Electrons, quarks and gluons made from something or nothing?

[Rev. Cheeseman]

So you don't want to learn physics, you just want an naswer that you'll like, not the one that is correct.

I do want to learn physics, but what I saw are several different answers.

 

[weirdoguy]

but what I saw are several different answers.

Then you should read them again, because these are not different answers.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Then you should read them again, because these are not 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.

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]

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]

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.)

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.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

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.

Because both are indivisible and have no physical boundaries like macro-level objects. That's why I make such comparisons, but the difference is elementary particles have mass, energy, charge, etc.

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.

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.

Richard Feynman - " I think I can safely say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics."

 

[PeroK]

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.

In order to understand physics, you have to learn some mathematics. The more physics you want to learn, the more mathematics you need.

 

[weirdoguy]

That's why I make such comparisons

Then stop making them. They are not helping you.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

I'm done... Gonna discuss this further in different forums. Not seeking definite answers because everything is changing, nothing is 100% definite. Thank you.

 

[weirdoguy]

Not seeking definite answers

Changing forums won't change the answers. But good luck with realising that.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Changing forums won't change the answers. But good luck with realising that.

I'm not searching for different answers. Just more open-minded discussions.

 

[PeroK]

I'm not searching for different answers. Just more open-minded discussions.

The purpose of this site is explicitly to discuss physics as a current academic subject.

If you would rather discuss physics in more mystical terms, then there is the rest of the Internet.

 

[Prishon]

Watch out... saying something like that here can get you getting pounced...

I heard of rishons but I will check it out.

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.

Z-andW-, as well as the Higgs are composed of six rishons. Quark and leptons of three. How economic can it get?

 

[Dale]

I do want to learn physics, but what I saw are several different answers.

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?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

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?

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]

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.

OK, so are you saying that an experiment showing the motion of an electron would answer your question?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

OK, so are you saying that an experiment showing the motion of an electron would answer your question?

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]

Quarks and leptons (and w and Z) are made up out of two rishons only.

As of yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the rishon model.

 

[Dale]

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.

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.

That is good. That is physics.

I believe that if you review the answers provided in this thread that all of them agreed on this physical point.

 

[Prishon]

As of yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the rishon model.

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.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Ah yes! It's the question though if our 3d (spatial) universe was always infinite. I don't think so.

If we defined universe as everything including the finite but unbounded universe and the region beyond (including the void), isn't it still infinite?

 

[PeterDonis]

Can I ask you what's your opinion about elementary particles?

I don't have any opinion other than what our current Standard Model says. It says elementary particles are quantum fields.

 

[Dale]

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 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.

I remind you that on PF all posts are expected to be consistent with the professional scientific literature. Please make sure that your rishon related posts are. Rishons are (to my knowledge) a valid theory, but have 0 experimental support. So an assertion about its validity is not consistent with the literature.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is a well-known model by Harari (1981).

I assume you are referring to this paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0370269381900125

If so, this model, like all currently known models that go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, has no experimental evidence in its favor and no prospect of getting any any time soon.

 

[PeterDonis]

If we defined universe as everything including the finite but unbounded universe and the region beyond (including the void)

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.

Your question has been answered as well as it can be here. Thread closed.

 

[Dale]

Sorry @PeterDonis I wanted to give some advice about the next question.

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.

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).

If you can focus your questions in that way then you will understand how the world works and why scientists use the models we do. You will also get more consistent answers and avoid a lot of philosophy where people’s opinions will vary substantially.