Sub Atomic Particles

[ParaTed2k]

Everything is made up of elements, but what elements are sub atomic particles made up of?

I've asked this question for awhile, the normal answers range from "quarks" to "strings". They don't really answer the question though, since "quarks" and "strings" are parts, not substances.

What do you think?

[gallo]

Subatomic particles aren't made up of elements. Subatomic particles make up the elements.

Your question is like saying, chemicals are made of atoms. What chemicals are atoms made of. In other words, it's nonsense.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Everything is made up of elements, but what elements are sub atomic particles made up of? I've asked this question for awhile, the normal answers range from "quarks" to "strings". They don't really answer the question though, since "quarks" and "strings" are parts, not substances. What do you think?

Seems like you got your answer.

but stop asking the equavalent of "what words make up letters?"

You have GOT to get your information from somewhere other than fiction books.

Science/AAAS | Scientific research, news and career information

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: gallo Subatomic particles aren't made up of elements. Subatomic particles make up the elements. Your question is like saying, chemicals are made of atoms. What chemicals are atoms made of. In other words, it's nonsense.

Right, sub atomic particles make up the elements. So, what substances are subatomic particles made up of? Is "quark" a substance, or a component?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Seems like you got your answer. but stop asking the equavalent of "what words make up letters?" You have GOT to get your information from somewhere other than fiction books. Science/AAAS | Scientific research, news and career information

Oh yeah, then there is the disappointing response... the one from someone who would rather make fun of me for asking the question than actually try to answer it.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Right, sub atomic particles make up the elements. So, what substances are subatomic particles made up of? Is "quark" a substance, or a component?

Atom is greek for indivisible, meaning it was thought atoms ARE the ultimate building blocks of matter.

We now know we were close, but theres actually things even atoms are made of. For the time being, we dont think there is anything smaller than quarks, but strings have been given as a possibility, but its not too promising.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Atom is greek for indivisible, meaning it was thought atoms ARE the ultimate building blocks of matter. We now know we were close, but theres actually things even atoms are made of. For the time being, we dont think there is anything smaller than quarks, but strings have been given as a possibility, but its not too promising.

Right. But my question is, what substances are quarks made up of?

I'm not sure science has learned that yet, which is possible. In that case, "we don't know yet" is a legitimate answer. I'm just wondering if it is known or not.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Right. But my question is, what substances are quarks made up of? I'm not sure science has learned that yet, which is possible. In that case, "we don't know yet" is a legitimate answer. I'm just wondering if it is known or not.

Its not known. but we cant say if there is anything on a smaller level.

[Domino]

(edit: Well, my reply sure came later than I thought it would... :) )

His question leads to a valid point: if we claim to have multiple unique, indivisible particles, one must wonder what gives them their uniqueness. By what mechanism is a quark different from a lepton? They say that quarks change flavor in the nucleus through the exchange of gluons, yet, if a quark is the smallest, indivisible unit of matter, how does a gluon change anything about it?

The whole point of the atom was to be the smallest indivisible unit of matter, from which all else was constructed. Since then, we have learned that what we called an atom is not really an atom, since it can be further divided. However, instead of renewing the quest to find the smallest indivisible unit of matter, we have simply accepted that there are some dozen, or more, unique forms, all of which are indivisible. Where once logic demanded that everything be made of some thing, with differing properties achieved through different arrangements of that thing, we now accept that everything is made from a dozen somethings, and the mystery stops there. No need to look for smaller parts to explain differing properties: these dozen things are simply, inexplicably themselves.

Of course, that's easy for quantum physicists to accept, because they've all accepted that there's no reason to expect logic to apply on that scale. If it turns out that we can explain the universe with Itchies, Scratchies, Hammers, and Dynamites, that's just the way it is, don't look behind that curtain...

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Its not known. but we cant say if there is anything on a smaller level.

Ok, if the substances quarks are made of is known, what are those substances?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Domino (edit: Well, my reply sure came later than I thought it would... :) ) His question leads to a valid point: if we claim to have multiple unique, indivisible particles, one must wonder what gives them their uniqueness. By what mechanism is a quark different from a lepton? They say that quarks change flavor in the nucleus through the exchange of gluons, yet, if a quark is the smallest, indivisible unit of matter, how does a gluon change anything about it? The whole point of the atom was to be the smallest indivisible unit of matter, from which all else was constructed. Since then, we have learned that what we called an atom is not really an atom, since it can be further divided. However, instead of renewing the quest to find the smallest indivisible unit of matter, we have simply accepted that there are some dozen, or more, unique forms, all of which are indivisible. Where once logic demanded that everything be made of some thing, with differing properties achieved through different arrangements of that thing, we now accept that everything is made from a dozen somethings, and the mystery stops there. No need to look for smaller parts to explain differing properties: these dozen things are simply, inexplicably themselves. Of course, that's easy for quantum physicists to accept, because they've all accepted that there's no reason to expect logic to apply on that scale. If it turns out that we can explain the universe with Itchies, Scratchies, Hammers, and Dynamites, that's just the way it is, don't look behind that curtain...

Exactly!

[gallo]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Right. But my question is, what substances are quarks made up of?

Energy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ewww, theoretical physics, I like physics when it has an application, blowing up a building, launching a rocket, building a bridge. But I do't need to know how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time. Anyway, the only thing I need to know in terms of what sub-atomic particles are made up of is matter itself (or anti-matter, bringing me into my theoretical nightmare). As an interesting side note, Chairman mao tried for years to get chinese scientists to divide an electron, which would somehow in his mind support communist theory.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: gallo Energy.

Generic answer... fair answer, but still pretty generic. Since E does =MC(2), so energy and matter are basically the same thing... what matter is energy made up of?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Ewww, theoretical physics, I like physics when it has an application, blowing up a building, launching a rocket, building a bridge. But I do't need to know how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time. Anyway, the only thing I need to know in terms of what sub-atomic particles are made up of is matter itself (or anti-matter, bringing me into my theoretical nightmare). As an interesting side note, Chairman mao tried for years to get chinese scientists to divide an electron, which would somehow in his mind support communist theory.

That is an interesting side note.

[Jack]

I'm not sure science has learned that yet, which is possible. In that case, "we don't know yet" is a legitimate answer. I'm just wondering if it is known or not.

I'm certainly no physicist, but I do like to read and try to keep up on what I can grasp of quantum physics. I gather "we don't know yet" is the best answer. At that level, theories are more a matter of mathematics than observation, conjecture more than experimentation. We could still be decades from getting a better answer.

[gallo]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Generic answer... fair answer, but still pretty generic. Since E does =MC(2), so energy and matter are basically the same thing... what matter is energy made up of?

Reminds me of my children when they were two years old. "Why?" I can't answer the question. At some point it becomes unknown.

One can only wonder at what your point is. This sort of thing seems pretty mindless. It's somewhere below "which came first" on the scale of meaningful.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: gallo Reminds me of my children when they were two years old. "Why?" I can't answer the question. At some point it becomes unknown. One can only wonder at what your point is. This sort of thing seems pretty mindless. It's somewhere below "which came first" on the scale of meaningful.

Only to those who see no need to look beyond the obvious and explained.

[gallo]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Only to those who see no need to look beyond the obvious and explained.

No. Those who are not theoretical physicists. Just because I don't know the answer and lack the background and education to investigate it doesn't mean that no one is looking into it. Even if you did get an answer, you probably wouldn't be able to understand. Why don't you assume the obligation for your own education instead of trolling the internet. If you really cared, you would go and try to find out. Try a library.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: gallo No. Those who are not theoretical physicists. Just because I don't know the answer and lack the background and education to investigate it doesn't mean that no one is looking into it. Even if you did get an answer, you probably wouldn't be able to understand. Why don't you assume the obligation for your own education instead of trolling the internet. If you really cared, you would go and try to find out. Try a library.

Exuse me for posting a question on an internet site. For that matter, why do you call me a troll when we are both here doing the same thing?

I post this question to see what other people in volconvo have to say about the subject. I don't expect you to be a nuclear physicist here, so don't expect it from me.

If that is what you think about online discussion sites, why do you bother coming to them?