Why would that follow? A lot of your recent posts suggest you would rather speculate about fringe stuff than get the basics straight. What do you actually mean by "nothing"?wonderingchicken said:Most articles said electrons, quarks and gluons are indivisible thus have no compositions unlike the other particles. So, does that means electrons, quarks and gluons are composed of nothing and these elementary particles are indeed 100% void?
sophiecentaur said:Why would that follow? A lot of your recent posts suggest you would rather speculate about fringe stuff than get the basics straight. What do you actually mean by "nothing"?
So, it is something then that composed those indivisible elementary particles. But we don't know what are those "something"... right?Dale said:This is silly. “Indivisible” is not the same as “composed of nothing”. Fundamental particles are indivisible meaning that they are not composite particles. Not composite means they are not created by composing other things, “composite” and “composed” have the same root word. So since they are not composed they cannot be composed of nothing.
What would composed of nothing even mean? How could nothing be part of a composition?
I fail to see how anyone could interpret "elementary particle" as vacuum. Something is fundamentally mixed up in the physics you have learned.wonderingchicken said:Most articles said electrons, quarks and gluons are indivisible thus have no compositions unlike the other particles. So, does that means electrons, quarks and gluons are composed of nothing and these elementary particles are indeed 100% void?
Well, judging by the replies I guess elementary objects are actually composed of something that can't be divided into several compositions or parts. But then, does that means elementary objects are solid? Not sure. I thought elementary particles are point particles in which they don't have boundaries or what not. That's why I thought those elementary objects are somehow similar to vacuum with the differences being elementary objects have mass, charge, current, etc. while vacuum, void or empty space doesn't have anything at all.PeroK said:I fail to see how anyone could interpret "elementary particle" as vacuum. Something is fundamentally mixed up in the physics you have learned.
Classically, they are point particles. In the modern theory of particle physics, they are the quanta of the elementary quantum fields: the electron field, the quark field etc. That's why they are indivisible.wonderingchicken said:Well, judging by the replies I guess elementary objects are actually composed of something that can't be divided into several compositions or parts. But then, does that means elementary objects are solid? Not sure. I thought elementary particles are point particles in which they don't have boundaries or what not. That's why I thought those elementary objects are somehow similar to vacuum with the differences being elementary objects have mass, charge, current, etc. while vacuum, void or empty space doesn't have anything at all.
So, gaseous, liquid and solid don't apply to elementary particles.PeroK said:Classically, they are point particles. In the modern theory of particle physics, they are the quanta of the elementary quantum fields: the electron field, the quark field etc. That's why they are indivisible.
"Solid" is a state of macroscopic objects and cannot be applied to elementary particles themselves.
Exactly. These states of matter refer to how large numbers of atoms and molecules are configured. E.g. ice, liquid water and water vapour are all composed of the same ##H_2O## molecules - which themselves are systems of many elementary particles (electrons and quarks, with the quarks being composed into protons and neutrons).wonderingchicken said:So, gaseous, liquid and solid don't apply to elementary particles.
Define "something". Quantum fields are the basic building blocks of matter. Whether you consider them "something" or not is not a question of physics but terminology.wonderingchicken said:But being indivisible, that still mean the elementary objects are composed of "something". Isn't it?
Have energy, charge, currents, etc. instead of just empty.PeroK said:Define "something". Quantum fields are the basic building blocks of matter. Whether you consider them "something" or not is not a question of physics but terminology.
Then quantum fields are something. They have energy, for example, in terms of excitations of the field, which are better known as elementary particles.wonderingchicken said:Have energy, charge, currents, etc. instead of just empty.
Can we somehow say elementary particles are composed of "energy"?PeroK said:Then quantum fields are something. They have energy, for example, in terms of excitations of the field, which are better known as elementary particles.
The "something" of which an electron is composed is 'electron', to the depth that it's been studied.wonderingchicken said:So, it is something then that composed those indivisible elementary particles. But we don't know what are those "something"... right?
Itself composed of itself... sorry but doesn't that sounds circular?sophiecentaur said:The "something" of which an electron is composed is 'electron', to the depth that it's been studied.
As elementary objects have mass, energy, charge, etc. can we safely say elementary objects are composed of "energy"?sophiecentaur said:Yes. Circular and it needn't involve 'nothing'. If you want to go deeper then you need to look at other forms of Physics - like String Theory, for instance. But that is more metaphysics than physics because we have no way to prove or disprove it.
Saying there is a property which we call energy is not the same as saying it is composed of energy. I think you are looking for a nice tidy answer but I don't think one exists just yet.wonderingchicken said:As elementary objects have mass, energy, charge, etc. can we safely say elementary objects are composed of "energy"?
So I'll just conclude elementary objects are composed of something that we don't know for sure, but not nothing.sophiecentaur said:Saying there is a property which we call energy is not the same as saying it is composed of energy. I think you are looking for a nice tidy answer but I don't think one exists just yet.
Energy is a property of things. Quantum fields have energy, but it makes no sense to say things are composed of energy.wonderingchicken said:Can we somehow say elementary particles are composed of "energy"?
Elementary particles are the quanta of their corresponding quantum field. That is physics. You cannot say it differently and hope to achieve more meaning.wonderingchicken said:So I'll just conclude elementary objects are composed of something that we don't know for sure, but not nothing.
This is confusing because some people said the field is the product of the particle while others said otherwise.PeroK said:Elementary particles are the quanta of their corresponding quantum field. That is physics. You cannot say it differently and hope to achieve more meaning.
But I think it is better than saying the elementary particles are mostly space.PeroK said:Energy is a property of things. Quantum fields have energy, but it makes no sense to say things are composed of energy.
They are both equally wrong. A quantum field is something defined at every point in spacetime.wonderingchicken said:But I think it is better than saying the elementary particles are mostly space.
Even saying it is composed of something that we are not sure yet?PeroK said:They are both equally wrong. A quantum field is something defined at every point in spacetime.
Energy is no „stuff“. It is a concept to allow physicists to quantitatively investigate phenomena. It is one measure of the state or condition of a system.wonderingchicken said:As elementary objects have mass, energy, charge, etc. can we safely say elementary objects are composed of "energy"?
And why should your opinion on what is "better" matter? The universe does not arrange itself to suit our preferences.wonderingchicken said:But I think it is better than saying the elementary particles are mostly space.
Dale said:Something that is “composed” or “composite” means that it is formed from at least two separate parts which are joined in a specific way to form a whole. So a statement like “composed of nothing” or “composed of itself” makes no sense. Something can be “composed of X and Y” or even “composed of two X”, but “composed of X” doesn’t even make sense.
Fundamental particles are not composed of anything. There is no substructure. No parts with a defined relationship. Any statement of the form “composed of ___” will be false when applied to an indivisible thing like a fundamental particle.
You are, perhaps without recognizing it, making an an unwarranted and (as far as we know incorrect) assumption, namely that elementary particles have to be composed of anything at all. There's nothing in our best descriptions of elementary particles that suggests this.wonderingchicken said:So I'll just conclude elementary objects are composed of something that we don't know for sure, but not nothing.
Gotcha. Then depending on different opinions, some said elementary particles are nothing, almost similar to void, but with energy, charge, etc. while some said elementary particles are products of quantum fields, others said they are composed of themselves, etc.Vanadium 50 said:And why should your opinion on what is "better" matter? The universe does not arrange itself to suit our preferences.
"Solid", "liquid", and "gas" are not fundamental concepts to begin with; they are emergent concepts. So thinking of elementary particles as having to be either one of those things, or some other "thing", is getting it backwards. Solids, liquids, and gases are composed of elementary particles (huge numbers of them in particular configurations), not the other way around.wonderingchicken said:if they are not composed of anything, they are not solid, not liquid and certainly not gaseous
A point particle does have a "physical boundary": it's only one point. Every other point is outside it.wonderingchicken said:people understand elementary particles are point particles in which they don't have physical boundaries.
This is meaningless word salad.wonderingchicken said:Void, especially beyond the finite but unbounded Universe
Nobody has said any of these things except you. The closest thing here to anything that an actual physicist would say is the bit about quantum fields; but an actual physicist would say that elementary particles are quantum fields.wonderingchicken said:some said elementary particles are nothing, almost similar to void, but with energy, charge, etc. while some said elementary particles are products of quantum fields, others said they are composed of themselves, etc.
According to Wikipedia article of point particle, "Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.[3] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context."PeterDonis said:A point particle does have a "physical boundary": it's only one point. Every other point is outside it.This is meaningless word salad.
That's not the same as having no "physical boundary".wonderingchicken said:According to Wikipedia article of point particle, "Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.[3]
Read the other replies. So, we should simply say quantum fields are the elementary particles and vice versa.PeterDonis said:Nobody has said any of these things except you. The closest thing here to anything that an actual physicist would say is the bit about quantum fields; but an actual physicist would say that elementary particles are quantum fields.
I think you need to discard your basic conceptual framework and learn a better one.
Can you suggested one or two reliable sources? What do you mean by physical boundary so I can understand you?PeterDonis said:That's not the same as having no "physical boundary".
Also, Wikipedia is not a physics textbook or peer-reviewed paper, and you should not be using it as a primary source if you want to learn actual physics.
None of them say the things you said.wonderingchicken said:Read the other replies.
You can say that elementary particles are quantum fields--electrons, quarks, gluons, etc. are all quantum fields.wonderingchicken said:we should simply say quantum fields are the elementary particles and vice versa.
Okay, whatever.PeterDonis said:None of them say the things you said.You can say that elementary particles are quantum fields--electrons, quarks, gluons, etc. are all quantum fields.
You can't say that quantum fields are elementary particles, because quantum field theory can be applied to many things other than the elementary particles in our current Standard Model of particle physics.
Quantum fields are what nature has chosen to fill the vacuum with.wonderingchicken said:Okay, whatever.
Do quantum fields have physical boundaries? What are the differences between quantum fields and void?
Which is altogether irrelevant here, because that article also says "Elementary particles are sometimes called "point particles", but this is in a different sense than discussed above."wonderingchicken said:According to Wikipedia article of point particle...
Being a point particle has nothing to do with physical boundaries. I being a point particle means that it doesn’t have any sub-structure. It has no parts.wonderingchicken said:But people understand elementary particles are point particles in which they don't have physical boundaries.
There is a very dangerous modern idea that multiple opinions about a topic are of equal weight. As with opinions of climate change and the value of vaccination, there are people who believe one way and people who believe the other. In both my examples, one of those beliefs is not founded on observation, knowledge or authority and the other is well founded and supported by evidence. But the fact that there may be more than one opinion doesn't necessarily make either of them right and it can often be that the dichotomy itself is nonsense.wonderingchicken said:Then depending on different opinions,
That is because you are asking terrible questions. Like the one in your OP:wonderingchicken said:I still don't understand anything.
Before asking a question like this, spend a couple of minutes thinking about the question and evaluating the question itself. The best thing to evaluate a physics question is to ask: what hypothetical experiment could answer this question conclusively?wonderingchicken said:does that means electrons, quarks and gluons are composed of nothing and these elementary particles are indeed 100% void?
This question makes no sense, since quantum fields aren't even the kind of things that the term "physical boundaries" can be applied to. See further comments below.wonderingchicken said:Do quantum fields have physical boundaries?
There are a number of textbooks on quantum field theory, but from the questions you're asking it doesn't seem like you have the requisite background for them.wonderingchicken said:Can you suggested one or two reliable sources?
You're the one who originally used the term, when you said that point particles don't have physical boundaries. I pointed out a sense in which they do. But the term "physical boundaries" doesn't have a single precise meaning in physics to begin with. To the extent it's useful, it's not a fundamental term, it's a derived term, like "solid", "liquid", and "gas". That's why I said, above, that quantum fields aren't even the kind of thing that the term "physical boundaries" can be applied to.wonderingchicken said:What do you mean by physical boundary so I can understand you?
"Void" is a meaningless term, so this question is unanswerable.wonderingchicken said:What are the differences between quantum fields and void?
Your question implies that — to be something (and not nothing), it has to have a particulate nature. Would you say electromagnetic waves (photons) something, or nothing? Think about that. All those you mention are indivisible in the sense that they cannot be divided into further "particles".wonderingchicken said:Most articles said electrons, quarks and gluons are indivisible thus have no compositions unlike the other particles. So, does that means electrons, quarks and gluons are composed of nothing and these elementary particles are indeed 100% void?
EM waves are not photons. The former is the classical theory of light; the latter, the QM theory of light.bbhattac said:Your question implies that — to be something (and not nothing), it has to have a particulate nature. Would you say electromagnetic waves (photons) something, or nothing? Think about that. All those you mention are indivisible in the sense that they cannot be divided into further "particles".
Really? PF won't molly-coddle anyone ##-## if you just want to read some dreck, you can go here: http://wisdomofchopra.com/ . . .wonderingchicken said:Okay, whatever.
Do quantum fields have physical boundaries? What are the differences between quantum fields and void?
Yes, I know. Different descriptions of the same thing, isn't it? So, are electromagnetic waves "something" or "nothing"? I think once the questioner settles that issue, he/she will be able to see the meaninglessness of the question.PeroK said:EM waves are not photons. The former is the classical theory of light; the latter, the QM theory of light.
