The Logic of Elementary Particles

[ZapperZ]

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance. We welcome the former, we do not allow the latter.

Please note that you have, implicitly, accepted what we accept to be true. Your very use of modern electronics (at least, that's what I deduced by your ability to post on the internet) testifies clearly to that! You just were not aware of your acceptance.

You might want to consider if what you're questioning is really about "elementary particles" or really science in general. Do you also study medicine inside out before you accept medical advice? Or do you just not accept modern medicine at all? Do you meticulously study aerodynamics and engineering before you buy a plane ticket? If not, why this focus on something that you clearly have a huge gap in understanding the basics-elementary particles? Are you questioning it based on an intimate knowledge of it, or simply based on superficial understanding of what it is?

Zz.

 

[Openeye]

Hey there. I must admit that I do not have the time to read all of the posts in this thread so forgive me if some of my comments have already been mentioned before. However,
I will try to discuss some of the issues and concerns you raise..

Thanks...

Energy can be created, and it can be destroyed. In fact, that happens all the time and everywhere around us. What can happen is that for a short time energy can be created, notably particle/anti-particle pairs forming from the vacuum.

Can you link me to the science that shows this? Do you mean literally, creation and destruction? Maybe I need to look into the science's logic of the zero. Is that something that makes sense ? Or are we talking about conversion between energy types? (thus you say the 'end' of it as that type and thus destroyed, while actually it's now something else and thus created anew).

Also, the notion of particles, i.e. how we understand the word in ordinary life does not apply at small enough scales. At very small scales, experiments in physics show that the "particles" have some properties which is similar to our ordinary notion of particles, and other properties which they share with what we usually call waves.

Now we're talking about vibration... resonance... yes?

However, this does not mean that we should not continue the discussion, only that we sometimes have to be careful and remember that thinking about them as ordinary particles is not entirely justified.

Point made.

No, that something cannot be broken apart does NOT mean that it is indestructible.

How sure are you about that?

To explain this with an example we can imagine for a second that water is the most fundamental thing (off course not true, but let's imagine), without destroying water we can change the form of it, it can be solid, liquid or gas.
Going back to the case in particle physics, the particles consist of mass which is one form of energy, when they collide they have momentum which is another manifestation of energy. The energy of the colliding particles can then be transformed into some other form of energy, for example, other new particles.

That sounds exactly like energy changing into different energy to me. Is it really not? Wouldn't it theoretically become a black hole or something, if you were to literally destroy it or replace it with 'nothing' or 'zero' ? How does one destroy water? Maybe I have a different definition for destroy? To destroy something would include destruction of it's theorized fundamental/elementary particles. Does this happen anywhere?

With composite particles, such as the atom, proton and so on so forth, collide with each other one observes a specific scaling with energy, i.e. a difference in the probabilities for interactions to take place. Today, we have been colliding quarks and the likes inside protons for many years, but no such scaling have been observed for the quarks. What I mean is, that long before one have enough energy to smash the particles, one can observe indications of the composite nature. Since that has not been seen, there is at least more ground than before to believe that the particles might truly be elementary.

This makes sense as to how it could be concluded. Personally, I feel this is still a HUGE assumption... so I leave it open as surely possible... but currently see no reason to use that as a reason to aim my focus to the idea of elementary, because infinity is admittedly mis-understood/not agreed upon completely. Depending upon the numerous ways to view that relationship of those ideas (elementary and infinity) makes a huge difference in how reality is perceived and can be understood. To use it without understanding it, it could literally be the source of -every- missing link in every science... and/or illuminate which theories have been most accurate. Couldn't it ? Theoretically. The existence and not existence of infinity is a huge deal, IMO. Because logically with infinity, anything truly elementary must be infinite, and without infinity, elementary makes sense. I thought sciences were ignoring infinity but from what I've read here it isn't... it's just being used without being understood apparently.

Reminds me of this movie, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
Like using infinity as if it were a coca-cola bottle, never really making conscious-minded sense of the geometry though because the hard structure of the glass was more easy to see than the shape of the bottle :D

And I'm not saying any model or system is right or wrong. To me, a model or system is useful or it isn't useful. Right and wrong being more of personal preferences. That's why I appreciate the diversity of responses to my questions I am receiving and won't argue w/ anyone about which is right or wrong. I think we're all both right and wrong. That's why we have forums for diverse discussions, right? :)

What happens at CERN (at least the colliding particle part) happens all the time in the universe, it happens inside stars, it happens in the "empty space" around our galaxy, it happens in our atmosphere, inside Earth and even in our own bodies. Yes, some of them are of a type which cannot survive alone and hence they must quickly transform, others can survive, perhaps forever.

Can you provide the information/papers/scientific jargon keywords/science for this? I'm interested in looking into it... Namely where in the human body etc... but as much information accepted into the scientific community on all of it would be fantastic.

This is quite right, the particles named elementary in the Standard Model are thought to be without size. The electron take up zero volume and is only a point, which is quite like saying that it is 'infinitely small'.

Well if the infinite monkey theorem is even considered as accurate(that's just something I found on wikipedia in relation to infinity as understood by science) With infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters eventually they'll produce shakespeare. Would it be illogical to say that because particles are created 'naturally' like this in space (like at CERN you say)... then with infinite energy, an infinite amount of particles can be created? Provided that we believe our limitation to destroy them is decided by the amount/degree of energies applied. (and is that the belief/assumption? or what is?)


Thanks for the reply and contribution... you are all being so helpful :)

 

[Openeye]

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance. We welcome the former, we do not allow the latter.

What am I proposing? I don't get it...

Please note that you have, implicitly, accepted what we accept to be true.

The following line of reasoning is -very- debatable, but we're not here to debate or even invest a decent amount of time exploring this idea, are we? I can live with it in either way. Let me know which is most preferable and conforms to the rules please... thanks :)

Your very use of modern electronics (at least, that's what I deduced by your ability to post on the internet) testifies clearly to that! You just were not aware of your acceptance.

Are you really pointing your finger so hard at me that you don't realize how much -that- very statement of yours is one made from ignorance. Right after:

It is one thing to ask question. It is another when you're PROPOSING something that is based on ignorance.

Come on now...

Nobody's personal deduction is the all-ruling logic in the universe... nor do you have any idea what my background is... nor does it really matter. I'm just asking questions. This thread is not here to decide the fate for humanity, why treat is as such? You don't have to agree with my line of thinking or even the responses I receive. Where am I telling people this?

You might want to consider if what you're questioning is really about "elementary particles" or really science in general. Do you also study medicine inside out before you accept medical advice?

I have studied and observed it for a long time...I haven't needed, don't need, and can not possibly for-see me ever needing or wanting medical advice. I've thought a lot about this... I've considered all the imaginable to me scenarios.I have a pretty complex imagination too. But thank you for the offer. :)

Do you meticulously study aerodynamics and engineering before you buy a plane ticket?

What if I did? Does that make me bad? Or 'paranoid'? ... what about curious? Is that acceptable?

If not, why this focus on something that you clearly have a huge gap in understanding the basics-elementary particles? Are you questioning it based on an intimate knowledge of it, or simply based on superficial understanding of what it is?

Zz.

You don't seem like you're at all interested in my motives... so why are you asking the questions about them? When I ask questions about the sciences, I am extremely interested in the motives behind why we think those things. Of course, I can't expect -everyone- to show me the same courtesy, especially because I come here to learn from YOU (the community) and expect the reader to be able to:

1. First WANT to try to make sense of my line of thinking (NOT to accept it as 'truth' or 'valid'... but to understand WHY I'm thinking it so we can communicate most effectively)

and

2. translate what they know into language that they believe makes sense to me.

And what difference does that really make what my context is when I'm coming here to understand what YOU'RE ('accepted science') saying? I'm amazed at how many times people are chiming into basically say the same thing about me, that I have an 'agenda' or almost paranoid about my intentions/motives like I'm trying to break the walls of their house down. If you think I'm trying to do that then why'd you come into the thread I created?

Did you intend to help me with your communication here? Can we call upon a moderator so I can know once and for all whether or not I'm really violating any rules here?

Is that what it means to be a mentor? Are you a mod? I just read the rules and I'm not observing any lines that I'm crossing by asking these questions... please be specific if you're going to say I'm breaking rules, I don't know what you mean.

Thanks, and sorry for the ignorance you've observed in me. :P

That's why I'm here, actually. Again, if I'm really a bother, please can you direct me to a physics forum that is more allowing of freedom of speech/ideas/logic being openly discussed and questioned for various people's interpretation? I haven't yet grown attached to anyone here, and I don't think any here has of me... so... it's not like I'll be heartbroken :P

 

[Openeye]

I disagree with Wikipedia. A fundamental particle is described by a set of both quantum numbers and a mass, that is not quantized, or at least not known to be quantized.

These numbers found stuck-together in the process of measuring them. And so when these numbers are stuck-together, its called a particle. And when these numbers are stuck-together, in the simplest manner that can be discerned, they are called a fundamental particle.

This analogy/concept makes a lot more sense to me than wikipedia's explanation.

Do others here for the most part agree with this re-translation? I am open to all theories/ideas.

Although, linguistically, you are admitting to numbers sticking together to form a particle. What are these numbers representing individually? The numbers must come together to form a particle right? So at one point they are apart, or CAN be apart otherwise there is no coming together of anything... methinks. So in the theories, what are these numbers ? what are your's/other's thoughts on this?

Thank you for your time and response(s). :)

 

[ZapperZ]

What am I proposing? I don't get it...

Fine, let's look JUST at your first post, shall we?

"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle believed not to have substructure; that is, it is believed not to be made up of smaller particles."

-WikipediaHow does someone ever possibly (LOGICALLY) conclude that a particle is not made up of smaller particles? Especially when the way in which they discover particles is by bashing them together which would CREATE smaller particles (not really create, but through division) if they didn't exist before.

Surely when we fail to break open the next smallest particle, it's always going to be a question of whether or not we can build greater technology to bash them open, yes ?

If a particle can NOT be smashed/broken apart into pieces, then it is truly indestructible... yes?

HOW do we get away with assuming there is such a thing as an indestructible particle... when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that anything physical is indestructible and can not be broken into more pieces? Where is the evidence? That's what scientific theory is supposed to be based on yes... not blind faith?

We even have evidence of "elementary" or "fundamental"particles being proven not to be so:

"Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles."

To me it seems we have much more evidence of this logic being illogical, than we do to suggest that there is such a thing as an indestructible particle. Why is this persisting?

If you were to JUST ask "How can we know something is an elementary particle when we can smash them to produce other particles?", you would have been given a lot of answers. But nooooo. It appears that you can't wait to get the answer to such a question, but rather proceeded question the "logic" in what we currently call as "elementary particles". It is as if a bunch of physicists simply threw out any kind of logic and ignore the most obvious part of the history of physics by calling something as "elementary particles". This is why you got the type of reaction that you got!

1. First WANT to try to make sense of my line of thinking (NOT to accept it as 'truth' or 'valid'... but to understand WHY I'm thinking it so we can communicate most effectively)

and

2. translate what they know into language that they believe makes sense to me.

And what difference does that really make what my context is when I'm coming here to understand what YOU'RE ('accepted science') saying? I'm amazed at how many times people are chiming into basically say the same thing about me, that I have an 'agenda' or almost paranoid about my intentions/motives like I'm trying to break the walls of their house down. If you think I'm trying to do that then why'd you come into the thread I created?

Did you intend to help me with your communication here? Can we call upon a moderator so I can know once and for all whether or not I'm really violating any rules here?

Is that what it means to be a mentor? Are you a mod? I just read the rules and I'm not observing any lines that I'm crossing by asking these questions... please be specific if you're going to say I'm breaking rules, I don't know what you mean.

Thanks, and sorry for the ignorance you've observed in me. :P

That's why I'm here, actually. Again, if I'm really a bother, please can you direct me to a physics forum that is more allowing of freedom of speech/ideas/logic being openly discussed and questioned for various people's interpretation? I haven't yet grown attached to anyone here, and I don't think any here has of me... so... it's not like I'll be heartbroken :P

But again, this is exactly my point. It appears that you question all of what is accepted in science, not just what is accepted as elementary particles. So the "debate" here isn't about elementary particles, but rather how do we know what we accept to be valid is really valid? To be, that appears to be your central principle. So rather than tackle what is obviously merely an example of the application of that principle, it would have been more fruitful to tackle that central principle and see where it breaks down! But before that can happen, there must be that realization that you are using some central principle. If not, if you only pick on fundamental particles while ignoring the fact that you don't have a problem elsewhere, then this is highly inconsistent! Which was why I was curious on why you only picked on "elementary particles".

Zz.

 

[Openeye]

Fine, let's look JUST at your first post, shall we?



If you were to JUST ask "How can we know something is an elementary particle when we can smash them to produce other particles?", you would have been given a lot of answers. But nooooo. It appears that you can't wait to get the answer to such a question, but rather proceeded question the "logic" in what we currently call as "elementary particles". It is as if a bunch of physicists simply threw out any kind of logic and ignore the most obvious part of the history of physics by calling something as "elementary particles". This is why you got the type of reaction that you got!

My mistake. Clearly I have a lot on my mind. I've been repeatedly commenting and apologizing for my lack of ability to communicate what I'm asking.

I understand why I got the reaction I got... it's still amazing to me though. Just because I'm not surprised doesn't mean I'm not amazed. Thanks for clarifying though. :)

But again, this is exactly my point. It appears that you question all of what is accepted in science, not just what is accepted as elementary particles. So the "debate" here isn't about elementary particles, but rather how do we know what we accept to be valid is really valid? To be, that appears to be your central principle. So rather than tackle what is obviously merely an example of the application of that principle, it would have been more fruitful to tackle that central principle and see where it breaks down! But before that can happen, there must be that realization that you are using some central principle. If not, if you only pick on fundamental particles while ignoring the fact that you don't have a problem elsewhere, then this is highly inconsistent! Which was why I was curious on why you only picked on "elementary particles".

Zz.

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem? And is it a problem for me to ask questions in attempt to understand how it makes sense? Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'. The elementary particles may have just been the catalyst for me to reach the information I need. Is that ok? I agree that this topic has taken a shift in direction since this realization, hence that's why I asked in a previous post if I should start a new thread (and on multiple occasions have been asking where to do so).

I don't blame you for not reading all of what I'm saying... it's a lot of text... and who am I? I'm not speaking in the ways you most clearly understand. That's why I only want people to read if they want to :P Again, I figured that's what people would do anyway... seeing as we seem to have free-will in a sense, and all.

Thanks for your input :)

 

[ZapperZ]

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem? And is it a problem for me to ask questions in attempt to understand how it makes sense? Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'. The elementary particles may have just been the catalyst for me to reach the information I need. Is that ok? I agree that this topic has taken a shift in direction since this realization, hence that's why I asked in a previous post if I should start a new thread (and on multiple occasions have been asking where to do so).

I don't blame you for not reading all of what I'm saying... it's a lot of text... and who am I? I'm not speaking in the ways you most clearly understand. That's why I only want people to read if they want to :P Again, I figured that's what people would do anyway... seeing as we seem to have free-will in a sense, and all.

Thanks for your input :)

It is fine to want to have things "make sense". However, I can also do what you did by point out that what used to "make sense" no longer does, and what used to not make sense is now common place! The consequences of Special Relativity, for example, used to not make sense, not just to ordinary people, but also to physicists, so much so that they didn't award Einstein the Nobel Prize for Relativity. So relying on "common sense" has been shown to be faulty, the same way that we used to think that baryons were elementary.

The way science works is that at any point in time, the state of knowledge of what's known and verified is the best that we can know at that time. So as far as we know, the set of elementary particles that we have are just that until we can know more. All the physics that we have done in the study of, say, electrons have indicated that it has no structure.

But we all know that things could change, and this is where it is crucial to understand on how such change can come about. One either produce empirical evidence whereby what we observed just simply doesn't quite match our current understanding, or one produce a new theoretical description that differs from our current understanding that can be empirically tested and verified. There's nothing here that relies solely on "common sense". In fact, producing empirical evidence and verifiable theories are definitely stricter criteria and requirement than simply using "common sense", and that is how it should be. This is not, say, politics where one can simply try to convince another person of something simply by appealing to "common sense" that can be faulty.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

Like I've previously stated. Until something makes sense to me I don't accept it. Is that really a problem?

Yes. I don't understand how a computer works at the most basic level, but I use it everyday and since it DOES work I have no choice but to accept it. The fact that it is working and I am using it is the evidence that the science behind it is correct.

Just because a thousand people or however many it actually was collectively came together to provide these theories, doesn't make them 'the way'... it makes it 'THIS way'.

Sure. THIS is the way we look at it now. However, there are no contradictary things happening that make us believe that there is another way other than THIS way. You've been missing the whole point this entire thread. Even if you don't understand HOW or WHY something is the way it is, it does NOT make it ok to simply say you don't think it's correct and then try to tell everyone it isn't.

Now, it seems to me that no one here can provide you with the answers you seek. Every time someone has given you an answer you question it and then want us to provide evidence for it. That is not what we are here for. If you cannot accept the things that we are trying to teach you, then this forum is not for you.

Please, don't apologize to me or try to say it's just because you don't speak the language, or whatever. This has nothing to do with the lingo or anything else like that, but simply that you cannot accept what doesn't make sense to you. If so, then fine. So be it. But instead of coming here and trying to make us see your point of view, have you tried picking up a book? Or going to wikipedia? Or taking a class? Or anything else like that? I have several books on things like Quantum Physics and Relativity and such and they usually explain very well why exactly everything is the way it is and also provide the evidence for it.

I have NO problem if you want to learn and ask questions here. Thats fine. But if you just tell us that we are wrong (Yes, that's what you have been doing this whole time) then we aren't going to help you.

 

[Openeye]

LONG POST, if you're not interested save yourself some time and turn away. :P

BTW--- I'd really much rather be discussing the logic behind physics itself, than the logic you're using to discuss physics... so maybe this post can get us over that hurdle :P

(can't believe I got to write instructions too, lol)

It is fine to want to have things "make sense". However, I can also do what you did by point out that what used to "make sense" no longer does, and what used to not make sense is now common place! The consequences of Special Relativity, for example, used to not make sense, not just to ordinary people, but also to physicists, so much so that they didn't award Einstein the Nobel Prize for Relativity. So relying on "common sense" has been shown to be faulty, the same way that we used to think that baryons were elementary.

You say this with what expectation? That I will 're-think' my approach or methodology? I can say the exact same thing to you regarding EVERY scientific model in existence... but that won't cause you to re-think the established science. How do you expect me to do what you won't? Especially when you're giving the guidance for the thing you won't do?

Of course. I'm glad you at least see that. You didn't read that from me or another person in one of my earlier posts, did you? We've been through this, couple times I think now... again that's fine... I can't expect you to read all of what I've written... I can hardly expect you to read this single post in it's entirety.

What I think is funny/amazing is, how someone can simultaneously BELIEVE/KNOW what you've just said to me, and still be SO closed to things that don't 'fit' into 'The' model(s). I'm not specifically referring to you. However in this specific case, you've using ONE side of the logic you're supplying me here... this is why I am observing a biased point of view. I will explain.

To claim that something is 'right' ... and other things are 'wrong'... while simultaneously knowing that the logical can suddenly become illogical, as the illogical becomes logical...

See... that means for the evolution of your 'models' to occur... you almost NEED to have the equivalent of a 'slap in the face' (outside force/strong evidence) to accept new information... as opposed to just coming into it on your own... A slap that hits you so hard, you can't possibly ignore it. Because right now you certainly won't listen to anything ILLOGICAL that I have to say! But what if I am speaking future 'truths' as you might call it? The illogical stuff that will become logical later? Be it a new 'discovery' that is undeniable because you/anyone can just observe it... or I were to come up with a theory that is LOGICAL -ENOUGH- TO YOU (and 'peers') to 'accept' as valid or not into the model.

This is still logical... your methodology basically requires the slap in the face... Depending on who does the slapping, it will hurt in varying degrees. For example... if someone you highly respect were to come up with something that drastically changed the model, it's likely to be less of an annoyance to you, than some random internet user like me who is slowing down and examining the decision making strategies etc... and picking apart detail by detail, with the assumption that I might be able to explain something perhaps a little more accurately. You probably don't care to do what I'm doing... maybe you see what I'm doing as a complete waste of time... maybe you've studied this for plenty long, and it already makes enough sense to you to accept.

Even though you know/admit that 'logic' is just a temporary quality... in most cases ( can not think of an exception but there probably is one somewhere) ... 'science' still requires 'logic' and what 'makes sense' to accept new information as valid/accurate! SO WHAT if it may become illogical EVENTUALLY (you're even counting on it!), but to accept new information it needs to be logical NOW... not eventually.

To me, none of this is 'right'... what you're saying or what I'm saying. Does that bother you? That something is not right or wrong... it's useful or it isn't, and here I am asking you for information from your models that _I_ can PERSONALLY determine useful for myself, or not... because I'm not blindly/instantly conforming to the existing models... And I don't see why you or anyone else who values 'science' so much, aren't at least a little glad that I'm even coming here to ask YOU questions about it instead of someone who might know 'less' and give me 'faulty' information ( as you might call it...)

Suppose I WAS able to prove something in the current models 'wrong' as someone might put it... But those possibilities are unfortunately only open to someone who cares and understands what I'm saying... because I'm not giving you any data. Just logic that data can be founded upon... and that's always optional.

As I see it, I'm speaking in logic, and 'you' (scientific community) like to speak/parrot already existing DATA (usually to point out the ways someone/something/some idea is wrong) to prove "your" points (I put "your" in quotes because I received the same exact responses to some of these questions from multiple people!) which is BUILT upon logic.

I don't like all the data flinging around so much... personally... I like to speak my own mind. I like to understand the universe/reality in my own way... because I can't not have my own experience of it... I can't not understand it differently than everyone else anyway! A lot of what I have come to understand agrees with much of physics as it exists now. But a lot of things are still questionable to me. Based on the logic you are using in the first quote... my logic MAY someday produce DATA that you find to be logical, even though right now I probably sound completely illogical to you. It may also do nothing for you or anyone... ever. So could a 6 year old child's logic. You don't (and can not in any way you can prove) know WHERE -or- WHAT the logic you might require to make the logical illogical (in ways that advance what is known) is going to come from... unless you say "myself" and decide it to be (in reference to yourself, not me :P). But then we're adding 'consciousness' into the equations and that is something I don't see you guys doing yet... or maybe ever... because the currently accepted definition of 'consciousness' is horribly vague.

But clearly, there's no obvious accuracy in predicting those things. You don't know who is going to have the next 'best' idea as you say... therefore, I can't see how NOT having a VERY open mind (even to ideas that may contradict the established sciences a little bit) is a good idea. So why so closed? EVEN when something might be 'illogical'?

Just because you're open to changing and idea when someone comes and 'proves' you wrong... doesn't mean your mind is open -at all-. In fact, it's quite closed around the logic you already have and that's the slap in the face I'm saying is inevitably felt (whether intended or not) when someone says anything that seems to go 'against' what you've come to know.

Just because an idea is heard, doesn't mean it needs to be accepted or even used... so why can't we end this whole 'right' and 'wrong' nonsense and have intellectual discussions about IDEAS... EVEN outside the language of maths/science. You never know where it might eventually lead you (or where you might take it, depending on your approach).

The way science works is that at any point in time, the state of knowledge of what's known and verified is the best that we can know at that time.

Another subtle exampled of the biased viewpoint I was referring to earlier.

First of all, as I understand it... science doesn't really 'work' or do anything. It's a tool we use. We (humans) put it together, and -we- use it. It is a reflection/collaboration of THOUGHTS and IDEAS we've carefully structured to form various processes/techniques/methodologies in efforts to accurately understand the nature of the world/universe/reality/existence/nature. That's not necessarily how it's defined by everyone, but can you tell me that isn't an accurate statement about 'science' generally speaking ?

If you can agree with that--- then that's an example of what I mean. Things can be defined in multiple ways and still be accurate/'right' in accepted models. My definitions might not be 'right' or even 'written anywhere'... while simultaneously being a perspective that hasn't been thoroughly investigated with LOGIC. Certain specific definitions of things (while not 'wrong') could very well be leading to confusion/misdirection in our viewpoints!

For example... FUNDAMENTAL or ELEMENTARY. This is why I started here. We're using terms that are subtly deciding things, if we are unclear of 'which' way to define it, it can lead to trouble. As I stated before, with infinity being obviously mis-understood, ELEMENTARY can mean any number of things depending on what we find out/determine 'infinity' to actually be...

What I quoted from you above is what you and many people WANT to believe. No one can realize the best they can know at any point in time ("best" is completely an individual's judgement call anyway, how can you just say 'science' and 'best' in the same sentence and expect that to work for everyone?)... because until you know 'everything' you can always know more. You can't know 'everything' until you at least understand INFINITY, because that is clearly part of everything... especially if you include it in your equations!

"BEST" is a perception until your models don't have gaping holes in them and are flawless (good luck!), you technically can't even 'scientifically' claim that it's in any way 'right' OR 'wrong'. It's both in many ways. I wouldn't say one 'realizes'... but ACCEPTS the best one can know at that point in time. The way in which you said this, to me, presupposes everything scientifically verified as 'right'... and it is not 'right'... it is useful in lots of ways, not useful in others, like any tool. A hammer is not 'RIGHT' or 'CORRECT'... but it can be useful for the job of pounding nails into boards. Science is "A" hammer, not "The" hammer. These ideas 'right' and 'wrong' are completely belief system oriented... and that is why there is no universal agreement on any subject... EVEN SCIENCE, no matter how obvious it may be to those who have studied it so thoroughly. There are too many unanswered questions for "science" (you or anyone claiming to be 'of' it) to be able to say any of it is 'correct'... and not be entirely full of themselves. If you do, you've clearly misunderstood the logic you spoke to me.

"Science" is (arguably) highly accurate at producing the understandings enough to build the technology we observe today... and POSSIBLY helpful at producing the technology of tomorrow. But maybe not. Maybe tomorrow you find it's all bunk, in comparison to something (yet unheard of) with less gaps in it. You don't know. Is any of this illogical to you 'currently' ? I am not stating 'right' or 'wrong'. I am stating 'logic' in which you can say makes sense to you or doesn't... and if it doesn't I'm interested in what ways... and for what reasons?

Logic is kind of like a fundamental particle for 'science.' It's worth investigating by itself... IMO. Logic makes up 'science'... and the existence of that science is going to be heavily reliant on the logic in which it's founded.

So as far as we know, the set of elementary particles that we have are just that until we can know more. All the physics that we have done in the study of, say, electrons have indicated that it has no structure.

I got this from a few other people in the thread already... but thanks for mentioning it anyway. I can understand the 'logic' behind why you might call them elementary/fundamental... I've moved beyond this bit of logic with other members here and into some other/additional questions. If you want to help provide me with further information, maybe read through some of those and get back to me even though I wasn't specifically addressing you, I'm kind just speaking to anyone because I'm open to take responses from anyone.

But we all know that things could change, and this is where it is crucial to understand on how such change can come about.

Often times it's not accepted/known how something works until AFTER it's observed. For example... every accidental discovery. So really, it's not always crucial to understand 'how' changes can come about... it's just desired or not... typically desired because we tend to like to be able to explain things. And even accidents can become a part of 'science's' methodology... otherwise we'd have to take back every accidental invention/discovery and say "science" wasn't at all responsible for it, but a series of 'random' or 'not random' unintentional events were.

One either produce empirical evidence whereby what we observed just simply doesn't quite match our current understanding, or one produce a new theoretical description that differs from our current understanding that can be empirically tested and verified. There's nothing here that relies solely on "common sense".

I know I know... when there is new theories and ideas... "where is the application?" Well... we may not see applications for theories until they're at least ACCEPTED by -SOMEONE- enough to use them. There's lots of theories out there by regular joes who just don't get any attention because their ideas are 'illogical' relative to what is already established/widely accepted... and for that very reason they're ignored! You could not think of applications for a bicycle, until you at least know of a bicycle. And you can not know of the bicycle, if when the inventor of the bicycle knocks on your door and says "I've got something you've never seen or thought of before!" ... and before you get a chance to really see or 'know' the bicycle ... "wtf? I don't know what to do with that... go away. That doesn't make sense with what I know or how I operate." ... Just like we can not think of applications for the technologies we don't know exist yet!

I have hardly -said- ANYTHING, in fact... especially in the beginning I had mostly been asking questions and STILL was receiving this treatment... not to mention a few of you taking defensive action when I ask questions that may eventually lead to the tarnish on the trophy of 'science', rubbing off a little... but see, while some go "HEY, My trophy!" I think of this as a good thing... because I think the trophy is painted gold, but really is platinum underneath. The value may be increasing.

But I don't really want to touch the trophy... I just want to learn more about it. If it is platinum underneath the gold as I suspect, I don't necessarily care if -you- know it... I'm interested for myself.

about 80% certain I've lost you w/ the metaphors... and I'm typing a lot again... so I'm wrapping this one up.

In fact, producing empirical evidence and verifiable theories are definitely stricter criteria and requirement than simply using "common sense", and that is how it should be. This is not, say, politics where one can simply try to convince another person of something simply by appealing to "common sense" that can be faulty.

Zz.

Here you are again subtly suggesting that I'm trying to convince someone else of something... or that these are my methods. Again... You'll use logic or common sense when it makes sense with what you already know... but when it doesn't... it's as good as ignorable. Much like a majority of what I've said here has not been read/ignored/unaddressed by most of the repliers... Why can't you just think of me as a selfish person who's only here to get information for himself? That's a little more accurate than this projection you're observing in me trying to convince someone else of something. I don't know you, or anyone else here.. OR the potential of 'help' anyone can be. I'm just asking valid questions and seeing what I get back... but not so much in this post.

I like to respond to everyone if I can, because I enjoy the interactions... but if you or anyone else is going to keep trying to pin this "you're trying to convince me of things" nonsense on me I'm going to ignore it. If you don't like to challenge/analyze conventional thinking, then it's probably not going to be -any- fun reading what I'm saying... so save yourself some time. :)

 

[Drakkith]

Openeye, in you're original post you stated that we have no evidence that fundamental particles are fundamental. You're reasoning was that because we had found that in the past that what we thought were fundamental turned out not to be. The problem is that we DO have evidence that they are fundamental.

(The Following is very general and basic, and I don't claim it to be 100% absolute correct, but merely a good example.)
Take an electron. When we smash electrons into each other at low enough energies, what happens? Nothing! The electrons simply bounce off of each other. So let's increase the energy. At a certain point we see that smashing electrons together we see that thing start coming out of this collision. Things such as quarks, photons, positrons, and a mess of other particles. Now the key here is that ALL of these particles coming out of this collision are different particles than the electron. Some have masses MUCH greater than an electron. Can these possibly make up an electron? NO! This is a result of the conversion of energy to mass!

At no point in these experiments did we see anything that would suggest that an electron is made up of smaller particles.

Now, after saying that, I MUST point out that at any point, if ANYONE brings forward REPUTABLE EVIDENCE that an electron is made up of smaller particles, then 10,000 scientists around the world will go "Hrmm...Interesting...let's see if we can duplicate the results!". And then they will go build the required machines and experiments or do the required math and if it turns out that all of these ALSO show it to be true, THEN science will change the electron from an elementary particle to a composite one!

 

[Openeye]

Yes. I don't understand how a computer works at the most basic level, but I use it everyday and since it DOES work I have no choice but to accept it. The fact that it is working and I am using it is the evidence that the science behind it is correct.

"THE evidence" that the science behind it is "correct"... I understand the logic believe it or not that you're trying to push on me here... but you're using inaccurate words like "Correct" ... and "the" evidence... when evidence is just evidence. To call it "The"evidence means that's entirely enough to assume you're 'correct'.. There's that word. Only I was saying "right"...not "correct". This is exactly what I just addressed in the huge post you won't read just before this one. I can't help it if you don't read. Just do me a favor... don't reply to what I'm saying unless you READ IT. You didn't contribute anything new with what you said here.

Sure. THIS is the way we look at it now. However, there are no contradictary things happening that make us believe that there is another way other than THIS way.

Thank you for your belief. When did that become universally correct for everyone and not a belief you're collectively sharing? Oh, -BEFORE- you defined it as a belief. Well that really doesn't make sense at all, unless you're losing accuracy or just oblivious to what you're saying.

You've been missing the whole point this entire thread. Even if you don't understand HOW or WHY something is the way it is, it does NOT make it ok to simply say you don't think it's correct and then try to tell everyone it isn't.

There are no contradictory 'things' perhaps, but I'm pointing out the contradictory lines of thought being taken by the people FOLLOWING this 'correctness'. Such as calling things "correct" when they're JUST methods that produce working results... I'm not claiming there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way... but that there are MANY 'right' and 'wrong' ways. Just because a computer works doesn't mean anything is 'right' or 'wrong'... it means you know how to build a computer that functions. You can build all kinds of different working computers using different methodologies... you just succeeded to build one using THAT methodology. Congratulations. You seem fixated on this idea of "Correct" and it's opposite.

Now, it seems to me that no one here can provide you with the answers you seek. Every time someone has given you an answer you question it and then want us to provide evidence for it. That is not what we are here for. If you cannot accept the things that we are trying to teach you, then this forum is not for you.

I don't want you to teach me anything, Drakkith. There are others here who have been (in my consideration) far more accurate and helpful, IMO. Here you are getting upset that I'm not just accepting what YOU say, and suggesting that I go elsewhere because you don't know how to deal with me.

Is this not the place for intellectual discussion? And just because -you- don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean in 2 months someone won't come and see this and be able to contribute something great. I'm not going anywhere by choice... I am actually receiving answers here.

Please, don't apologize to me or try to say it's just because you don't speak the language, or whatever. This has nothing to do with the lingo or anything else like that, but simply that you cannot accept what doesn't make sense to you. If so, then fine. So be it. But instead of coming here and trying to make us see your point of view, have you tried picking up a book? Or going to wikipedia? Or taking a class? Or anything else like that? I have several books on things like Quantum Physics and Relativity and such and they usually explain very well why exactly everything is the way it is and also provide the evidence for it.

I won't apologize to you. You've clearly not read my posts completely due to your obvious prejudice against me and my methods of understanding things... and the best you have is to just call me a liar about it?

Thanks for that. You've clearly lost all stable ground to stand on. If you've read my posts you'd see that I've been to wikipedia numerous times... you'd understand my reasoning for coming to a forum as opposed to the other options. Oh wait, no no no... I'm lying about that, according to you. You know better about me than me, apparently :) Amazing what your understanding of science does for you.

I have NO problem if you want to learn and ask questions here. Thats fine. But if you just tell us that we are wrong (Yes, that's what you have been doing this whole time) then we aren't going to help you.

If you are reading what I'm saying and feeling like you're wrong, then just kindly migrate to a different thread. I don't want your prejudice, biased opinion of who you think I am. Not once have I personally attacked anyone here, but that is not the same respect I am shown, because some people can't get out of their own head for a minute to not take things personally. I DONT BELIEVE IN RIGHT OR WRONG. I've said this numerous times in different ways now. Either read what I say, or don't. Stop skimming... it doesn't work well with what I say. If you feel right or wrong based on my QUESTIONS and OPINIONS that's entirely your own perception. Get over yourself! I am free to think, say, and be what I wish... so long as I am not breaking any of the rules! And I HAVENT! I've been accused of it multiple times for things I haven't even actually done. Well if there's a rule about maximum sized posts then maybe I have... but I didn't see it. So simply don't respond to me if you don't like me... don't pay attention to what I'm saying then if you feel I'm just telling you how wrong you are. I've found agreement with a few people here already--- but you are not seeing it because to you, it's almost as if I'm some character with traits you've imagined that aren't there...

 

[Drakkith]

Openeye, you can pick apart my posts and get nitpicky with my choice of words all day long if you want, but it still comes down to you not BELIEVING that what we are giving you as the evidence and reasons is correct. Here, I'll quote you.

This makes sense as to how it could be concluded. Personally, I feel this is still a HUGE assumption... so I leave it open as surely possible... but currently see no reason to use that as a reason to aim my focus to the idea of elementary, because infinity is admittedly mis-understood/not agreed upon completely.

So, given a perfectly good explanation of the evidence, you just don't believe it. THAT is why we are acting the way we are towards you. Simply put, the evidence we have shows that it is elementary. If you don't believe that or you want to try to argue that it might not be, then the place to do that is not here.

 

[pallidin]

I would offer to the PF Mentor that this thread should be closed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which sounds like a good place to end this.