Let's be honest, we don't actually know if particles exist.

[metacogitans]

Every elementary particle discovered is later found to consist of additional constituent particles, and there has never been a way for us to determine whether or not that continues indefinitely with particles being perpetually divisible.

 

For a particle to always consist of another tier of constituent particles at a smaller scale would be tantamount to there not being such thing as 'particles', only waves and energy -- and matter could be described more generally as an elemental material 'essence' or cloud, with indefinite form.

 

Chemistry, as a science, accurately and consistently describes interactions of elements; it does not detail a science for particles like theoretical physics often will. The periodic table is structured to describe patterns in behavior of material elements and how they are organized relative to one another -- what it is, and how it was discovered and assembled, never required, necessitated, or implied the existence of particles, or that a given body of matter is made up of a discrete number of particles.

 

Avogadro's number has no role or application outside of offering a possible explanation to give us some kind of perspective when considering the neutronic ratios of different bodies of mass.

 

Every experiment said to prove the existence of particles has an alternative explanation:

 

- electron microscopes are structured to emit similar-portion bursts in discrete intervals -- in this case, the electron's mass can only be measured in terms of energy, and vice versa.

- 'detector plates' and other apparatus for determining the presence of a particle are, by design, going to relay that every interaction within certain parameters was a 'particle'.

- experiments showing the conservation of mass pertains to mass, not particles.

- experiements where a body off mass is repeatedly divided into smaller and smaller amounts down to individual particles when they can no longer be split are actually limited by the apparatus which does the 'splitting', and can only be divided to the extent which the apparatus allows.

- Since all fine measurements are made with equipment following the same standard and definitions, inconsistencies in 'particle numbers' are difficult to notice.

 

 

I like referencing this 'missing piece' puzzle to show how greatly error can appear in such a small area, making measurements unreliable:

And that is error present in only a 13x5 section of a grid; when dealing with scales exponentially removed from our own, how much certainty can we really have for any measurement?

I like to think that other instances of the 'missing piece' puzzle can be found all around us, and one of the rarest things to actually exist is certainty.

 

__________________________

 

(Added with Edit)

 

Even if we try to assume the existence of discrete particles, we are forced to begin making exceptions on just how 'particle-like' in nature they really are, due to various physical laws and principles:

- The relative nature of time and space has the implication at microcosmic scales that our metrics of measurements for various properties begin to cross over and meld together, meaning that the criteria of 'structure' for a particle has to be broadened to allow for particles being amorphous chaotic blobs rather than possessing a distinct structure...

- Particle's having a set geometric structure would violate the speed of light, as one section of a particle's structure accelerating could not cause the rest of the structure to accelerate with instantaneity and unison without having been transferred throughout the structure faster than the speed of light. If, however, the intrinsic structure of particles is dynamic, then it would imply there are more constituent particles -- at what point would we actually have a particle by definition?

 

If we lump this particle paradox as belonging to the standard model, we may owe it several other known 'problems' in physics as well, such as the presence of dark matter, and the anomalous abundance of leptons (why don't we ever 'run out' of electrons? Wouldn't bodies of mass eventually lose most of their electrons to the expanse of space? If we leave 'particle' out of the definition of an electron, they could be thought of as forming spontaneously with high enough energy.

Edited February 18, 2017 by metacogitans

[Sensei]

Every experiment said to prove the existence of particles has an alternative explanation:

Highly accelerated, charged particles, such as electron, positron, proton, muon, pion+-, kaon+-, are leaving traces in Cloud Chamber, and it can be seen by naked eye.

 

It's possible to even see electrons and alpha particles bouncing from other more heavier particles, as f.e. Gold foil like in this experiment (called Gold foil experiment):

 

Whether some particle is stable/unstable,

whether it's elementary or composite,

is completely different story,

and it's exactly under study of quantum physics.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Sensei

[swansont]

Every elementary particle discovered is later found to consist of additional constituent particles

 

 

 

What particles make up the electron?

[Strange]

Every elementary particle discovered is later found to consist of additional constituent particles, and there has never been a way for us to determine whether or not that continues indefinitely with particles being perpetually divisible.

 

 

This is blatantly false.

 

Chemistry, as a science, accurately and consistently describes interactions of elements; it does not detail a science for particles like theoretical physics often will. The periodic table is structured to describe patterns in behavior of material elements and how they are organized relative to one another -- what it is, and how it was discovered and assembled, never required, necessitated, or implied the existence of particles, or that a given body of matter is made up of a discrete number of particles.

 

Of course, the periodic table was developed, and used for a long time, with no explanation for why the elements fit into those patterns. The model of atoms containing electrons explains these patterns.

 

Do we know electrons exists? Ultimately, no: we don't know that anything exists. But we can be just as confident in the existence of electrons as we can in the existence of rocks.

 

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it [/size]thus."[/size]

Boswell: Life

 

 

- Particle's having a set geometric structure would violate the speed of light, as one section of a particle's structure accelerating could not cause the rest of the structure to accelerate with instantaneity and unison without having been transferred throughout the structure faster than the speed of light.

 

As fundamental particles have zero size, this problem doesn't arise.

 

If, however, the intrinsic structure of particles is dynamic, then it would imply there are more constituent particles -- at what point would we actually have a particle by definition?

 

As there is no evidence of internal structure, this problem doesn't arise.

 

If we lump this particle paradox ...

 

I suppose it is always possible to invent two untrue "facts" and then claim to have found a paradox. Not a very useful approach, though.

[metacogitans]

 

 

What particles make up the electron?

You might call me crazy but I don't think electrons are particles at all; I think they are stowed kinetic potential.

Leptons have always been considered slightly removed from traditionally defined particles such as a hadrons, haven't they?

 

I suspect that electrons can form sporadically/spontaneously when an interaction occurs with high enough energy (basically, if you imagine waves of energy, forces, or what have you, interacting with matter with enough energy, it will get caught in the jumbling between the electrons already present in the matter, and residual kinetic fluctuations within the matter after the interaction may actually be new free electrons; although presumably with no positive charge to pair with, they would quickly go to wherever it is excess electrons usually go (into the ground, making a material negative ionic, etc).

Edited February 18, 2017 by metacogitans

[Strange]

You might call me crazy but I don't think electrons are particles at all; I think they are stowed kinetic potential.

 

 

So your claim that they are made up of other particles was (a) wrong and (b) totally irrelevant.

 

 

 

Leptons have always been considered slightly removed from traditionally defined particles such as a hadrons, haven't they?

 

What do you mean by "slightly removed"?

 

They are different classes of particles. Hadrons are made up of other (fundamental) particles. Is that what you mean?

 

 

 

I suspect that electrons can form sporadically/spontaneously when an interaction occurs with high enough energy

 

This would violate several conservation laws and so cannot happen.

If we lump this particle paradox as belonging to the standard model, we may owe it several other known 'problems' in physics as well, such as the presence of dark matter, and the anomalous abundance of leptons (why don't we ever 'run out' of electrons?

 

 

What is this "anomalous abundance of leptons"? Can you provide a reference?

 

And why would we "run out" of electrons. They don't decay so where do you think they go?

 

 

 

Wouldn't bodies of mass eventually lose most of their electrons to the expanse of space?

 

No, because there is an equal and opposite positive charge in the atom and it takes significant energy to remove electrons from an atom.

 

 

 

Resident Speculator of the Physics Section

 

There is a different between (scientific) speculation and just making things up that have no basis in reality (and are contradicted by evidence).

[Argent]

You might call me crazy but I don't think electrons are particles at all; I think they are stowed kinetic potential.

Leptons have always been considered slightly removed from traditionally defined particles such as a hadrons, haven't they?

 

I suspect that electrons can form sporadically/spontaneously when an interaction occurs with high enough energy (basically, if you imagine waves of energy, forces, or what have you, interacting with matter with enough energy, it will get caught in the jumbling between the electrons already present in the matter, and residual kinetic fluctuations within the matter after the interaction may actually be new free electrons; although presumably with no positive charge to pair with, they would quickly go to wherever it is excess electrons usually go (into the ground, making a material negative ionic, etc).

I suppose on some sort of metaphysical level we do not know for sure if particles really exist. On the other hand there does seem to be a lot more evidence for them than your apparently unevidenced speculation. I can see the point of questioning their existence. That, I suppose, is what science does, but I don't see what answer you got to the questioning that made your speculation seem more likely.

[Phi for All]

You might call me crazy but I don't think electrons are particles at all; I think they are stowed kinetic potential.

 

!

Moderator Note

Due to the non-mainstream nature the thread has taken, we need to move this to Speculations. You know the drill there.

[StringJunky]

It's only electrostatic repulsion that makes something seem 'solid' and 'existing' according to our sensory apparatus and commonsense.I think mordred has said that it''s all just excitations within fields really and a thread we've had recently on what fields are is a rabbit-hole all of its own... or should I say "rabbit-warren".

Edited February 18, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

You might call me crazy but I don't think electrons are particles at all; I think they are stowed kinetic potential.

You got a model and/or evidence?

 

Leptons have always been considered slightly removed from traditionally defined particles such as a hadrons, haven't they?

Since leptons are not hadrons, this is trivially true.

 

I suspect that electrons can form sporadically/spontaneously when an interaction occurs with high enough energy (basically, if you imagine waves of energy, forces, or what have you, interacting with matter with enough energy, it will get caught in the jumbling between the electrons already present in the matter, and residual kinetic fluctuations within the matter after the interaction may actually be new free electrons; although presumably with no positive charge to pair with, they would quickly go to wherever it is excess electrons usually go (into the ground, making a material negative ionic, etc).

Evidence?

[jketter]

Just wanted to note your triangle example isn't one of error, it's of perception. The red and blue triangles have slightly different angles and so the area difference is accounted for by the fact that the assembled "triangle" is actually not a triangle at all (in either case).