The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: particles  (Read 2747 times)

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3156
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
particles
« on: 15/05/2015 19:23:46 »
''In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion.''


Call me stupid, how can all these particles be true?   one particle makes everything it is not mix and match. 

My logic tells me that if I took a stone and turned it into dust. then took a single particle of dust and turned that into dust, and so on, eventually it would be massless.

but, it would still only be one thing and not a multitude of imagination.


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #1 on: 15/05/2015 19:34:14 »

My logic tells me that if I took a stone and turned it into dust. then took a single particle of dust and turned that into dust, and so on, eventually it would be massless.


And there you would be wrong, as everyone from Democritus to Dalton and beyond, has known.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #2 on: 15/05/2015 20:44:51 »
''In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion.''


Call me stupid, how can all these particles be true?   one particle makes everything it is not mix and match. 

My logic tells me that if I took a stone and turned it into dust. then took a single particle of dust and turned that into dust, and so on, eventually it would be massless.

but, it would still only be one thing and not a multitude of imagination.

Maybe there is some fundamental particle that is the essence of everything, but so far we haven't found it.

What we have found are many types of subatomic particles, some of which can be broken down into smaller particles, and some which (so far) appear to be  not made of anything simpler. These particles that appear to be the most simple particles are called elementary particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle).

Be careful about applying logic without considering any experimental results (whether done by you or someone else). While it might seem obvious at first that breaking a substance like stone down should only produce smaller pieces of stone, this can be disproved. Just like you can't smash a car into little cars, you can't smash a molecule or atom into smaller versions of themselves, they break into parts that are different.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #3 on: 17/05/2015 22:32:29 »
Just like you can't smash a car into little cars, you can't smash a molecule or atom into smaller versions of themselves, they break into parts that are different.
Good way to put it, wish I'd thought of that.
I'll tell that to my granddaughter, she's 3 and really into 'why'.  ......... and why and why and why and ........
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #4 on: 19/05/2015 14:35:32 »
  one particle makes everything it is not mix and match. 


We need to get to the basics here. What does "particle" mean? It is a minute fragment or quantity of matter.

This is very problematic though, because it means what if nature is fundamentally not comprised of quantities of matter, but much more advanced concepts which we have yet to come to terms with? I think this is more true than inventing particle after particle to plug holes in math equations.

Hole plugging is in vogue though, (begun with the invention of the neutrino, and continues to this day with neutrino oscillation, which is unfalsifiable btw) so anybody who questions it will be ridiculed and peer reviewed out of existence. So where do we go from here when scientists still do not understand the fundamentals of nature? How gravity works, how magnetism works, what causes mass, etc. are questions that have not been answered.

Should we continue inventing particle after particle, or going back to basics: Why do elements possess different properties? What causes magnetism, what causes gravity, what causes mass? Just saying there are magnetism particles or mass particles or gravity particles is a dead end philosophy. Clearly we need something better or else humanity will be stuck in this mess of believing nature is comprised of billiard balls.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #5 on: 19/05/2015 22:45:58 »
...enter: The Fields... dun dun duh!
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #6 on: 21/05/2015 14:52:01 »
Quote from: jeffreyw
We need to get to the basics here. What does "particle" mean? It is a minute fragment or quantity of matter.
There are various definitions of the word particle. Regarding your question It is a minute fragment or quantity of matter the answer is yes. :)   Did you look that up before asking? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle
Quote
A particle is a minute fragment or quantity of matter. In the physical sciences, the word is used to describe a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass; subatomic particles such as protons or neutrons; and other elementary particles. The word is rather general in meaning, and is refined as needed by various scientific fields. Something that is composed of particles may be referred to as being particulate. However, the term particulate is most frequently used to refer to pollutants in the Earth's atmosphere, which are a suspension of unconnected particles, rather than a connected particle aggregation.

Quote from: jeffreyw
I think this is more true than inventing particle after particle to plug holes in math equations.
Where on Earth did you ever get that idea from? Particles are observed in particle accelerators and therefore exist. We only predict their existence using theory (which we use math to describe.

Quote from: jeffreyw
Hole plugging is in vogue though, (begun with the invention of the neutrino, and continues to this day with neutrino oscillation, which is unfalsifiable btw) so anybody who questions it will be ridiculed and peer reviewed out of existence. So where do we go from here when scientists still do not understand the fundamentals of nature? How gravity works, how magnetism works, what causes mass, etc. are questions that have not been answered.

Should we continue inventing particle after particle, or going back to basics: Why do elements possess different properties? What causes magnetism, what causes gravity, what causes mass? Just saying there are magnetism particles or mass particles or gravity particles is a dead end philosophy. Clearly we need something better or else humanity will be stuck in this mess of believing nature is comprised of billiard balls.
Come on Jeff. You should know better than that by now.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #7 on: 21/05/2015 15:29:36 »
Hole plugging is in vogue though, (begun with the invention of the neutrino, and continues to this day with neutrino oscillation, which is unfalsifiable btw)

It goes back way beyond that. Practically every particle and several astronomical objects were proposed and named by that process, long before they were discovered. Nobody likes unfalsifiable hypotheses, but the detection of a single neutrino makes a lot of difference to our understanding of the world.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: particles
« Reply #8 on: 25/05/2015 15:19:02 »
Quote from: jeffreyw
Hole plugging is in vogue though,...
"Hole plugging" is a seriously flawed way of looking at it. Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of neutrinos to explain how  beta decay could conserve energy, momentum, and angular momentum (spin). That's a standard method of logical induction in physics and most other sciences. Calling it "hole plugging" makes it appear that there's something illegitimate about it when in fact it's nothing of the kind.

Quote from: jeffreyw
...and continues to this day with neutrino oscillation, which is unfalsifiable btw
That's news to me. Where's your proof?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: particles
« Reply #8 on: 25/05/2015 15:19:02 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums