- #1
Openeye
- 29
- 0
"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.
-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.