Are they solid?
What do you mean by that in this context? Everything we typically consider to be a solid is mostly empty space anyways.Martin Q. Blank said:
Are they solid?
Good questions. I expect Astro or darg will correct me if I'm wrong, but the search for a truly fundamental particle continues. Here is a pretty interesting article on what we know so far: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-small-is-an-elementary-particle-2613f96b86e1#.kq3my1nglMartin Q. Blank said:
That's true. The farther down we go, the more we discover matter is mostly nothing except for the newly discovered smaller thing. Does this happen ad infinitum?
Follow up question, the Big Bang theory posits that the universe was once an "infinite density" (according to wikipedia). What does that mean? Was that truly "solid"? Or was there empty space between particles?
1) I do not believe we know the answer to this question. What happened "before" the Big Bang may forever be beyond our ability to prove.Martin Q. Blank said:
1. What was the infinite density? A single "truly fundamental particle"?
2. "Truly fundamental particle" (by which you mean indivisible) is what I mean by "solid." Does such a thing exist? Wouldn't it also be of infinite density?
Martin Q. Blank said:
Are they solid?
I think you're right that it would boil down to "belief." One side says we've made it to the bottom. The other side says we haven't, but simply don't have the means. The limits of science I guess.Woody2006 said:1) I do not believe we know the answer to this question. What happened "before" the Big Bang may forever be beyond our ability to prove.Martin Q. Blank said:
1. What was the infinite density? A single "truly fundamental particle"?
2. "Truly fundamental particle" (by which you mean indivisible) is what I mean by "solid." Does such a thing exist? Wouldn't it also be of infinite density?
2) There is disagreement within the scientific community about this subject. I think most believe that there are truly indivisible particles, but it could be that we simply cannot reach energies high enough to experimentally observe them. I'm not certain about this point, but I believe you would have to reach infinite energy levels to achieve infinite density.
No, I'm sure I misstated something along the way. Our current understanding of quarks is that they are fundamental. I'm not going to preclude the possibility that our current understanding is wrong, however.AstroAg17 said:
Do you have a source that says string theory hypothesizes that quarks can be broken down into smaller things? You may be right, but I thought quarks were just string states and were therefore as fundamental as the strings.
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I don't know of anyone saying we've figured it all out. There are way too many open questions.Martin Q. Blank said:I think you're right that it would boil down to "belief." One side says we've made it to the bottom. The other side says we haven't, but simply don't have the means. The limits of science I guess.Woody2006 said:1) I do not believe we know the answer to this question. What happened "before" the Big Bang may forever be beyond our ability to prove.Martin Q. Blank said:
1. What was the infinite density? A single "truly fundamental particle"?
2. "Truly fundamental particle" (by which you mean indivisible) is what I mean by "solid." Does such a thing exist? Wouldn't it also be of infinite density?
2) There is disagreement within the scientific community about this subject. I think most believe that there are truly indivisible particles, but it could be that we simply cannot reach energies high enough to experimentally observe them. I'm not certain about this point, but I believe you would have to reach infinite energy levels to achieve infinite density.
I knew there was a Star Trek reference to be made, but I couldn't put my finger on it.Dad-O-Lot said:
Believe was the wrong word there. Replace it with the word "expect" and I think my statement is more accurate.Martin Q. Blank said:
You said "I think most believe..."
Faith and expectation are not the same thing.Martin Q. Blank said:
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Quote:
The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea.