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.wonderingchicken said: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?PeterDonis said: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?wonderingchicken said: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.Dale said:They are themselves. Why do you think that they should be something else?
wonderingchicken said:I'll discuss this further in different forums
What sort of answer did you expect? That electrons are made of electrically charged peanut butter?wonderingchicken said: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.weirdoguy said: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.PeroK said: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.weirdoguy said:So you don't want to learn physics, you just want an naswer that you'll like, not the one that is correct.
wonderingchicken said: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.weirdoguy said: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.wonderingchicken said: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.)
weirdoguy said: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.
PeroK said: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.wonderingchicken said: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.
wonderingchicken said:That's why I make such comparisons
wonderingchicken said:Not seeking definite answers
I'm not searching for different answers. Just more open-minded discussions.weirdoguy said:Changing forums won't change the answers. But good luck with realising that.
The purpose of this site is explicitly to discuss physics as a current academic subject.wonderingchicken said:I'm not searching for different answers. Just more open-minded discussions.
It is a well-known model by Harari (1981). Explains ALL reactions. Like proton decay (a mere exchange of rishons). The Higgs field (not the particle) in its present form (Mexican hat) is absent and the weak force is residue.wonderingchicken said:Watch out... saying something like that here can get you getting pounced...
I heard of rishons but I will check it out.
Ok, then if you want to learn physics, please spend a few minutes and answer the following question: what hypothetical experiment could conclusively answer your question?wonderingchicken said:I do want to learn physics, but what I saw are several different answers.
Both void or vacuum whatever you called it and elementary particles are indivisible and have no clear physical boundaries but the difference being elementary particles have energy while void, vacuum, empty space, etc. doesn't. There are many experiments that show the motion of electrons while we can't observe or do experiments on void or vacuum because void is simply nothing.Dale said:Ok, then if you want to learn physics, please spend a few minutes and answer the following question: what hypothetical experiment could conclusively answer your question?
OK, so are you saying that an experiment showing the motion of an electron would answer your question?wonderingchicken said:Both void or vacuum whatever you called it and elementary particles are indivisible and have no clear physical boundaries but the difference being elementary particles have energy while void, vacuum, empty space, etc. doesn't. There are many experiments that show the motion of electrons while we can't observe or do experiments on void or vacuum because void is simply nothing.
Just read several papers of experiments involving the motion of electrons (such as electron wavefunctions), so the obvious distinguishable difference between elementary particles and void is elementary particles are vibrating (since elementary particles are also waving if I'm not mistaken). When something is vibrating, it is moving.Dale said:OK, so are you saying that an experiment showing the motion of an electron would answer your question?
As of yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the rishon model.Prishon said:Quarks and leptons (and w and Z) are made up out of two rishons only.
So it sounds like that was a “yes” and that you have concluded that the experiments have been performed and the experimental evidence shows that an electron is not composed of the void.wonderingchicken said:Just read several papers of experiments involving the motion of electrons (such as electron wavefunctions), so the obvious distinguishable difference between elementary particles and void is elementary particles are vibrating (since elementary particles are also waving if I'm not mistaken). When something is vibrating, it is moving.
There wasn't any for the quark model too (1961). But it looks clear to me that there are too many (though related in families) quarks and leptons. On top of that, the W- and Z's are massive.Dale said:As of yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the rishon model.
If we defined universe as everything including the finite but unbounded universe and the region beyond (including the void), isn't it still infinite?Prishon said:Ah yes! It's the question though if our 3d (spatial) universe was always infinite. I don't think so.
I don't have any opinion other than what our current Standard Model says. It says elementary particles are quantum fields.wonderingchicken said:Can I ask you what's your opinion about elementary particles?
I am just saying that it is very premature at this time to make a statement like “a lepton is composed of two rishons.” There is 0 evidence to support that claim. You may like the rishon model and you may even have sound theoretical reasons for expecting it to be correct. But “is” implies a degree of certainty that is not currently justified.Prishon said:There wasn't any for the quark model too (1961). But it looks clear to me that there are too many (though related in families) quarks and leptons. On top of that, the W- and Z's are massive.
I assume you are referring to this paper:Prishon said:It is a well-known model by Harari (1981).
There is no such thing as "the region beyond", as you have already been told repeatedly. As you have also already been told, asking wrong questions repeatedly doesn't make them right.wonderingchicken said:If we defined universe as everything including the finite but unbounded universe and the region beyond (including the void)
Excellent, I am glad we could answer that question. As you further consider the similarities you mention, when you ask your next question, give some thought about experiments that could answer the question conclusively. The experiments do not need to have already been performed, nor do they need to be economically or technologically feasible, but they should be possible in principle (I.e. no magic).wonderingchicken said:Not composed of nothing (void) or something, but the similarity is still there (being indivisible, have no physical boundaries, etc.) but also at the same time have differences where the elementary objects have motion while void doesn't.
