The Logic of Elementary Particles

[Openeye]

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle believed not to have substructure; that is, it is believed not to be made up of smaller particles."

-Wikipedia


How does someone ever possibly (LOGICALLY) conclude that a particle is not made up of smaller particles? Especially when the way in which they discover particles is by bashing them together which would CREATE smaller particles (not really create, but through division) if they didn't exist before.

Surely when we fail to break open the next smallest particle, it's always going to be a question of whether or not we can build greater technology to bash them open, yes ?

If a particle can NOT be smashed/broken apart into pieces, then it is truly indestructible... yes?

HOW do we get away with assuming there is such a thing as an indestructible particle... when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that anything physical is indestructible and can not be broken into more pieces? Where is the evidence? That's what scientific theory is supposed to be based on yes... not blind faith?

We even have evidence of "elementary" or "fundamental"particles being proven not to be so:

"Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles."

To me it seems we have much more evidence of this logic being illogical, than we do to suggest that there is such a thing as an indestructible particle. Why is this persisting?

Thanks.

 

[Maui]

There are no particles as such and classical concepts fail miserably at smaller scales. You may find it easier to think in terms of momentary field excitations. Of course, this changes everything about one's perspective on the world.

 

[mathman]

When particles are "bashed" together, the particles that are created result from the conversion of the energy of the incoming particles to mass.

 

[Openeye]

There are no particles as such and classical concepts fail miserably at smaller scales. You may find it easier to think in terms of momentary field excitations. Of course, this changes everything about one's perspective on the world.

Thanks for your reply...

Can you please explain what you mean by momentary field excitations?

What changes someone's perspective about the world is the language in which they understand it. For example... to YOU "Momentary field excitations" might mean something and have all kinds of implications... but those words sequenced in that way doesn't really mean anything to me, not without some sort of example... and it certainly doesn't help me change my viewpoint (though I'd like it to if it is actually something logical)... and it also doesn't explain to me why if you divide 1 (of anything, even imaginary things) in half you get multiple pieces instead of just 1. Try to use your imagination to split a singularity into something more complete than whole. It doesn't seem to make a difference how large or small something is either... if you divide the whole/completion of anything (single) in half, you get TWO point fives... and if you use a calculator to do this you can keep pressing the equals button infinitely to reach a different number. MATH, right ?

But of course that's not infinite. You can only do it for as long as you're alive to press the button. If you and the calculator could exist eternally together, the number will continue to divide as you continue pressing the button. The calculator also has a limit to the size of number it can display, I think.

If we use numbers as variables to things, we would call a single particle 1 particle. Surely it's the same for any particle or 'blob'... imagined or real... as the particles themselves are actually pieces of 'wholes'... what they combine to make what we could call a singularity... (how many 'particles' make ME, "the whole" up?).

Is there any exception to THAT? It might be Newtonian... but at what point does 'balance' disappear and become something to ignore in our scientific approach ? Is there logic for that? or do we just kinda forget about it...

If I sound argumentative please do not take offense it is just my way of understanding...That's why we require a sufficient amount of 'evidence' before just blindly allowing something into our models, right? we may even be thinking along the same lines and I don't know any better because of language barriers.

I really appreciate your input, thank you!(EDIT: If you're referring to the idea of 'vibration' as opposed to particles... I already may have an idea of the perspective you mean... and to me it makes me think of what the 'particles' we imagine would be DOING/BEING (if existent), and then we're referring to something that isn't actually physical but a QUALITY of the physical 'particle' or <whatever>. Not the actual particles themselves... but I'd like you to expand on what you said a little if you don't mind, so I may more fully understand your perspective.)

 

[Openeye]

When particles are "bashed" together, the particles that are created result from the conversion of the energy of the incoming particles to mass.

Energy is neither created or destroyed... yes?

When do we abandon this? and why?

If the particles ARE created, as you say, by the conversion of the parent / incoming particles to mass... then how is it logical to conclude that any of the particles we're finding exist in nature? Where on Earth or in the universe do we witness what CERN does? When you bash particles together ... from what I understand, they break apart into smaller particles for fractions of a second before 'converting' into something else or 'disappearing'... If these particles do not exist in nature, wouldn't it make sense that they would go extinct/break down/transform pretty fast after you create them?

But wait, we don't create energy... right? And we can't destroy it either... right?

But even if it were 'created'... division of a particle still produces more particles, or at least particle pieces... what do we call that? I would call them smaller particles. To call any particle elementary or fundamental as a building block of the universe, doesn't it need to be indestructible? ... Again... HOW and -who- decides when something is indestructible, when there is nothing anyone has ever seen physical in nature that has that quality? (as far as I know, please tell me if you know of something). Oh ... I thought of something. "ENERGY". Neither created or destroyed... that seems to me, to be the closest known ACTUAL 'thing' there is to indestructible. But 'energy' is not specific, it is a variable, like the numbers on the calculator... and we clearly know the potential of numbers on a calculator.

So I do not see how to even believe in such a thing as a fundamental/elementary particle can be even slightly accurate... in EITHER the physical world where I'm typing this to you, or the imaginary dream world where all physics are my creation. Unless of course that particle were to be 'infinitely small'--- but how do we say that?

I am not speaking your language/jargon... can you understand the point I am making even though I'm not using perhaps as precise of language as you are?

Thanks for your input and help me to clarify this.

 

[mathman]

Energy is neither created or destroyed... yes?

Not completely true. Energy can be converted to mass and mass can convert to energy. That's basically Einstein's famous equation E=mc².

 

[Kevin_Axion]

This is all getting very philosophical regarding the question if particles actually exist and the idea of epistemology and the validity of knowledge. Let's keep it scientific, yes?

 

[Openeye]

This is all getting very philosophical regarding the question if particles actually exist and the idea of epistemology and the validity of knowledge. Let's keep it scientific, yes?

You say this like that all the logic is completely worthless because you slap on the label philosophy. All of your science is based on ideas thought up by someone(s), and here I am having ideas produced by logical conclusion using the same rules and guidelines used in physics, and you are telling me it's not scientific.

Scientific definition: conforming with the principles or methods used in science.

I have given you the SCIENTIFIC reasoning behind my logic... don't tell me this is just philosophy. At least tell me where it isn't scientific please instead of just pushing me away and seemingly closing your mind for not communicating in your style. Why do you comment on this thread if you offer nothing ? This is a physics forum, and my questions are about physics and understanding why it is the way it is, relative to this logic. I've gone elsewhere to chat and speak with people who might be able to help me understand this, but the same thing. I am hoping this forum to be decent about this.

If this is the best you have for me then I thank you for the most intelligent response you could have produced... and anxiously await responses from others who can make sense of what I am saying.

 

[Openeye]

Not completely true. Energy can be converted to mass and mass can convert to energy. That's basically Einstein's famous equation E=mc².

Hi, thanks for your reply :)

How is this 'creating' or 'destroying'... and not 'converting' ? You used the word convert twice.

"Convert: change the nature, purpose, or function of something; "convert lead into gold"; "convert hotels into jails"; "convert slaves to laborers"

 

[Kevin_Axion]

There is no need to get defensive.

So I do not see how to even believe in such a thing as a fundamental/elementary particle can be even slightly accurate... in EITHER the physical world where I'm typing this to you, or the imaginary dream world where all physics are my creation.

HOW and -who- decides when something is indestructible, when there is nothing anyone has ever seen physical in nature that has that quality?

I'm also trying to make sure the thread doesn't get closed, which is in your benefit.

 

[Openeye]

There is no need to get defensive.




I'm also trying to make sure the thread doesn't get closed, which is in your benefit.

Thanks for your concern.

Those two parts are a small percentage of what I'm saying. If it makes you uncomfortable to ask yourself these things, please ignore those two questions then and reply to the stuff that is clearly relating to science.

I am just trying to understand, that is all. I'm not intending to hurt anybody's feelings or anyone to take anything personally, I just want to know. The thread doesn't need to be closed, anyone who doesn't like what I'm asking can simply not read or reply. :)

 

[Drakkith]

Let me see if i can help. Keep in mind that this is very simplified.

Through observations and experiments we discovered that all matter is made up of atoms. Then later, through more observations and experiments, we discovered that pieces of these atoms could be taken from it. This is how we discovered the electron, proton, and neutron. Then, later, through more experiments and observations, we discovered that protons and neutrons are made up of three particles.

Now, while all this was going on, and even before for some of it, people were doing math and other experiments that showed that atoms should be made up of other particles, and later that protons and neutrons should be made up of something smaller as well. Certain observations just didn't make sense until we realized that these things were made up of smaller things.

Now, please understand that there are plenty of things still unknown in science. However, simply saying that we don't know what we are talking about when we say that something is or can be elementary is just a slap in the face to everyone that has ever contributed to science. The observed ways the universe works hasn't always been "logical" to us. Why should something act like a particle AND a wave for example. So saying that something should be taken as possible or true just because it's logical to you is just wrong. It will be taken as possible or true if we observe it happen or have some reason to believe that it is possible.

So, in conclusion, please understand that we are trying to help you understand the way that current mainstream science works. Anything beyond that is simply not discussable due to lack of evidence and such. That's why it's considered philosophical. =)

 

[Openeye]

Now, please understand that there are plenty of things still unknown in science. However, simply saying that we don't know what we are talking about when we say that something is or can be elementary is just a slap in the face to everyone that has ever contributed to science.

Hello, thanks for your reply :)

That is exactly the question I had. How does anyone scientifically know what they're talking about when they call it elementary? This is not to offend... this is a valid question. If you take it as a slap in the face, I'm sorry, but I don't see it being asked anywhere and I also don't see the answer to these unasked questions. I'm not trying to say -you- don't know what you're talking about, I'm saying _I_ don't know what you're talking about... and I want to. If I ask these questions and you suddenly feel like you don't know what you're talking about, that's not my intention. I'm hoping to get answers.

I look up the definitions and even paste them to you based on what's available to me... what exactly does it mean to be an elementary particle? Because by the definitions I have read, there is no such thing unless someone has somehow decided that the particle is indestructible. THAT has clearly happened...

"In the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons are elementary particles."
-Wikipedia

Can someone please tell me the scientific method in which that scientific person went to decide (scientifically) that these particle is 'elementary'? There must be a scientific explanation for this if the scientific community has accepted it, yes?

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle believed not to have substructure; that is, it is believed not to be made up of smaller particles."

Also... not to be 'philosophical' about it... but if I were to translate this into 'laymans' terms... that would mean it can't break into smaller particles and must be indestructible. If this is not the case, please can you give me a better translation?

How did they scientifically conclude that any particle is elementary? And was it the same process in which we've found ATOMS to be 'elementary'?

"Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles."
-Wikipedia I don't know, and locating this information is very time consuming and difficult especially when I do not speak the same language. So I come here to ask real people who can think and be helpful :)

thank you again for your help!

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Okay, firstly we observe the elementary particles in accelerators as point particles, dimensionless without internal structures. Also all of our Quantum Field Theories (Standard Model) don't require any more constituents as "all" of the phenomenon observed at the CURRENT energy levels are explained phenomenally well by current boson interactions with fermions. It may well become clear that as the energies increase (shorter distances) that new emergent properties may appear thus requiring something more elementary. We say their elementary because we're naive, essentially.

I'll quote this entire thing because it's unbelievably useful:

The Standard Model relies on several assumptions, among which the existence of a certain fields, whose quanta are point-like particles, divided first in two categories : matter and force particles.

Matter particles​

Those fundamental particles are fermionic, which implies one can fill a box with them until none can be added (as long as the box is strong enough to resist electric repulsion for instance). Fermi-Dirac statistics is a deep phenomenon, linked to the intrinsic angular momentum called spin : fundamental fermions are spin 1/2 (spinor) particles, and it implies that after a rotation of 2\pi, their wavefunction changes sign !. This is not a real problem, since only the (hermitean) square of the wavefunction is observable, that is the probability density. Notice also that after 4\pi the double sign reverses cancel, and there are deep reasons why 4\pi rotations are always equivalent to no rotation. Let us first stare at a list of them :

First family​

Second family​

Third family​

1. electron e^-​
   muon \mu^-​
   tau \tau^-​
2. electronic neutrino \nu_{e}​
   muonic neutrino \nu_{\mu}​
   tauonic neutrino \nu_{\tau}
   ​
3. up quark u​
   charm quark c​
   top quark t​
4. down quark d​
   strange quark s​
   bottom (beauty) quark b​

Botanistic classification : 1 and 2 are leptons, while 3 and 4 are hadrons. Leptons do not feel the strong force (on which more latter). Etymology : "hadron" comes from a greek word sounding like "hadros" and meaning "strong, robust, bulky, thick, or stout", and "lepton" from "leptos" : "fine, thin, slender, small". To this list you could add anti-particles, or consider they are ordinary particles traveling backwards in time. Anti-particles have opposite charges except mass and spin, are denoted by an upper bar on the particle symbol, and sometimes have a special name, such as the positron \bar{e}^+. Each of those might have a supersymetric bosonic partner (supersymetry relates bosons and fermions) but this is not part of the standard model. Although supersymetry has shown relevance in nuclei, it has not been observed for fundamental particles. Some basic facts :

1. Carry minus one unit of electrical charge : -e.
2. Zero electric charge, and at most a very small mass (zero in the standard model)
3. +2/3 e, and color charge (red, blue or green) which is "hidden" : free particles are "white", or more accurately "invariant under color rotations".
4. -2/3 e. Also colored. It is difficult to define mass for 3 and 4 guys because they are never free, especially difficult for the lightest, first family members.

The quarks are "contained in a white bag", either they pair in mesons (quark/antiquark bound state) or in baryons (three quarks bound states). Recent proposal of "pentaquarks" seem nowadays unlikely : only intermediate energy have published low statistics evidences, high energy experiments lead to negative results. Confirmation or rejection of this hypothesis will be available soon, when the analyzing process of data from dedicated experiments will be over.

Force particles​

There are 12 bosonic fundamental particles with spin 1 (vector) in the standard model, plus one additional not yet confirmed and spin zero (scalar) particle. They are beautifully unified by a so-called gauge model, formulated entirely in terms of symmetries. One would contemplate a U(1)\otimes SU(2)\otimes SU(3) gauge group. Let us emphasized here that gauge symmetry is not a real symmetry, but rather a very elegant mean to deal with constrained systems

• The photon is the quantum of light, it is usually denoted \gamma and carries the electromagnetic interaction. It is massless, and this fact is related to the U(1) Quantum ElectroDynamic (QED) part of the standard gauge group which is not broken. Broken symmetries occur when the laws have a certain symmetry, but the ground state (vacuum) does not. So all the tower of states constructed form the vacuum do not exhibit this symmetry.
• The 3 massive vector bosons W^+, W^- and Z^0 are responsible for the weak interaction. This is for instance what causes \beta decay of the proton into a neutron, at the quark level : d\rightarrow u + e^- + \bar{\nu}_e. There are also so-called "neutral currents" with the Z^0 able to go from one family to another. The gauge part is SU(2), but this symmetry is spontaneously broken, giving mass to the vector bosons by the so-called Higgs mechanism. The weak interaction is very peculiar, in that is does not respect some basic symmetries of Nature the other interactions seem to : especially P symmetry, the parity which consists in "taking the mirror image", is maximally broken : the \nu (if massless) is always left handed, while the \bar{\nu} (if massless) is always right handed. So physicists first hoped CP would not be broken, with addition of the exchange particle-antiparticle exchange C. It appears not to be the case, but then it is only slightly broken, such as in the decay modes of the some mesons. Today, we strongly believe that by adding time reversal, the all-important CPT symmetry is the fundamental for the theory. The spin-statistics theorem relies on this symmetry.
• The 8 massless gluons, with gauge group the color SU(3). Gluons are also peculiar in that themselves carry color charge : a red gluon turn blue by emitting a red/antiblue gluon absorbed by a blue quark turning red for instance. This fact makes gluons interact with each other. There are three gluons and four gluons vertices in the standard model. The non-linearity makes the equation hopelessly unsolvable until now. Also, this is likely the cause of confinement, the property that color is always hidden in color-invariant bound states. Another striking feature is asymptotic freedom, the fact that at very low distances, or alternatively at high energy, quarks look like free particles.

The Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model has already unified the first two in the so-called electroweak unification U(1)\otimes SU(2)=U(2). This leads us to the Higgs mechanism : for each broken symmetry, a massless Goldstone boson appears. The Higgs mechanism permits this degree of freedom to be "eaten" by the massless gauge boson thus acquiring mass. We can even refine the model to make all fundamental particles massless acquiring mass by interaction with the Higgs scalar boson. This particle should soon be discovered at the LHC facility (Geneva)

Additional informations :​

A good source of general information is wikipedia

Another specifically on physics, somewhat at lower level but good illustrations is hyperphysics

The http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/ is the source of the link provided by Marlon, and this link leads to the gateway to it, a very friendly introduction.

The http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/WhyStudyPrtcles/WhyStudyPrtcles-en.html is the main European research center.

Of course, the Particle Data Group has a reference site with all particles informations, and more, quite up-to-date and reliable,
The less technical particle adventure is also from the PDG.

http://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/~wise/wise187/janfeb2001/weblinks/physics_words.html

I hope that helped.

 

[Openeye]

Thank you for taking the time to respond and locate data... this may be helpful to me. Now... based on all of this, there's a few things I need to understand a little bit better.

You say:
"Okay, firstly we observe the elementary particles in accelerators as point particles, dimensionless without internal structures."

How do you observe the elementary particles if they are dimensionless without internal structures? Isn't it by assumption through the effect/impact of something else?

You say: "We say their elementary because we're naive, essentially."

How can anyone say that, and just paste me a big block of data that stems from this? To me, this kind methodology seems to be the exact moment the scientific method becomes un-scientific. Where else is it scientifically acceptable to be naive and build data around it? Nowhere as far as I am aware... (I am genuinely curious, please understand)...

The data is extremely well thought out, but when it stems from naivety doesn't that make it purely philosophical? No matter how logical it is.

As Drakkith said:
"So saying that something should be taken as possible or true just because it's logical to you is just wrong."

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I said naive because we haven't experienced the full depth of the energy levels. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong but just emergent or an effective field theory. We observe them through detectors and by their intrinsic properties such as spin, charge, mass et cetera. Also as stated above, the particles have mass, but doesn't require them to have internal structure. If you collide two things the mass is transformed into energy through Einstein's Mass-Energy Equivalence E = mc^2. A famous example of this is an annihilation process in which e^+ + e^- \rightarrow \gamma following this \gamma \rightarrow e^+ + e^-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Electron-positron-annihilation.svg (Time flows up, space flows right).

 

[Drakkith]

As Kevin said, we say they are elementary because of the observations in accelerators and such. This isn't being naive, this is working with the data you have. I doubt anyone would argue that an electron is unquestionably elementary and there's no possible way it could be made up of smaller objects. Instead they would say that all of the available evidence points to it being elementary. If the LHC discovers something next week that makes us doubt that, then we will have a reason to say that we don't think an electron is elementary. Until then, until we have a reason to think otherwise, we will say that it is an elementary particle.

 

[Openeye]

As Kevin said, we say they are elementary because of the observations in accelerators and such. This isn't being naive, this is working with the data you have. I doubt anyone would argue that an electron is unquestionably elementary and there's no possible way it could be made up of smaller objects. Instead they would say that all of the available evidence points to it being elementary. If the LHC discovers something next week that makes us doubt that, then we will have a reason to say that we don't think an electron is elementary. Until then, until we have a reason to think otherwise, we will say that it is an elementary particle.

That's not being objective anymore, that's being biased. To be objective would be to be open to the possibility that it isn't elementary, and showing the LOGICAL theories built around that too.

Do you not see that when I repeatedly use the word LOGICAL, I'm quickly told:

"The observed ways the universe works hasn't always been "logical" to us."

As if that is reason enough to ignore logic. When CLEARLY, you are not going to accept any DATA that is not logical! So why ignore LOGIC?

Having both sides of the story and building even perhaps even a third set of theories around that.

Do you not see this?

"If the LHC discovers something next week that makes us doubt that, then we will have a reason to say that we don't think an electron is elementary."

Except you're completely assuming that the LHC has the answer to that question right there.

Immediately after:
Until then, until we have a reason to think otherwise, we will say that it is an elementary particle."

This is totally a biased action based on assumption. Where is the evidence of ANYTHING being elementary in the way it is defined? If there was evidence of something being elementary as it is defined, then I could understand why we would aim our focus in that direction. That's just like saying: "It doesn't get any smaller than that because we've never seen smaller... but we HAVE seen what we once thought was the smallest, get smaller..."

So instead of looking at all the evidence which suggests pretty blatantly to anyone with 5 senses, there never has been anything physical that can not be broken down into components or pieces... we assume that just because we haven't seen it before, that is the limit until some outside force/influence MAKES us think otherwise.

How is this an attempt to learn and acquire accurate data openly and objectively, and not a highly sophisticated belief system that REQUIRES someone to come along and slap you in the face (as someone said it felt like to them here) to gain accuracy?... Maybe that is why it could feel like a slap in the face when someone starts asking questions using logic that challenges the clearly enforced line of thinking.

This enforcement clearly isn't desired or INTENDED.. I still can not believe how unconscious it seems to be... because there are of course scientific EXPERIMENTS (doing things that ignore the established belief system in a LOGICAL fashion that haven't been done before to see what happens) which often leads to new discoveries. When experimentation doesn't do it, discoveries are often accidental!

So why is it such a slap in the face when I am asking questions FOR MYSELF, about how what is being taught and said makes any logical sense? It's not like I'm saying YOU'RE WRONG! And I'm not even saying what is established isn't right! I'm just asking how are we not claiming to be objective, while simultaneously being biased?

Please... the evidence that anything is elementary as defined besides the fact that you've never seen it before! Anyone? This to me seems obviously a much gentler way of saying:

"Fairies exist! We have absolutely no physical evidence of it, just evidence of what these fairies DO to the physical based on unnatural events _WE_ -FORCE- to occur! So this fairy exists! Now if you don't think along this way, you're not being scientific! Take your philosophy elsewhere!"

But when religions do it, so many people look the other way because they are dealing with the non-physical fairies only, while other people only want to deal with the physical...

Please... please please please... I am begging you, if you have the science or logic that says what I am saying is inaccurate, just tell me it! My words are not scientific jargon, I am sorry, I know that is easier for many to understand... but they are no less logical.

And I am not here to teach anyone anything or fill anyones head with any kind of data! Please do not feel a slap in the face! I'm trying to make sense of this for myself. There is no place else I know of to go for this but a forum! A textbook can not THINK or talk back or even PERFORM SCIENCE! You can! And I want to get this from the people who LOVE PHYSICS the most, whether it's their job or it isn't because they are typically in my opinion the most intelligent about it!

So here I am! I accept what makes sense, and pause until it does. I don't just take a leap of faith like that, and science is the alternative to that--- I thought. I KNOW it has already been very well thought out... but not by me... and if this isn't the place to ask questions about physics... well... I don't know. Now I'm a little paranoid because someone suggested that this thread might get deleted since I wasn't speaking the language.

 

[fzero]

That's not being objective anymore, that's being biased. To be objective would be to be open to the possibility that it isn't elementary, and showing the LOGICAL theories built around that too.
...

"If the LHC discovers something next week that makes us doubt that, then we will have a reason to say that we don't think an electron is elementary."

Except you're completely assuming that the LHC has the answer to that question right there.

Immediately after:
Until then, until we have a reason to think otherwise, we will say that it is an elementary particle."

This is totally a biased action based on assumption. Where is the evidence of ANYTHING being elementary in the way it is defined?

The part of the scientific method that you're missing is that until you have evidence to the contrary, you try to fit the data that you have available. The Standard Model is an excellent description of 99% of observed physics. This in fact hasn't stopped people from exploring the possibility that there is physics beyond the Standard Model, and some of that work has in fact involved the idea that there is another layer beyond what we consider elementary particles. One class of such models are called preon theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon String theory can be considered another. By no means has the possibility that quarks and leptons are not elementary been neglected.

 

[Drakkith]

We ARE telling you why. You just aren't listening. There's a difference (sometimes subtle) between me saying that nothing is elementary and saying that as far as we know it is elementary, but it might turn out not to be.

 

[Openeye]

Thank you all for your patience… and believe it or not, I am listening and devote thorough time to investigating and responding to it :)

The part of the scientific method that you're missing is that until you have evidence to the contrary, you try to fit the data that you have available. The Standard Model is an excellent description of 99% of observed physics. This in fact hasn't stopped people from exploring the possibility that there is physics beyond the Standard Model, and some of that work has in fact involved the idea that there is another layer beyond what we consider elementary particles. One class of such models are called preon theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon String theory can be considered another. By no means has the possibility that quarks and leptons are not elementary been neglected.

What you're telling me is exactly what I'm witnessing HERE. I believe it.

"until you have evidence to the contrary, you try to fit the data that you have available."

EXCEPT, what ends up actually happening is when someone looks in a different direction their approach isn't 'scientific'... it's philosophical... or sometimes mislabeled as 'quackery'... as if it is somehow less important or useful… even though the scientific approach stems from empiricism which stems from philosophical thinking. See even right there, there's like these walls that seemingly get put up when I start discussing this… I don't understand ? These thoughts are not in violation of scientific thinking, really. This is the heart of it... but we are just like foreigners trying to speak one another's language…

This is still what I do not understand, even though you are telling me you're explaining it to me… (sorry):
_______________________
Do we have any physical evidence of something indestructible? I think no… besides the abstract definition of 'energy' itself.

Do we have evidence to the contrary that particles will continue to get smaller and smaller the more we apply the appropriate energies to break them apart... infinitely? History shows us, repeatedly no.
_______________________

I am in full agreement with working with the data you have. I am saying to do the same thing, but there is more data that isn't being analyzed or processed as evidence because it is hardly addressed for -some- reason... and it's a biased reason. It isn't allowed into the theory because everyone is uncomfortable about explaining it, because they can't. So why just ignore it because it can't be explained? We can't explain where the higgs boson particle is, or even if it really exists before we might create it...

So why is the indestructible idea given more attention to ... than infinity, which has at least SOME obvious evidence within the perception of EVERYONE? We could maybe even call infinity indestructible! No matter how far or close we look, we can always look farther or closer! It's like trying to run and swim or fly to the edge of the FLAT EARTH. Guess what happens, you run and swim or fly infinitely around in circles till you die because the world is round. Why do we call them fundamental particles, as opposed to saying... "We might be able to create infinite particles!" ... That is true! We might… but where is infinity in science? I find 'nasty infinity'… and renormalization… but no infinity that anyone is really looking towards. Why do we turn our backs to this? Why is NO evidence, more qualified as evidence to build theory on, than observational evidence by ANYONE?

maybe my question is better... said, why do we completely ignore infinity instead of considering the alternative? There are all kinds of avenues that aren't being considered, just because evidence isn't dangling a carrot in front of our faces. Maybe evidence hasn't caused you to ask the questions I am... so maybe I sound a bit 'outside the box' and therefore seemingly 'not scientific'... but this is logic, and every bit of science that you've ever accepted IS LOGICAL in one way or another... whether it was once illogical and became logical, or whether you develop theories that make use of logic so you can accept it as a belief.

Why do we not consider literally every-physical-thing we've ever witnessed to be EVIDENCE, supporting the idea that as we keep looking for particles by breaking them apart, we'll keep 'creating' new ones. How can you ignore EVERYTHING in that respect? That seems to be a lot more evidence than NO evidence, that there is something beyond a supposed 'fundamental' or 'elementary' particle which we define and operate in the direction of until someone proves otherwise.

Why is INFINITY, not investigated ? we have "renormalizaton" to make infinity manageable... but it makes it no longer infinity… so w e could never possibly understand it using those methods! This is logic! If infinity exists, you can't 'renormalize' it... because no matter how long the digits go every digit is equally important! Infinity minus even 1 is no longer infinity. If infinity is what we have or at least will always PERCEIVE... we will never understand it through renormalization or by blasting particles apart… the only way that could happen, is by recognizing a PATTERN, which is what infinity must be. Similar to like a fractal or true hologram. And it wouldn't surprise me if these particles were forming some kind of pattern, which will make what I'm saying make more sense to whoever still doesn't see my point…

There is more evidence of bounded infinity than there is of the finite. We can use our best telescopes to look out but we haven't found the 'edge' of the universe, and we can zoom in as far as we like and we haven't found the edge of the universe... maybe it's because of the geometry? We made the same mistake with planet Earth once before. If we look out to the universe we find floating spheres spiraling, some with rings that go around and around… if you zoom in, you find little spheres spiraling some with rings and spheres orbiting etc. The galaxies are spirals within spirals. We can't even SEE most of them, but all the pictures of everything I've seen scientists have developed end up looking like a bunch of spheres all blotched together doing a spiral of some sort or another. Zoomed out, or zoomed in. I think that's pretty incredible. DNA, Molecules, Cells, Atoms, protons, etc etc… Is that just a universally applied 'coincidence' then ? All of which are spiraling/spinning. Why is this pattern ignored when it's so abundant throughout the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? Pi is perceptually infinite too… it also describes circles mathematically. Why are we so focused on 'the dot!' … and not the motion that drives it? (reminds me of what I see many religions doing) We can see plenty of dots already… there is enough evidence right ? Maybe we will find mass and the other mysteries through pattern recognition instead of particle sniping.

I'm not saying STOP TRYING to find particles or to tell anyone what to do… I'm sure something beneficial will come of that eventually… but I'm saying, at least while we're trying, why do we not investigate the alternatives a bit too? People are doing it, but they aren't getting much attention because it doesn't conform to the traditional thinking. I don't see any science books on infinity… Why do we shove this off as philosophical… I can show you perceptual infinity on a calculator, in the stars or in the particles... fractals… bounded infinity… even in math. Geometry that can represent and demonstrate infinity. You might even have an infinite possibility of thoughts you CAN think... bounded in your head. Everywhere you look there is EVIDENCE of it's potential and/or possibility. But somehow, that is not evidence that qualifies as something scientists will even take time to analyze... because it's not following the enforced way of thinking.

And all the evidence that we DON'T HAVE of particles beyond what we can't see…… that's how we're aimed. To say that just because we haven't seen smaller than a quark (or whatever)…. THAT's elementary/fixed/finite… as opposed to infinitely smaller in potential.

That's not using evidence as evidence, that's using NO evidence as evidence. Why not allow infinity to exist? why renormalize it? why kill the dot?

Now I know this biased point of view is not really ENFORCED, because who can force anyone to think or believe anything? It's peer pressure/influence that does it, not a force. For example students who speak up against what the teachers say because it's illogical, are told to just sit back in their seats and read chapter 8. 'The answer is in there I don't have time to explain it in my own words… just educate yourself like I did, or you're not worth my time'… People like me who start questioning and pointing out fallacies in logic that have been widely adapted to, are told they're not listening or to speak the language otherwise their thoughts aren't worth anything. But please understand the language is not for me, whenever I start to learn the language I find obvious logical fallacies and end up seeing little hope for people… and I never hear anyone else speaking up or mentioning them because the language doesn't address it. Why would I want to learn a language that is doing that? Don't get me wrong… I REALLY want to understand, but in my own way… learning the language is not worth it to either of us. If discoveries often happen accidentally then you need weirdos like me to have the kind of accidents you won't ever think to put yourself in the position to have :)

Please understand that, and I really appreciate everyone's patience, knowledge and understanding. I have had a few other questions answered by what you've presented to me, so thank you all for your continued or not input. :)_______________
EDIT-
"In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers"

IMPENETRABLE barriers? That is an infinitely strong barrier. Infinity again. It's all over the place and no one is looking at it or talking about it… why? I do not understand this. also why do we insist on putting things in boxes? It seems like people just doesn't want to believe in 'infinity'. How else can it be so ignored and present at the same time ?

 

[pallidin]

Uh... where is this going?
It seems as if the OP is pushing a personal agenda.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

That's exactly why I said "let's keep it scientific". By the way it may have been helpful if you added a "too long didn't read" section in which you summarize your ideas because not a lot of people want to read an essay.

 

[Openeye]

Uh... where is this going?
It seems as if the OP is pushing a personal agenda.

Hi pallidin.

It's a matter of me personally understanding something. I've said it multiple times I'm not trying to push anything on anyone I'm looking for answers. I have written a lot to read I know... I'm not upset with you for not reading it or even addressing -anything- I've asked... or even me... but speaking about me. This dot... look at my properties! Not what I'm doing! Does it sound like I have a personal agenda? I just am repeating myself in many different ways so I might be understood.

If you don't want to read it and understand me fully... maybe you can just answer me in short:

"Why is the concept/idea of infinity being ignored?"


This wasn't my original question but it has come to this. I think an answer to this will shut me up if you don't like what I'm thinking about. Sorry. Should I start a new thread?

Thanks for your input. :P

 

[Openeye]

That's exactly why I said "let's keep it scientific". By the way it may have been helpful if you added a "too long didn't read" section in which you summarize your ideas because not a lot of people want to read an essay.

I'm not (and do not have the power to require) requiring that anyone reads this. If someone doesn't care about helping me then they are free to not contribute? I don't see what's so difficult or even unnatural about that. I won't take offense if no one responds to me instead of telling me I'm not being scientific or have a personal agenda... okay. I don't want to bother anyone. Is there a more friendly physics forum I can go to? Where someone will be a little more open to understanding the context of the questions?

Personally, if I am reading through a forum and I see a topic I don't care about, I won't post anything in it. It seems like someone who does that would be someone who has an agenda of some kind. Is that disagreeable?

So why should I be required to adjust my communication style for someone like that?

But now we're not talking about the physics and logic behind it like I want to... can we stay on track?


Thanks.

 

[pallidin]

"Why is the concept/idea of infinity being ignored?"

The concept of infinity IS a fundamental consideration in physics.
We see it all over the place: In mathematics we have pi, in cosmology we have a universe that we can not comprehend as having an end.

"Infinity" is not being ignored at all, it's just that it's not understood.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

A thing that comes to mind is Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel.

We do not debate the validity of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics here.

That is a Forum Rule.

 

[pallidin]

In science, it is helpful if an individual of creative open-mindedness be also tempered with functional acceptance.
What I mean by that is that nothing is "absolute"

However, to maintain ONLY that position will be seen as a "conspiracy theorist" per-se. And that individual will incessantly challenge any belief under the cloak that nothing is 100%

Instead of providing ACTUAL evidence in support of their theory, they simply claim their evidence to be that they can not be proven wrong, thus they must be right.

That's one of the hallmarks of pseudo-science.

 

[kaksmet]

Hey there. I must admit that I do not have the time to read all of the posts in this thread so forgive me if some of my comments have already been mentioned before. However,
I will try to discuss some of the issues and concerns you raise..

First, just a couple of things on how our current theories describe nature..

Energy can be created, and it can be destroyed. In fact, that happens all the time and everywhere around us. What can happen is that for a short time energy can be created, notably particle/anti-particle pairs forming from the vacuum.

Also, the notion of particles, i.e. how we understand the word in ordinary life does not apply at small enough scales. At very small scales, experiments in physics show that the "particles" have some properties which is similar to our ordinary notion of particles, and other properties which they share with what we usually call waves.

However, this does not mean that we should not continue the discussion, only that we sometimes have to be careful and remember that thinking about them as ordinary particles is not entirely justified.

How does someone ever possibly (LOGICALLY) conclude that a particle is not made up of smaller particles? Especially when the way in which they discover particles is by bashing them together which would CREATE smaller particles (not really create, but through division) if they didn't exist before.

Thats quite right, at least today. We do not know for sure that there is nothing smaller than the particles we today name fundamental. And in fact, history has shown that we should actually expect to find out that they are composite (i.e. made out of smaller particles). But there are, interestingly enough, some differences this time which can be interpreted as indicating that this might not be the case and I will get back point a bit later.

Surely when we fail to break open the next smallest particle, it's always going to be a question of whether or not we can build greater technology to bash them open, yes ?

If a particle can NOT be smashed/broken apart into pieces, then it is truly indestructible... yes?

No, that something cannot be broken apart does NOT mean that it is indestructible.
To explain this with an example we can imagine for a second that water is the most fundamental thing (off course not true, but let's imagine), without destroying water we can change the form of it, it can be solid, liquid or gas.
Going back to the case in particle physics, the particles consist of mass which is one form of energy, when they collide they have momentum which is another manifestation of energy. The energy of the colliding particles can then be transformed into some other form of energy, for example, other new particles.

HOW do we get away with assuming there is such a thing as an indestructible particle... when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that anything physical is indestructible and can not be broken into more pieces? Where is the evidence? That's what scientific theory is supposed to be based on yes... not blind faith?

We even have evidence of "elementary" or "fundamental"particles being proven not to be so:

"Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles."

To me it seems we have much more evidence of this logic being illogical, than we do to suggest that there is such a thing as an indestructible particle. Why is this persisting?

With composite particles, such as the atom, proton and so on so forth, collide with each other one observes a specific scaling with energy, i.e. a difference in the probabilities for interactions to take place. Today, we have been colliding quarks and the likes inside protons for many years, but no such scaling have been observed for the quarks. What I mean is, that long before one have enough energy to smash the particles, one can observe indications of the composite nature. Since that has not been seen, there is at least more ground than before to believe that the particles might truly be elementary.

It is also so, that the particles can be named elementary in one theory, such as the Standard Model. This however, is not saying that one must believe that they are truly elementary in nature. We know, that the Standard Model cannot be the full story and many possibilities beyond this theory is explored.

If the particles ARE created, as you say, by the conversion of the parent / incoming particles to mass... then how is it logical to conclude that any of the particles we're finding exist in nature? Where on Earth or in the universe do we witness what CERN does? When you bash particles together ... from what I understand, they break apart into smaller particles for fractions of a second before 'converting' into something else or 'disappearing'... If these particles do not exist in nature, wouldn't it make sense that they would go extinct/break down/transform pretty fast after you create them?

What happens at CERN (at least the colliding particle part) happens all the time in the universe, it happens inside stars, it happens in the "empty space" around our galaxy, it happens in our atmosphere, inside Earth and even in our own bodies. Yes, some of them are of a type which cannot survive alone and hence they must quickly transform, others can survive, perhaps forever.

But wait, we don't create energy... right? And we can't destroy it either... right?

This is right, at least for longer times and at a local place in space.

So I do not see how to even believe in such a thing as a fundamental/elementary particle can be even slightly accurate... in EITHER the physical world where I'm typing this to you, or the imaginary dream world where all physics are my creation. Unless of course that particle were to be 'infinitely small'--- but how do we say that?

This is quite right, the particles named elementary in the Standard Model are thought to be without size. The electron take up zero volume and is only a point, which is quite like saying that it is 'infinitely small'.

I am not speaking your language/jargon... can you understand the point I am making even though I'm not using perhaps as precise of language as you are?

Thanks for your input and help me to clarify this.

No problem at all, it might make things confusing from time to time, in both directions, but I believe that's something we can live with.

Hope to hear back from you and that I could be of some help.

 

[pallidin]

Jeeze, another agenda.
No acceptance of "acceptable theory"
So it goes, blah, blah, blah...
Without ANY facts.

 

[kaksmet]

Jeeze, another agenda.
No acceptance of "acceptable theory"
So it goes, blah, blah, blah...
Without ANY facts.

I believe you must have misread my post.

 

[Phrak]

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle believed not to have substructure; that is, it is believed not to be made up of smaller particles."

-Wikipedia

I disagree with Wikipedia. A fundamental particle is described by a set of both quantum numbers and a mass, that is not quantized, or at least not known to be quantized.

These numbers found stuck-together in the process of measuring them. And so when these numbers are stuck-together, its called a particle. And when these numbers are stuck-together, in the simplest manner that can be discerned, they are called a fundamental particle.

 

[Blakut]

How did they scientifically conclude that any particle is elementary? And was it the same process in which we've found ATOMS to be 'elementary'?

If you can't break it, it's basically elementary, right?

For example, when they studied the hydrogen atom, the energy levels and all that, particle interactions, the models we have lead us to believe that some particles can't be broken down any more but some can: protons are made of quarks. Is this the case in reality, right now, for all particles? Maybe, all that can be done is to continue to study nature and find out. Remember, in science anything can change: today something is an elementary particle, tommorrow it's not so elementary. Neutrinos were first thought of being massless. They were introduced to explain beta decay...and they were found in the real world.

 

[Openeye]

I have taken a suggestion and made this more easy to read with a long and short post. Just scroll to the color, easy on the eyes...easy on the brain. :)

The concept of infinity IS a fundamental consideration in physics.
We see it all over the place: In mathematics we have pi, in cosmology we have a universe that we can not comprehend as having an end.

"Infinity" is not being ignored at all, it's just that it's not understood.

LONG BORING VERSION:
http://pastebay.com/114330
This is to save bandwidth or any other possible problem it may be for me to use so many words. And if you don't like my way of speaking, by all means, don't click it! :)


SHORT QUICK VERSION

I think I've reached a point now thanks to all of your help where I can spend a good amount of time investigating this.

Thanks for your input, and supplying me with the data/information. I am very interested in everything relating to 'infinity' ... to know what science knows/thinks of it... any field... please... if you or anyone here know of these in addition to what has just been supplied... feed it to me! I have had many troubles trying to locate it.. (might sound silly to you because you are so familiar with the collective language already)... but it is purely because of ignorance of keywords :)

One key word can open up a whole new world of information/study. It's wonderful... but also overwhelming. Infinity! this is where I want to go... what keywords do I use for any/all the sciences about this? "infinity" is too vague to the search engines... you get all kinds of weird stuff that way. I have already been to wikipedia and their related pages of 'infinity'. And please, I know this is a physics forum but feel free to link to other fields information/perspective/theories of infinity if you know them to me, in PM if necessary.

I am still very much interested in hearing Maui expand on what was said earlier a little for me... in here or private message is fine by me... if it's not a problem :)

thanks again to everyone

 

[Openeye]

A thing that comes to mind is Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel.



That is a Forum Rule.

Thanks for the link.

Also thanks for the info on the forum rule.

If I get an answer that doesn't address my question, I might ask it again in a different way. If you take my refusal to just accept what I'm told as debating... I can understand why you feel that way, but that's not really arguing/debating. That is my personal choice.. and I've not been trying to convince anyone of anything. At most, expressing opinion... voicing a context for the question. If you don't like what I say, okay, do what I do and don't just blindly accept it... but understand that there are people who don't believe everything you do and things just because it's been widely accepted. I figure people did that anyway... maybe that could be in the disclaimer though for people who don't take what they read on the internet from random people with a grain of salt.

The only thing resembling debating that I've seen going on here is me continually needing to justify my voice for one reason or another. If that's true can we be done with it? Or am I breaking a different forum rule... sorry, I'm very new here, I will read that right now... :P

But I don't see any debating going on here... just questions in search of answers :)

 

[ZapperZ]

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance. We welcome the former, we do not allow the latter.

Please note that you have, implicitly, accepted what we accept to be true. Your very use of modern electronics (at least, that's what I deduced by your ability to post on the internet) testifies clearly to that! You just were not aware of your acceptance.

You might want to consider if what you're questioning is really about "elementary particles" or really science in general. Do you also study medicine inside out before you accept medical advice? Or do you just not accept modern medicine at all? Do you meticulously study aerodynamics and engineering before you buy a plane ticket? If not, why this focus on something that you clearly have a huge gap in understanding the basics-elementary particles? Are you questioning it based on an intimate knowledge of it, or simply based on superficial understanding of what it is?

Zz.

 

[Openeye]

Hey there. I must admit that I do not have the time to read all of the posts in this thread so forgive me if some of my comments have already been mentioned before. However,
I will try to discuss some of the issues and concerns you raise..

Thanks...

Energy can be created, and it can be destroyed. In fact, that happens all the time and everywhere around us. What can happen is that for a short time energy can be created, notably particle/anti-particle pairs forming from the vacuum.

Can you link me to the science that shows this? Do you mean literally, creation and destruction? Maybe I need to look into the science's logic of the zero. Is that something that makes sense ? Or are we talking about conversion between energy types? (thus you say the 'end' of it as that type and thus destroyed, while actually it's now something else and thus created anew).

Also, the notion of particles, i.e. how we understand the word in ordinary life does not apply at small enough scales. At very small scales, experiments in physics show that the "particles" have some properties which is similar to our ordinary notion of particles, and other properties which they share with what we usually call waves.

Now we're talking about vibration... resonance... yes?

However, this does not mean that we should not continue the discussion, only that we sometimes have to be careful and remember that thinking about them as ordinary particles is not entirely justified.

Point made.

No, that something cannot be broken apart does NOT mean that it is indestructible.

How sure are you about that?

To explain this with an example we can imagine for a second that water is the most fundamental thing (off course not true, but let's imagine), without destroying water we can change the form of it, it can be solid, liquid or gas.
Going back to the case in particle physics, the particles consist of mass which is one form of energy, when they collide they have momentum which is another manifestation of energy. The energy of the colliding particles can then be transformed into some other form of energy, for example, other new particles.

That sounds exactly like energy changing into different energy to me. Is it really not? Wouldn't it theoretically become a black hole or something, if you were to literally destroy it or replace it with 'nothing' or 'zero' ? How does one destroy water? Maybe I have a different definition for destroy? To destroy something would include destruction of it's theorized fundamental/elementary particles. Does this happen anywhere?

With composite particles, such as the atom, proton and so on so forth, collide with each other one observes a specific scaling with energy, i.e. a difference in the probabilities for interactions to take place. Today, we have been colliding quarks and the likes inside protons for many years, but no such scaling have been observed for the quarks. What I mean is, that long before one have enough energy to smash the particles, one can observe indications of the composite nature. Since that has not been seen, there is at least more ground than before to believe that the particles might truly be elementary.

This makes sense as to how it could be concluded. Personally, I feel this is still a HUGE assumption... so I leave it open as surely possible... but currently see no reason to use that as a reason to aim my focus to the idea of elementary, because infinity is admittedly mis-understood/not agreed upon completely. Depending upon the numerous ways to view that relationship of those ideas (elementary and infinity) makes a huge difference in how reality is perceived and can be understood. To use it without understanding it, it could literally be the source of -every- missing link in every science... and/or illuminate which theories have been most accurate. Couldn't it ? Theoretically. The existence and not existence of infinity is a huge deal, IMO. Because logically with infinity, anything truly elementary must be infinite, and without infinity, elementary makes sense. I thought sciences were ignoring infinity but from what I've read here it isn't... it's just being used without being understood apparently.

Reminds me of this movie, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
Like using infinity as if it were a coca-cola bottle, never really making conscious-minded sense of the geometry though because the hard structure of the glass was more easy to see than the shape of the bottle :D

And I'm not saying any model or system is right or wrong. To me, a model or system is useful or it isn't useful. Right and wrong being more of personal preferences. That's why I appreciate the diversity of responses to my questions I am receiving and won't argue w/ anyone about which is right or wrong. I think we're all both right and wrong. That's why we have forums for diverse discussions, right? :)

What happens at CERN (at least the colliding particle part) happens all the time in the universe, it happens inside stars, it happens in the "empty space" around our galaxy, it happens in our atmosphere, inside Earth and even in our own bodies. Yes, some of them are of a type which cannot survive alone and hence they must quickly transform, others can survive, perhaps forever.

Can you provide the information/papers/scientific jargon keywords/science for this? I'm interested in looking into it... Namely where in the human body etc... but as much information accepted into the scientific community on all of it would be fantastic.

This is quite right, the particles named elementary in the Standard Model are thought to be without size. The electron take up zero volume and is only a point, which is quite like saying that it is 'infinitely small'.

Well if the infinite monkey theorem is even considered as accurate(that's just something I found on wikipedia in relation to infinity as understood by science) With infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters eventually they'll produce shakespeare. Would it be illogical to say that because particles are created 'naturally' like this in space (like at CERN you say)... then with infinite energy, an infinite amount of particles can be created? Provided that we believe our limitation to destroy them is decided by the amount/degree of energies applied. (and is that the belief/assumption? or what is?)


Thanks for the reply and contribution... you are all being so helpful :)

 

[Openeye]

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance. We welcome the former, we do not allow the latter.

What am I proposing? I don't get it...

Please note that you have, implicitly, accepted what we accept to be true.

The following line of reasoning is -very- debatable, but we're not here to debate or even invest a decent amount of time exploring this idea, are we? I can live with it in either way. Let me know which is most preferable and conforms to the rules please... thanks :)

Your very use of modern electronics (at least, that's what I deduced by your ability to post on the internet) testifies clearly to that! You just were not aware of your acceptance.

Are you really pointing your finger so hard at me that you don't realize how much -that- very statement of yours is one made from ignorance. Right after:

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance.

Come on now...

Nobody's personal deduction is the all-ruling logic in the universe... nor do you have any idea what my background is... nor does it really matter. I'm just asking questions. This thread is not here to decide the fate for humanity, why treat is as such? You don't have to agree with my line of thinking or even the responses I receive. Where am I telling people this?

You might want to consider if what you're questioning is really about "elementary particles" or really science in general. Do you also study medicine inside out before you accept medical advice?

I have studied and observed it for a long time...I haven't needed, don't need, and can not possibly for-see me ever needing or wanting medical advice. I've thought a lot about this... I've considered all the imaginable to me scenarios.I have a pretty complex imagination too. But thank you for the offer. :)

Do you meticulously study aerodynamics and engineering before you buy a plane ticket?

What if I did? Does that make me bad? Or 'paranoid'? ... what about curious? Is that acceptable?

If not, why this focus on something that you clearly have a huge gap in understanding the basics-elementary particles? Are you questioning it based on an intimate knowledge of it, or simply based on superficial understanding of what it is?

Zz.

You don't seem like you're at all interested in my motives... so why are you asking the questions about them? When I ask questions about the sciences, I am extremely interested in the motives behind why we think those things. Of course, I can't expect -everyone- to show me the same courtesy, especially because I come here to learn from YOU (the community) and expect the reader to be able to:

1. First WANT to try to make sense of my line of thinking (NOT to accept it as 'truth' or 'valid'... but to understand WHY I'm thinking it so we can communicate most effectively)

and

2. translate what they know into language that they believe makes sense to me.

And what difference does that really make what my context is when I'm coming here to understand what YOU'RE ('accepted science') saying? I'm amazed at how many times people are chiming into basically say the same thing about me, that I have an 'agenda' or almost paranoid about my intentions/motives like I'm trying to break the walls of their house down. If you think I'm trying to do that then why'd you come into the thread I created?

Did you intend to help me with your communication here? Can we call upon a moderator so I can know once and for all whether or not I'm really violating any rules here?

Is that what it means to be a mentor? Are you a mod? I just read the rules and I'm not observing any lines that I'm crossing by asking these questions... please be specific if you're going to say I'm breaking rules, I don't know what you mean.

Thanks, and sorry for the ignorance you've observed in me. :P

That's why I'm here, actually. Again, if I'm really a bother, please can you direct me to a physics forum that is more allowing of freedom of speech/ideas/logic being openly discussed and questioned for various people's interpretation? I haven't yet grown attached to anyone here, and I don't think any here has of me... so... it's not like I'll be heartbroken :P

 

[Openeye]

I disagree with Wikipedia. A fundamental particle is described by a set of both quantum numbers and a mass, that is not quantized, or at least not known to be quantized.

These numbers found stuck-together in the process of measuring them. And so when these numbers are stuck-together, its called a particle. And when these numbers are stuck-together, in the simplest manner that can be discerned, they are called a fundamental particle.

This analogy/concept makes a lot more sense to me than wikipedia's explanation.

Do others here for the most part agree with this re-translation? I am open to all theories/ideas.

Although, linguistically, you are admitting to numbers sticking together to form a particle. What are these numbers representing individually? The numbers must come together to form a particle right? So at one point they are apart, or CAN be apart otherwise there is no coming together of anything... methinks. So in the theories, what are these numbers ? what are your's/other's thoughts on this?

Thank you for your time and response(s). :)

 

[ZapperZ]

What am I proposing? I don't get it...

Fine, let's look JUST at your first post, shall we?

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle believed not to have substructure; that is, it is believed not to be made up of smaller particles."

-WikipediaHow does someone ever possibly (LOGICALLY) conclude that a particle is not made up of smaller particles? Especially when the way in which they discover particles is by bashing them together which would CREATE smaller particles (not really create, but through division) if they didn't exist before.

Surely when we fail to break open the next smallest particle, it's always going to be a question of whether or not we can build greater technology to bash them open, yes ?

If a particle can NOT be smashed/broken apart into pieces, then it is truly indestructible... yes?

HOW do we get away with assuming there is such a thing as an indestructible particle... when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that anything physical is indestructible and can not be broken into more pieces? Where is the evidence? That's what scientific theory is supposed to be based on yes... not blind faith?

We even have evidence of "elementary" or "fundamental"particles being proven not to be so:

"Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles."

To me it seems we have much more evidence of this logic being illogical, than we do to suggest that there is such a thing as an indestructible particle. Why is this persisting?

If you were to JUST ask "How can we know something is an elementary particle when we can smash them to produce other particles?", you would have been given a lot of answers. But nooooo. It appears that you can't wait to get the answer to such a question, but rather proceeded question the "logic" in what we currently call as "elementary particles". It is as if a bunch of physicists simply threw out any kind of logic and ignore the most obvious part of the history of physics by calling something as "elementary particles". This is why you got the type of reaction that you got!

1. First WANT to try to make sense of my line of thinking (NOT to accept it as 'truth' or 'valid'... but to understand WHY I'm thinking it so we can communicate most effectively)

and

2. translate what they know into language that they believe makes sense to me.

And what difference does that really make what my context is when I'm coming here to understand what YOU'RE ('accepted science') saying? I'm amazed at how many times people are chiming into basically say the same thing about me, that I have an 'agenda' or almost paranoid about my intentions/motives like I'm trying to break the walls of their house down. If you think I'm trying to do that then why'd you come into the thread I created?

Did you intend to help me with your communication here? Can we call upon a moderator so I can know once and for all whether or not I'm really violating any rules here?

Is that what it means to be a mentor? Are you a mod? I just read the rules and I'm not observing any lines that I'm crossing by asking these questions... please be specific if you're going to say I'm breaking rules, I don't know what you mean.

Thanks, and sorry for the ignorance you've observed in me. :P

That's why I'm here, actually. Again, if I'm really a bother, please can you direct me to a physics forum that is more allowing of freedom of speech/ideas/logic being openly discussed and questioned for various people's interpretation? I haven't yet grown attached to anyone here, and I don't think any here has of me... so... it's not like I'll be heartbroken :P

But again, this is exactly my point. It appears that you question all of what is accepted in science, not just what is accepted as elementary particles. So the "debate" here isn't about elementary particles, but rather how do we know what we accept to be valid is really valid? To be, that appears to be your central principle. So rather than tackle what is obviously merely an example of the application of that principle, it would have been more fruitful to tackle that central principle and see where it breaks down! But before that can happen, there must be that realization that you are using some central principle. If not, if you only pick on fundamental particles while ignoring the fact that you don't have a problem elsewhere, then this is highly inconsistent! Which was why I was curious on why you only picked on "elementary particles".

Zz.

 

[Openeye]

Fine, let's look JUST at your first post, shall we?



If you were to JUST ask "How can we know something is an elementary particle when we can smash them to produce other particles?", you would have been given a lot of answers. But nooooo. It appears that you can't wait to get the answer to such a question, but rather proceeded question the "logic" in what we currently call as "elementary particles". It is as if a bunch of physicists simply threw out any kind of logic and ignore the most obvious part of the history of physics by calling something as "elementary particles". This is why you got the type of reaction that you got!

My mistake. Clearly I have a lot on my mind. I've been repeatedly commenting and apologizing for my lack of ability to communicate what I'm asking.

I understand why I got the reaction I got... it's still amazing to me though. Just because I'm not surprised doesn't mean I'm not amazed. Thanks for clarifying though. :)

But again, this is exactly my point. It appears that you question all of what is accepted in science, not just what is accepted as elementary particles. So the "debate" here isn't about elementary particles, but rather how do we know what we accept to be valid is really valid? To be, that appears to be your central principle. So rather than tackle what is obviously merely an example of the application of that principle, it would have been more fruitful to tackle that central principle and see where it breaks down! But before that can happen, there must be that realization that you are using some central principle. If not, if you only pick on fundamental particles while ignoring the fact that you don't have a problem elsewhere, then this is highly inconsistent! Which was why I was curious on why you only picked on "elementary particles".

Zz.

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem? And is it a problem for me to ask questions in attempt to understand how it makes sense? Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'. The elementary particles may have just been the catalyst for me to reach the information I need. Is that ok? I agree that this topic has taken a shift in direction since this realization, hence that's why I asked in a previous post if I should start a new thread (and on multiple occasions have been asking where to do so).

I don't blame you for not reading all of what I'm saying... it's a lot of text... and who am I? I'm not speaking in the ways you most clearly understand. That's why I only want people to read if they want to :P Again, I figured that's what people would do anyway... seeing as we seem to have free-will in a sense, and all.

Thanks for your input :)

 

[ZapperZ]

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem? And is it a problem for me to ask questions in attempt to understand how it makes sense? Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'. The elementary particles may have just been the catalyst for me to reach the information I need. Is that ok? I agree that this topic has taken a shift in direction since this realization, hence that's why I asked in a previous post if I should start a new thread (and on multiple occasions have been asking where to do so).

I don't blame you for not reading all of what I'm saying... it's a lot of text... and who am I? I'm not speaking in the ways you most clearly understand. That's why I only want people to read if they want to :P Again, I figured that's what people would do anyway... seeing as we seem to have free-will in a sense, and all.

Thanks for your input :)

It is fine to want to have things "make sense". However, I can also do what you did by point out that what used to "make sense" no longer does, and what used to not make sense is now common place! The consequences of Special Relativity, for example, used to not make sense, not just to ordinary people, but also to physicists, so much so that they didn't award Einstein the Nobel Prize for Relativity. So relying on "common sense" has been shown to be faulty, the same way that we used to think that baryons were elementary.

The way science works is that at any point in time, the state of knowledge of what's known and verified is the best that we can know at that time. So as far as we know, the set of elementary particles that we have are just that until we can know more. All the physics that we have done in the study of, say, electrons have indicated that it has no structure.

But we all know that things could change, and this is where it is crucial to understand on how such change can come about. One either produce empirical evidence whereby what we observed just simply doesn't quite match our current understanding, or one produce a new theoretical description that differs from our current understanding that can be empirically tested and verified. There's nothing here that relies solely on "common sense". In fact, producing empirical evidence and verifiable theories are definitely stricter criteria and requirement than simply using "common sense", and that is how it should be. This is not, say, politics where one can simply try to convince another person of something simply by appealing to "common sense" that can be faulty.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem?

Yes. I don't understand how a computer works at the most basic level, but I use it everyday and since it DOES work I have no choice but to accept it. The fact that it is working and I am using it is the evidence that the science behind it is correct.

Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'.

Sure. THIS is the way we look at it now. However, there are no contradictary things happening that make us believe that there is another way other than THIS way. You've been missing the whole point this entire thread. Even if you don't understand HOW or WHY something is the way it is, it does NOT make it ok to simply say you don't think it's correct and then try to tell everyone it isn't.

Now, it seems to me that no one here can provide you with the answers you seek. Every time someone has given you an answer you question it and then want us to provide evidence for it. That is not what we are here for. If you cannot accept the things that we are trying to teach you, then this forum is not for you.

Please, don't apologize to me or try to say it's just because you don't speak the language, or whatever. This has nothing to do with the lingo or anything else like that, but simply that you cannot accept what doesn't make sense to you. If so, then fine. So be it. But instead of coming here and trying to make us see your point of view, have you tried picking up a book? Or going to wikipedia? Or taking a class? Or anything else like that? I have several books on things like Quantum Physics and Relativity and such and they usually explain very well why exactly everything is the way it is and also provide the evidence for it.

I have NO problem if you want to learn and ask questions here. Thats fine. But if you just tell us that we are wrong (Yes, that's what you have been doing this whole time) then we aren't going to help you.

 

[Openeye]

LONG POST, if you're not interested save yourself some time and turn away. :P

BTW--- I'd really much rather be discussing the logic behind physics itself, than the logic you're using to discuss physics... so maybe this post can get us over that hurdle :P

(can't believe I got to write instructions too, lol)

It is fine to want to have things "make sense". However, I can also do what you did by point out that what used to "make sense" no longer does, and what used to not make sense is now common place! The consequences of Special Relativity, for example, used to not make sense, not just to ordinary people, but also to physicists, so much so that they didn't award Einstein the Nobel Prize for Relativity. So relying on "common sense" has been shown to be faulty, the same way that we used to think that baryons were elementary.

You say this with what expectation? That I will 're-think' my approach or methodology? I can say the exact same thing to you regarding EVERY scientific model in existence... but that won't cause you to re-think the established science. How do you expect me to do what you won't? Especially when you're giving the guidance for the thing you won't do?

Of course. I'm glad you at least see that. You didn't read that from me or another person in one of my earlier posts, did you? We've been through this, couple times I think now... again that's fine... I can't expect you to read all of what I've written... I can hardly expect you to read this single post in it's entirety.

What I think is funny/amazing is, how someone can simultaneously BELIEVE/KNOW what you've just said to me, and still be SO closed to things that don't 'fit' into 'The' model(s). I'm not specifically referring to you. However in this specific case, you've using ONE side of the logic you're supplying me here... this is why I am observing a biased point of view. I will explain.

To claim that something is 'right' ... and other things are 'wrong'... while simultaneously knowing that the logical can suddenly become illogical, as the illogical becomes logical...

See... that means for the evolution of your 'models' to occur... you almost NEED to have the equivalent of a 'slap in the face' (outside force/strong evidence) to accept new information... as opposed to just coming into it on your own... A slap that hits you so hard, you can't possibly ignore it. Because right now you certainly won't listen to anything ILLOGICAL that I have to say! But what if I am speaking future 'truths' as you might call it? The illogical stuff that will become logical later? Be it a new 'discovery' that is undeniable because you/anyone can just observe it... or I were to come up with a theory that is LOGICAL -ENOUGH- TO YOU (and 'peers') to 'accept' as valid or not into the model.

This is still logical... your methodology basically requires the slap in the face... Depending on who does the slapping, it will hurt in varying degrees. For example... if someone you highly respect were to come up with something that drastically changed the model, it's likely to be less of an annoyance to you, than some random internet user like me who is slowing down and examining the decision making strategies etc... and picking apart detail by detail, with the assumption that I might be able to explain something perhaps a little more accurately. You probably don't care to do what I'm doing... maybe you see what I'm doing as a complete waste of time... maybe you've studied this for plenty long, and it already makes enough sense to you to accept.

Even though you know/admit that 'logic' is just a temporary quality... in most cases ( can not think of an exception but there probably is one somewhere) ... 'science' still requires 'logic' and what 'makes sense' to accept new information as valid/accurate! SO WHAT if it may become illogical EVENTUALLY (you're even counting on it!), but to accept new information it needs to be logical NOW... not eventually.

To me, none of this is 'right'... what you're saying or what I'm saying. Does that bother you? That something is not right or wrong... it's useful or it isn't, and here I am asking you for information from your models that _I_ can PERSONALLY determine useful for myself, or not... because I'm not blindly/instantly conforming to the existing models... And I don't see why you or anyone else who values 'science' so much, aren't at least a little glad that I'm even coming here to ask YOU questions about it instead of someone who might know 'less' and give me 'faulty' information ( as you might call it...)

Suppose I WAS able to prove something in the current models 'wrong' as someone might put it... But those possibilities are unfortunately only open to someone who cares and understands what I'm saying... because I'm not giving you any data. Just logic that data can be founded upon... and that's always optional.

As I see it, I'm speaking in logic, and 'you' (scientific community) like to speak/parrot already existing DATA (usually to point out the ways someone/something/some idea is wrong) to prove "your" points (I put "your" in quotes because I received the same exact responses to some of these questions from multiple people!) which is BUILT upon logic.

I don't like all the data flinging around so much... personally... I like to speak my own mind. I like to understand the universe/reality in my own way... because I can't not have my own experience of it... I can't not understand it differently than everyone else anyway! A lot of what I have come to understand agrees with much of physics as it exists now. But a lot of things are still questionable to me. Based on the logic you are using in the first quote... my logic MAY someday produce DATA that you find to be logical, even though right now I probably sound completely illogical to you. It may also do nothing for you or anyone... ever. So could a 6 year old child's logic. You don't (and can not in any way you can prove) know WHERE -or- WHAT the logic you might require to make the logical illogical (in ways that advance what is known) is going to come from... unless you say "myself" and decide it to be (in reference to yourself, not me :P). But then we're adding 'consciousness' into the equations and that is something I don't see you guys doing yet... or maybe ever... because the currently accepted definition of 'consciousness' is horribly vague.

But clearly, there's no obvious accuracy in predicting those things. You don't know who is going to have the next 'best' idea as you say... therefore, I can't see how NOT having a VERY open mind (even to ideas that may contradict the established sciences a little bit) is a good idea. So why so closed? EVEN when something might be 'illogical'?

Just because you're open to changing and idea when someone comes and 'proves' you wrong... doesn't mean your mind is open -at all-. In fact, it's quite closed around the logic you already have and that's the slap in the face I'm saying is inevitably felt (whether intended or not) when someone says anything that seems to go 'against' what you've come to know.

Just because an idea is heard, doesn't mean it needs to be accepted or even used... so why can't we end this whole 'right' and 'wrong' nonsense and have intellectual discussions about IDEAS... EVEN outside the language of maths/science. You never know where it might eventually lead you (or where you might take it, depending on your approach).

The way science works is that at any point in time, the state of knowledge of what's known and verified is the best that we can know at that time.

Another subtle exampled of the biased viewpoint I was referring to earlier.

First of all, as I understand it... science doesn't really 'work' or do anything. It's a tool we use. We (humans) put it together, and -we- use it. It is a reflection/collaboration of THOUGHTS and IDEAS we've carefully structured to form various processes/techniques/methodologies in efforts to accurately understand the nature of the world/universe/reality/existence/nature. That's not necessarily how it's defined by everyone, but can you tell me that isn't an accurate statement about 'science' generally speaking ?

If you can agree with that--- then that's an example of what I mean. Things can be defined in multiple ways and still be accurate/'right' in accepted models. My definitions might not be 'right' or even 'written anywhere'... while simultaneously being a perspective that hasn't been thoroughly investigated with LOGIC. Certain specific definitions of things (while not 'wrong') could very well be leading to confusion/misdirection in our viewpoints!

For example... FUNDAMENTAL or ELEMENTARY. This is why I started here. We're using terms that are subtly deciding things, if we are unclear of 'which' way to define it, it can lead to trouble. As I stated before, with infinity being obviously mis-understood, ELEMENTARY can mean any number of things depending on what we find out/determine 'infinity' to actually be...

What I quoted from you above is what you and many people WANT to believe. No one can realize the best they can know at any point in time ("best" is completely an individual's judgement call anyway, how can you just say 'science' and 'best' in the same sentence and expect that to work for everyone?)... because until you know 'everything' you can always know more. You can't know 'everything' until you at least understand INFINITY, because that is clearly part of everything... especially if you include it in your equations!

"BEST" is a perception until your models don't have gaping holes in them and are flawless (good luck!), you technically can't even 'scientifically' claim that it's in any way 'right' OR 'wrong'. It's both in many ways. I wouldn't say one 'realizes'... but ACCEPTS the best one can know at that point in time. The way in which you said this, to me, presupposes everything scientifically verified as 'right'... and it is not 'right'... it is useful in lots of ways, not useful in others, like any tool. A hammer is not 'RIGHT' or 'CORRECT'... but it can be useful for the job of pounding nails into boards. Science is "A" hammer, not "The" hammer. These ideas 'right' and 'wrong' are completely belief system oriented... and that is why there is no universal agreement on any subject... EVEN SCIENCE, no matter how obvious it may be to those who have studied it so thoroughly. There are too many unanswered questions for "science" (you or anyone claiming to be 'of' it) to be able to say any of it is 'correct'... and not be entirely full of themselves. If you do, you've clearly misunderstood the logic you spoke to me.

"Science" is (arguably) highly accurate at producing the understandings enough to build the technology we observe today... and POSSIBLY helpful at producing the technology of tomorrow. But maybe not. Maybe tomorrow you find it's all bunk, in comparison to something (yet unheard of) with less gaps in it. You don't know. Is any of this illogical to you 'currently' ? I am not stating 'right' or 'wrong'. I am stating 'logic' in which you can say makes sense to you or doesn't... and if it doesn't I'm interested in what ways... and for what reasons?

Logic is kind of like a fundamental particle for 'science.' It's worth investigating by itself... IMO. Logic makes up 'science'... and the existence of that science is going to be heavily reliant on the logic in which it's founded.

So as far as we know, the set of elementary particles that we have are just that until we can know more. All the physics that we have done in the study of, say, electrons have indicated that it has no structure.

I got this from a few other people in the thread already... but thanks for mentioning it anyway. I can understand the 'logic' behind why you might call them elementary/fundamental... I've moved beyond this bit of logic with other members here and into some other/additional questions. If you want to help provide me with further information, maybe read through some of those and get back to me even though I wasn't specifically addressing you, I'm kind just speaking to anyone because I'm open to take responses from anyone.

But we all know that things could change, and this is where it is crucial to understand on how such change can come about.

Often times it's not accepted/known how something works until AFTER it's observed. For example... every accidental discovery. So really, it's not always crucial to understand 'how' changes can come about... it's just desired or not... typically desired because we tend to like to be able to explain things. And even accidents can become a part of 'science's' methodology... otherwise we'd have to take back every accidental invention/discovery and say "science" wasn't at all responsible for it, but a series of 'random' or 'not random' unintentional events were.

One either produce empirical evidence whereby what we observed just simply doesn't quite match our current understanding, or one produce a new theoretical description that differs from our current understanding that can be empirically tested and verified. There's nothing here that relies solely on "common sense".

I know I know... when there is new theories and ideas... "where is the application?" Well... we may not see applications for theories until they're at least ACCEPTED by -SOMEONE- enough to use them. There's lots of theories out there by regular joes who just don't get any attention because their ideas are 'illogical' relative to what is already established/widely accepted... and for that very reason they're ignored! You could not think of applications for a bicycle, until you at least know of a bicycle. And you can not know of the bicycle, if when the inventor of the bicycle knocks on your door and says "I've got something you've never seen or thought of before!" ... and before you get a chance to really see or 'know' the bicycle ... "wtf? I don't know what to do with that... go away. That doesn't make sense with what I know or how I operate." ... Just like we can not think of applications for the technologies we don't know exist yet!

I have hardly -said- ANYTHING, in fact... especially in the beginning I had mostly been asking questions and STILL was receiving this treatment... not to mention a few of you taking defensive action when I ask questions that may eventually lead to the tarnish on the trophy of 'science', rubbing off a little... but see, while some go "HEY, My trophy!" I think of this as a good thing... because I think the trophy is painted gold, but really is platinum underneath. The value may be increasing.

But I don't really want to touch the trophy... I just want to learn more about it. If it is platinum underneath the gold as I suspect, I don't necessarily care if -you- know it... I'm interested for myself.

about 80% certain I've lost you w/ the metaphors... and I'm typing a lot again... so I'm wrapping this one up.

In fact, producing empirical evidence and verifiable theories are definitely stricter criteria and requirement than simply using "common sense", and that is how it should be. This is not, say, politics where one can simply try to convince another person of something simply by appealing to "common sense" that can be faulty.

Zz.

Here you are again subtly suggesting that I'm trying to convince someone else of something... or that these are my methods. Again... You'll use logic or common sense when it makes sense with what you already know... but when it doesn't... it's as good as ignorable. Much like a majority of what I've said here has not been read/ignored/unaddressed by most of the repliers... Why can't you just think of me as a selfish person who's only here to get information for himself? That's a little more accurate than this projection you're observing in me trying to convince someone else of something. I don't know you, or anyone else here.. OR the potential of 'help' anyone can be. I'm just asking valid questions and seeing what I get back... but not so much in this post.

I like to respond to everyone if I can, because I enjoy the interactions... but if you or anyone else is going to keep trying to pin this "you're trying to convince me of things" nonsense on me I'm going to ignore it. If you don't like to challenge/analyze conventional thinking, then it's probably not going to be -any- fun reading what I'm saying... so save yourself some time. :)

 

[Drakkith]

Openeye, in you're original post you stated that we have no evidence that fundamental particles are fundamental. You're reasoning was that because we had found that in the past that what we thought were fundamental turned out not to be. The problem is that we DO have evidence that they are fundamental.

(The Following is very general and basic, and I don't claim it to be 100% absolute correct, but merely a good example.)
Take an electron. When we smash electrons into each other at low enough energies, what happens? Nothing! The electrons simply bounce off of each other. So let's increase the energy. At a certain point we see that smashing electrons together we see that thing start coming out of this collision. Things such as quarks, photons, positrons, and a mess of other particles. Now the key here is that ALL of these particles coming out of this collision are different particles than the electron. Some have masses MUCH greater than an electron. Can these possibly make up an electron? NO! This is a result of the conversion of energy to mass!

At no point in these experiments did we see anything that would suggest that an electron is made up of smaller particles.

Now, after saying that, I MUST point out that at any point, if ANYONE brings forward REPUTABLE EVIDENCE that an electron is made up of smaller particles, then 10,000 scientists around the world will go "Hrmm...Interesting...let's see if we can duplicate the results!". And then they will go build the required machines and experiments or do the required math and if it turns out that all of these ALSO show it to be true, THEN science will change the electron from an elementary particle to a composite one!

 

[Openeye]

Yes. I don't understand how a computer works at the most basic level, but I use it everyday and since it DOES work I have no choice but to accept it. The fact that it is working and I am using it is the evidence that the science behind it is correct.

"THE evidence" that the science behind it is "correct"... I understand the logic believe it or not that you're trying to push on me here... but you're using inaccurate words like "Correct" ... and "the" evidence... when evidence is just evidence. To call it "The"evidence means that's entirely enough to assume you're 'correct'.. There's that word. Only I was saying "right"...not "correct". This is exactly what I just addressed in the huge post you won't read just before this one. I can't help it if you don't read. Just do me a favor... don't reply to what I'm saying unless you READ IT. You didn't contribute anything new with what you said here.

Sure. THIS is the way we look at it now. However, there are no contradictary things happening that make us believe that there is another way other than THIS way.

Thank you for your belief. When did that become universally correct for everyone and not a belief you're collectively sharing? Oh, -BEFORE- you defined it as a belief. Well that really doesn't make sense at all, unless you're losing accuracy or just oblivious to what you're saying.

You've been missing the whole point this entire thread. Even if you don't understand HOW or WHY something is the way it is, it does NOT make it ok to simply say you don't think it's correct and then try to tell everyone it isn't.

There are no contradictory 'things' perhaps, but I'm pointing out the contradictory lines of thought being taken by the people FOLLOWING this 'correctness'. Such as calling things "correct" when they're JUST methods that produce working results... I'm not claiming there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way... but that there are MANY 'right' and 'wrong' ways. Just because a computer works doesn't mean anything is 'right' or 'wrong'... it means you know how to build a computer that functions. You can build all kinds of different working computers using different methodologies... you just succeeded to build one using THAT methodology. Congratulations. You seem fixated on this idea of "Correct" and it's opposite.

Now, it seems to me that no one here can provide you with the answers you seek. Every time someone has given you an answer you question it and then want us to provide evidence for it. That is not what we are here for. If you cannot accept the things that we are trying to teach you, then this forum is not for you.

I don't want you to teach me anything, Drakkith. There are others here who have been (in my consideration) far more accurate and helpful, IMO. Here you are getting upset that I'm not just accepting what YOU say, and suggesting that I go elsewhere because you don't know how to deal with me.

Is this not the place for intellectual discussion? And just because -you- don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean in 2 months someone won't come and see this and be able to contribute something great. I'm not going anywhere by choice... I am actually receiving answers here.

Please, don't apologize to me or try to say it's just because you don't speak the language, or whatever. This has nothing to do with the lingo or anything else like that, but simply that you cannot accept what doesn't make sense to you. If so, then fine. So be it. But instead of coming here and trying to make us see your point of view, have you tried picking up a book? Or going to wikipedia? Or taking a class? Or anything else like that? I have several books on things like Quantum Physics and Relativity and such and they usually explain very well why exactly everything is the way it is and also provide the evidence for it.

I won't apologize to you. You've clearly not read my posts completely due to your obvious prejudice against me and my methods of understanding things... and the best you have is to just call me a liar about it?

Thanks for that. You've clearly lost all stable ground to stand on. If you've read my posts you'd see that I've been to wikipedia numerous times... you'd understand my reasoning for coming to a forum as opposed to the other options. Oh wait, no no no... I'm lying about that, according to you. You know better about me than me, apparently :) Amazing what your understanding of science does for you.

I have NO problem if you want to learn and ask questions here. Thats fine. But if you just tell us that we are wrong (Yes, that's what you have been doing this whole time) then we aren't going to help you.

If you are reading what I'm saying and feeling like you're wrong, then just kindly migrate to a different thread. I don't want your prejudice, biased opinion of who you think I am. Not once have I personally attacked anyone here, but that is not the same respect I am shown, because some people can't get out of their own head for a minute to not take things personally. I DONT BELIEVE IN RIGHT OR WRONG. I've said this numerous times in different ways now. Either read what I say, or don't. Stop skimming... it doesn't work well with what I say. If you feel right or wrong based on my QUESTIONS and OPINIONS that's entirely your own perception. Get over yourself! I am free to think, say, and be what I wish... so long as I am not breaking any of the rules! And I HAVENT! I've been accused of it multiple times for things I haven't even actually done. Well if there's a rule about maximum sized posts then maybe I have... but I didn't see it. So simply don't respond to me if you don't like me... don't pay attention to what I'm saying then if you feel I'm just telling you how wrong you are. I've found agreement with a few people here already--- but you are not seeing it because to you, it's almost as if I'm some character with traits you've imagined that aren't there...

 

[Drakkith]

Openeye, you can pick apart my posts and get nitpicky with my choice of words all day long if you want, but it still comes down to you not BELIEVING that what we are giving you as the evidence and reasons is correct. Here, I'll quote you.

This makes sense as to how it could be concluded. Personally, I feel this is still a HUGE assumption... so I leave it open as surely possible... but currently see no reason to use that as a reason to aim my focus to the idea of elementary, because infinity is admittedly mis-understood/not agreed upon completely.

So, given a perfectly good explanation of the evidence, you just don't believe it. THAT is why we are acting the way we are towards you. Simply put, the evidence we have shows that it is elementary. If you don't believe that or you want to try to argue that it might not be, then the place to do that is not here.

 

[pallidin]

I would offer to the PF Mentor that this thread should be closed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which sounds like a good place to end this.