a specific type of neutrino at one single finite time, even if they do have different energies.

 

WTH? How did neutrino oscillations come up in a discussion of quarks?

 

Also, wouldn't you only be able to distinguish "two" point like bodies anyway? And still, what photons do individual quarks actually emit? Because to my knowledge by the physics of quarks themselves they can't be isolated.

 

Why could you only identify two point-like bodies? And why do they have to emit photons to identify them?

[questionposter]

WTH? How did neutrino oscillations come up in a discussion of quarks?

Neutrinos are fermions and are subject to the Pauli exclusion principal, but still have a combined wave function to describe their probability through space to Earth, thus you only measure one of the 3 types at a time from the equation to describe their probability since a single equation collapses down to one single point when measured. I don't see why this would not be true for quarks.

 

 

Why could you only identify two point-like bodies?

Because there's only two things you can distinguish at a time. To my knowledge you can't distinguish between two particles in the same quantum state, but one quark would also have to follow the exclusion principal, so with that logic, I should observe two points. One for the quark excluded by the principal, and another one because the combined wave function of the two in the same exact state could only collapse down to a single point upon measurement.

 

And why do they have to emit photons to identify them?

 

All actual observations occur because of photons. You can't see magnetic fields with your eyes, you can't see saltiness with your eyes, you can't see gravity with your eyes, just photons, so in order to actually observe them, you'd need photons to be emitted from them. Furthermore, I don't know of a machine that is designed to directly detect the color charge of quarks. And I'm still curious to know what photons they emit, seeing as how we can individually see them.

Protons are much much smaller than the electron clouds around them, I don't even know if we have the technology to distinguish between two different objects at that small of a scale.

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter