🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92146a39-0fed-4622-a517-3993d20c4d31@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
PD says...
>The constituents in an ionic crystal are the ions. The volume of the
>crystal lattice unit is not driven by the size of the ions.
>
>The constituents of an atom are the nucleus and the electrons. The
>volume of the atom is not driven by the size of the electron or the
>size of the nucleus.
>
>The constituents of a nucleus are (primarily) the protons and
>neutrons. The volume of the nucleus is not driven by the size of the
>protons and neutrons.
>
>The constituents of a proton are quarks and gluons. The volume of the
>proton is not driven by the size of the quarks and gluons.

This is all fine and good, but what does 'size' or 'volume' even -mean- in these
contexts? After all, the only meanings I can find for the word 'size' is
different in each of these. For atoms, I would assume you mean "Bohr radius".
Unless, of course, you really mean scattering cross-section or even distance
between successive nuclei in a crystal array of the pure substance.

The last of the three senses would make more sense in your ionic crystal
example, the second for your proton example.

Then again, there are so many different cross-sections and capture radii...

This, BTW, is why I always feel such skepticism when I see a science news
article talking about seeing atoms with some new microscopic technique: what is
it they are really 'seeing'? Level curves in the orbitals? I haven't seen an
answer to this in any of the articles yet.

Why, they are written as if the writer never even thought to ask the question.