How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
quantamagazine.org
How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
1–10 of 160 posts
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#2Some powerof two many actual states + a fractal deterministic random generator for particle
Explorers?
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#3As usual, the hard problem is how you define "Elementary" which is why the posters always show 17, and then you get numbers that go as high as 995.5 (and the .5 is an interesting result as well).
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#4Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing.
Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#5Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing. Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
That's what the various string theory proponents start from. There's "too many" different subatomic particles, so there surely must be something smaller that they're composed of?
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#6Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing. Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
You don't have to wonder, because they are. They're manifestations of fields.
I think it is a reasonable answer to tell people "if you're looking for the short list of simplest things, the number of types of fields there are is probably what you're looking for".
That doesn't invalidate this question in general, though the number of different answers from people looking at the same thing suggests it may be underspecified.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#7There are no particles. Everything is a wave.
The Everything-Is-a-Quantum-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Physics
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#8Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing. Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
You don't have to wonder, because they are. They're manifestations of fields. I think it is a reasonable answer to tell people "if you're looking for the short list of simplest things, the number of types of fields there are is probably what you're looking for". That doesn't invalidate this question in general, though the number of different answers from people looking at the same thing suggests it may be underspecif…
> They're manifestations of fields.
Or wave. Everything is a quantum wave.
https://www.vlatkovedral.com/everything-in-the-universe-is-a...
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#9Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing. Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
That's what the various string theory proponents start from. There's "too many" different subatomic particles, so there surely must be something smaller that they're composed of?
How long can you break something apart until you cannot any longer? The things we are breaking apart are illusions in a sense. There will always be a smaller particle because that is what we are looking for.
When we understand that everything that we see is a manifestation of a probability wave, then we will understand everything is a wave and end these foolish experiments.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what the various string theory proponents start from. There's "too many" different subatomic particles, so there surely must be something smaller that they're composed of?
How long can you break something apart until you cannot any longer? The things we are breaking apart are illusions in a sense. There will always be a smaller particle because that is what we are looking for. When we understand that everything that we see is a manifestation of a probability wave, then we will understand everything is a wave and end these foolish experiments.
I'll be sure to inform all of the physicists that @Noaidi on Hacker News has solved physics and that they can go home.