That's not the same as having no "physical boundary".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.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?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.Read the other replies.
You can say that elementary particles are quantum fields--electrons, quarks, gluons, etc. are all quantum fields.we should simply say quantum fields are the elementary particles and vice versa.
Okay, whatever.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.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."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.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.Then depending on different opinions,
That is because you are asking terrible questions. Like the one in your OP: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?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.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.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.What do you mean by physical boundary so I can understand you?
"Void" is a meaningless term, so this question is unanswerable.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".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.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/ . . .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.EM waves are not photons. The former is the classical theory of light; the latter, the QM theory of light.
It's not that it's upsetting anyone. It's that we continue to see you trying to use a conceptual scheme that doesn't work, and asking questions that aren't even answerable. You would be better served, as I've already pointed out a couple of times now, by discarding your entire conceptual scheme and learning a better one. In other words, you should assume that everything you think you know about "elementary particles" is wrong; you should just forget it and start from scratch.I'm sorry if what I'm doing actually upsetting all of you.
Can I ask you what's your opinion about elementary particles? If they are not composed, not something, not nothing, etc. then what are they? It is just is?It's not that it's upsetting anyone. It's that we continue to see you trying to use a conceptual scheme that doesn't work, and asking questions that aren't even answerable. You would be better served, as I've already pointed out a couple of times now, by discarding your entire conceptual scheme and learning a better one. In other words, you should assume that everything you think you know about "elementary particles" is wrong; you should just forget it and start from scratch.
They are themselves. Why do you think that they should be something else?then what are they? It is just is?
Alright, it's circular. I can't understand something with circular reasonings but nevermind, I'll discuss this further in different forums. Thanks.They are themselves. Why do you think that they should be something else?
I'll discuss this further in different forums
What sort of answer did you expect? That electrons are made of electrically charged peanut butter?Alright, it's circular. I can't understand something with circular reasonings but nevermind, I'll discuss this further in different forums. Thanks.
Doesn't matter.That won't change anything. Asking wrong questions on another forum won't make them right.
Either something or nothing. But I see different people giving different answers.What sort of answer did you expect? That electrons are made of electrically charged peanut butter?
I do want to learn physics, but what I saw are several different answers.So you don't want to learn physics, you just want an naswer that you'll like, not the one that is correct.
but what I saw are several different answers.
At the other thread, electrons and void or vacuum or empty space, whatever do you call it, electrons are sort of similar to void with the difference being electrons have mass, charge, energy, etc. while void or vacuum doesn't.Then you should read them again, because these are not different answers.
if you want to learn (about) physics, then you have to abandon this semi-philosophical language.At the other thread, electrons and void or vacuum or empty space, whatever do you call it, electrons are sort of similar to void with the difference being electrons have mass, charge, energy, etc. while void or vacuum doesn't.
Void or perfect vacuum devoid of anything can't be divided into parts, and elementary particles also can't. But the difference is elementary particles have energy while void or perfect vacuum doesn't. (Don't forget, elementary particles also don't have physical boundaries like macro level objects.)
Stop comparing electrons to void or vacuum - you've already been told it does not make any sense! And no one besides you used this comparison. You are not listening to what people say! Read this whole thread over and over until it sinks. Everything has been said already.
if you want to learn (about) physics, then you have to abandon this semi-philosophical language.
Physics is about mathematical models, not about playing with words.
In order to understand physics, you have to learn some mathematics. The more physics you want to learn, the more mathematics you need.If it is "strictly" about mathematical models, then I think I'm not going to understand it because I have no background in mathematical physics.
That's why I make such comparisons
Not seeking definite answers