[charles1948 (OP)]

What's the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in each atom.

Thus the Physicist inhabits an abstract world of numbers, quite divorced from reality.

So you think the number of particles in an atom is divorced from reality, huh?

Look, these days Physicists have invoked so many "particles" that they've lost count.

They've invented more particles than real Chemical elements.  How can that make sense?

 Isn't it like someone suggesting that there are more "letters of the alphabet", than exist in real written words?

[Kryptid]

They've invented...

The correct word is "discovered".

...more particles than real Chemical elements.

So you've counted them? I somewhat doubt there are more than 118 known subatomic particles, but I'm willing to be corrected on this if you can find a list.

How can that make sense?

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

 Isn't it like someone suggesting that there are more "letters of the alphabet", than exist in real written words?

No, because letters are abstract concepts. Subatomic particles are not.

[charles1948 (OP)]

When you say :"letters are abstract concepts", this is false.

I can confute it by showing you a letter:  Here it is  A

Now show me a sub-atomic particle. A Higgs Boson would do nicely.

[Kryptid]

When you say :"letters are abstract concepts", this is false.

I can confute it by showing you a letter:  Here it is : A

Those are pixels on a screen that represent a concept.

Now show me a Higgs Boson.

I didn't know you had microscopic vision.

[charles1948 (OP)]

Even microscopic vision wouldn't reveal a Higgs Boson,  as it doesn't exist.

[Kryptid]

Even microscopic vision wouldn't reveal a Higgs Boson,  as it doesn't exist.

Begging the question fallacy.

[charles1948 (OP)]

I believe that electrons really exist.  Because if they didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation on our computers.
Which are powered by currents of electrons.

But as for the Higgs Boson, it's not real.  It's a product of Physicists' imagination.

Don't you know that, in your heart and mind?

[Kryptid]

Don't you know that, in your heart and mind?

I would be a science denialist if I agreed (or a conspiracy theorist, or maybe both).

[charles1948 (OP)]

Science is not a matter of "denial".   It's looking at things objectively.  And from that, arriving at the truth.

[Kryptid]

Science is not a matter of "denial".

Obviously.

It's looking at things objectively.  And from that, arriving at the truth.

Objective evidence for the Higgs has been found, so that checks the boxes (unless you either want to argue (1) there's a conspiracy involved, or (2) particle physicists are morons and you know more about their experiments and equipment than they do).

[alancalverd]

They've invented more particles than real Chemical elements.  How can that make sense?

In the same way that there are more bricks than houses.

[charles1948 (OP)]

They've invented more particles than real Chemical elements.  How can that make sense?

In the same way that there are more bricks than houses.

But bricks are all the same.  Whereas to follow your analogy,  the builders of a house would be confronted by all kinds of different bricks. Which would confuse them so much, that they couldn't actually construct anything.
 
Isn't that the state modern Physicists find themselves in?

[Kryptid]

Which would confuse them so much, that they couldn't actually construct anything.

It honestly sounds like you doubt the Standard Model because it confuses you.

Isn't that the state modern Physicists find themselves in?

Nope. The vast majority of particles are made up of quarks, which makes it far easier to classify and understand them.

[alancalverd]

But bricks are all the same

Not to a builder or architect.

[charles1948 (OP)]

How many "quarks" are there.  Will there be "anti-quarks" discovered?  Which are mirror-images of standard quarks.  But with some incomprehensible difference.

What will that difference be described as?

We've already used up epithets such as "colour", "charm"  "up" "down"  "bottom"  "strange" and so on

May I suggest variations on "bonkers"?

[Kryptid]

But with some incomprehensible difference.

You do know that the argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, don't you? That's pretty much the entire feel of your posts on this topic.

[charles1948 (OP)]

But with some incomprehensible difference.

You do know that the argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, don't you? That's pretty much the entire feel of your posts on this topic.

Why is it necessarily a "logical fallacy" to argue from incredulity?

For example, suppose you posted this suggestion (not that you would, I know. Just as a hypothesis)

"Drinking bleach makes you immune to Covid-19"

And I expressed incredulity.  Would that make me guilty of a logical fallacy?  Why would it?

[Janus]

How many "quarks" are there.

6  Up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom ( top and bottom were, for a while, called truth and Beauty, but soberer heads prevailed)

  Will there be "anti-quarks" discovered?  Which are mirror-images of standard quarks.  But with some incomprehensible difference.

Anti-quarks already are part of the family,  They are what make up antiprotons and antineutrons.  Their properties are just the opposite of their counterparts (opposite charge, for example.)

[Kryptid]

Why is it necessarily a "logical fallacy" to argue from incredulity?

Because you are implying that something isn't true because you don't understand it.

I don't understand calculus. Therefore calculus is wrong.

And I expressed incredulity.  Would that make me guilty of a logical fallacy?  Why would it?

It would be a logical fallacy if you were using your own inability to understand it as evidence that it is wrong. It wouldn't be a logical fallacy if you pointed out valid, biochemistry-based reasons why it is wrong. So far, you haven't provided any reason why the Standard Model is wrong beyond it being "confusing" or "bonkers" or "it's in their imagination".

[evan_au]

They've invented more particles than real Chemical elements.  How can that make sense?

It is true that in the 1960s, many new particles were being discovered that didn't seem to fit into any pattern.
- This came to be called the "particle zoo"
- The huge range of observed particles was simplified with the introduction of quarks.
- These different particles were revealed as diquarks and triquarks (more recently, tetraquarks & pentaquarks have also been discovered).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_zoo

This has some parallels with the situation in chemistry in the 1800s, with new elements were being discovered that didn't seem to fit into any pattern.
- The huge number of observed elements was simplified with the introduction of the periodic table, which (it was discovered later) relate to electron shells.
- A lot of chemistry questions were further resolved with the discovery of electrons, protons and neutrons.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table#First_categorizations

You could draw some parallels with the situation in biology in the 1900s, with many species known (a real zoo).
- The huge number of species were simplified with the discovery of DNA
- A lot of biology questions were further resolved with the ability to sequence genomes into A, T, C & G bases.

Science seems to progress in two phases:
- Categorization, where groups of disparate samples are combined into general categories and explained as a pattern
- Differentiation, where small differences from the general pattern are explored, often producing a more detailed pattern

I suggest that you start with the current categories in Physics: The Standard Model and General Relativity (even though physicists know that they are incomplete, it is the best we have at the moment!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity