The discussion revolves around the nature of elementary particles such as electrons, quarks, and gluons, specifically whether they can be considered as composed of "nothing" or if they consist of something more fundamental. Participants explore concepts related to the indivisibility of these particles, their relationship to vacuum, and the implications of being "composed" of various properties like energy.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on whether elementary particles can be considered composed of nothing or energy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the fundamental nature of these particles and their composition.
Participants highlight the limitations of current understanding and the ambiguity surrounding definitions of "nothing" and "something," as well as the implications of being "composed" of various properties.
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.
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?