Need help understanding particle physics and quantum physics

[aleholancrisis]

TL;DR

I'm interested in learning what exactly are protons, neutrons, quarks, higgs, fluons etc.., I wanna know what are they and what properties they contain and how have people got to know and confirm those properties(proofs) and what things do I need to know

So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm interested in learning what exactly are protons, neutrons, quarks, higgs, fluons etc.

According to our best current theoretical models, they're quantum fields.

I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up

Yes.

Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these

This is much too vague. We can't give you a course in particle physics.

I would suggest taking some time to read a textbook that covers the Standard Model of particle physics, which is our best current theoretical model of the things you are asking about. Then, if you have questions about specific things you read that you don't understand, you can ask them. Note that you will need considerable background in physics to understand the Standard Model; it's graduate level material. You marked this thread as "A" level, which indicates a graduate level of understanding, but it's not clear to me from your question that you actually have that.

 

[bob012345]

According to our best current theoretical models, they're quantum fields.

If electrons are quantum fields, then what, physically, are quantum fields?

 

[PeterDonis]

If electrons are quantum fields, then what, physically, are quantum fields?

Quantum fields. There is no other answer as far as physics is concerned, at least not with our best current models. Quantum fields are the most fundamental objects in those models; they're not "made of" anything else.

 

[bob012345]

Quantum fields. There is no other answer as far as physics is concerned, at least not with our best current models. Quantum fields are the most fundamental objects in those models; they're not "made of" anything else.

Thanks. But are they physical entities?

 

[PeterDonis]

are they physical entities?

They're what our best current theory of the fundamental physics of matter says everything is made of. If that makes them "physical entities", then yes.

 

[PeroK]

Thanks. But are they physical entities?

Two points of view are: Quantum Fields are reality; and, reality can only be described mathematically - fundamentally through quantum fields.

I lean towards the latter. That there is a physical universe out there, and our best way to describe it is through QFT. This also allows us to have different mathematical models in indifferent domains of applicability. We can still successfully use classical mechanics, classical EM and relativity without worrying too much about whether, for example, the classical EM field is a "real physical entity".

 

[martinbn]

But are they physical entities?

What else could they be!?

 

[bob012345]

What else could they be!?

To me the issue is not if there is physical reality underneath what are now labeled quantum fields. It is can quantum fields be measured as distinct physical entities and what are their properties as compared to mathematical representations in some theory which are assumed to be some fundamental structure to reality.

 

[PeterDonis]

can quantum fields be measured as distinct physical entities

What would count as such a measurement, if all the measurement results we already have that confirm the predictions of our best current QFT to high precision aren't enough?

 

[DennisN]

As already have been described above, our best model(s) of these things are quantum fields.

Regardless of this, I'll address a couple of things in your post:

I'm interested in learning what exactly are protons, neutrons, quarks, higgs, fluons etc..

• Protons: subatomic particles with positive electric charge
• Neutrons: subatomic particles with neutral electric charge
• Quarks: the fundamental¹ constituents of protons, neutrons and some other unstable (short-lived) particles (mesons).
• Higgs: Not my field (), but the Higgs boson is associated with the Higgs field, which is associated with how particles aquire mass.
• Fluons: I guess you mean gluons, which are associated with how quarks are held together inside various subatomic particles.

¹ As fas as we know.

I wanna know what are they and what properties they contain

There's a number of properties associated with subatomic and elementary particles, e.g. mass, spin, electric charge etc.

how have people got to know and confirm those properties(proofs)

Through various types of experiments throughout the years.

So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower.

That is correct (as far as we know).


More info on particle physics:

Here is a site which gives introductions to various things in particle physics: The Particle Adventure.
You can also visit this page at HyperPhysics: Particle Concepts.

 

[PeterDonis]

What data says this is not a fundamental particle

None. The electron is a fundamental particle in our best current theoretical models. (But "particle" is just shorthand for "quantum field" in those models.)

Our best current theoretical models have the electron as a fundamental particle because we have no data that shows that it has any internal structure. By contrast, protons and neutrons are not treated as fundamental particles because we do have data that shows they have internal structure--the data that led to the quark model. Before the quark model, protons and neutrons were treated in our theories as fundamental particles.

 

[PeterDonis]

not a fundamental particle and is something different

You seem to think that being a "fundamental particle" is somehow different from being a quantum field. It isn't. The only theoretical model we have of "fundamental particles" that matches all our data is the quantum field model.

 

[bob012345]

You seem to think that being a "fundamental particle" is somehow different from being a quantum field. It isn't. The only theoretical model we have of "fundamental particles" that matches all our data is the quantum field model.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand.

Not sure what you mean by "kind of". But that aside you take classes. You have to start with the basics and work your way up to graduate level courses.

It took generations of researchers to arrive at the understanding we have, and it will take years of study to absorb it.

There are no shortcuts. If there were they would be used to teach physics.

Instructors don't plan their lessons by concocting difficult ways for students to learn. They try to find the methods that will be easiest to absorb.

 

[haushofer]

It's turtles all the way down.