Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCould there be a basic particle?
Results so far:
| Yes | 79% | 391 votes | Total: 492 votes | |
| No | 21% | 101 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesCould there be a basic particle?
No matter how you split, dice or slice it, a particle is a basic unit of matter.
The Atomists (a pre-Socratic group of early Greek philosophers, from which the word "atom" originated) asserted that all matter is composed of tiny indivisible units which are the basic building blocks of matter.
Today, we know that even these atoms may be split into tinier, even more fundamental particles. When you get down to that scale however, the question then becomes: "Is it matter or energy, we are dealing with?"
When we arrive at the realm of subatomic particles (electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, and muons, to name a few), we are no longer dealing with solid matter - according to quantum mechanics (a division of particle physics) these subatomic particles exhibit "wave-particle duality" and literally flicker in and out of existence. No matter how immaterial they may be however, they are still basic units of matter as we know it.
In the 20th century, scientists discovered that the atom (formerly thought to be indivisible) is composed of even smaller entities - electrons, neutrons, and protons. Experiments later showed that neutrons and protons are in turn composed of quarks. The trend of empirical evidence leans in the direction of ever-tinier subatomic particles - this raises the question of whether matter is infinitely divisible. So far, experiment has not been able to answer this question.
Basic means essential, inherent, intrinsic, fundamental, underlying, indispensable ... need I go further? All subatomic particles of matter, whether divisible or indivisible meet the criteria for "basic". Without leptons, you don't have atoms; without atoms, no molecules - without molecules, no matter.
A crumb is a basic particle of a donut, which may be broken down into further particles including molecules, then atoms ... then atomic nuclei, and sub-nuclei can be broken down even further - yes even crumbs have crumbs - till you are looking at a whole lot of "hole" where donut used to be. For all practical purposes, it is still a donut though, but we see, at its most basic level, it is really quite immaterial. Yet it is not a vacuum, devoid of matter. Modern physicists assert that there really is no such thing as an empty vacuum, except in theory; there will always be a few "particles" floating around - even in deep space, even if they are little more than radiation signatures. Can those particles can be broken down further ... and further, ad infinitum?
How far can this system of division and sub-division of particles continue? Particle physicists and philosophers alike are still pondering this question - but one thing that cannot be denied is that a particle IS and always has been basic to whatever substance it is a part of, at any scale, even from an atom to a theoretical construct - or crumb of a crumb of a crumb.
For further reading:
http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Par ticle_physics
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Quantum_mechanics
h ttp://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Atomism
Learn more about this author, Violet Fortune.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
To postulate a basic particle would be to limit the characteristics of the universe. We have begun to realize that a particle may be nothing more than a convenient method of describing something of which we know almost nothing. We don't have an accurate model of the dimensional state of Space/time. We know that the 'particles' we recognize may, or may not exist simultaneously in several dimensions that we cannot perceive. The sheer quantity of ignorance about the 'quantum sponge' and the event horizon makes such discussion academic. Even Heisenberg noted that the path only comes into existence when we observe it. Quantum Mechanics can only deal in probabilities, and we must remember that if nothing is certain then nothing is impossible. A basic particle both exists and does not exist. This is a fundamental truth, if you don't understand it, go visit Schrdinger's cat. Since a quantum superposition is the combination of all the possible states of a system and the Universe is infinite, in a sense, then it would follow that all possible things can, and must, exist.
The non-zero value of the Planck constant is the reason why phenomena occurring in quantum physics display discrete behavior rather than assuming a continuous range of possible values. If this be true, and it is, we begin to realize that there is an absolute limit upon observation, a point at which the existence, or non-existence, of a particle can only be surmised by inference. We cannot know what exists beyond the limits of measure. If we determine a method of using a smaller particle to measure, it will perceive that which is too small to measure. From a Gluon's point of view, is everything larger, or are there a multitude of smaller things? Something is smaller, because the Gluon moves in response to it. A particle of gravity? What if gravity is only the tendency of the Space/time continuum to eject matter? Eject matter where? We once believed that Singularities were connected to an extra-dimensional space that ejected matter in the same way as they captured it, but that would mean that the Universe is emptying by gravitational influence, and that there used to be much more matter than there now is. Perhaps there are an exactly equal number of White Holes speaking in terms of Mass and the amount of energy transferred out of the Universe as we know it. Philosophers are the only persons who can debate the basic structure of Space/Time, inasmuch as it must be beyond knowing or the present theories need adjustment.
If we go back to classical Physics, and the time of Isaac Newton, we remember that it was believed his laws of motion were exact, in all situations. We eventually learned that this was untrue, especially at quantum levels. We now stand on another threshold, equally as great, wherein we see that what is right for the observations we have made may, in fact, be wrong on another scale or in another dimension. At present we do not even have terms for the environment that would be home to a 'basic particle' if such exist. The Atom turned out not to be indivisible, as did the electron, the proton, and probably every other particle we've discovered. It all falls down when you try to integrate waves and particles.
A wave-form is most easily understood as a string of particles that touch one another. As the stream is measured, we get first a space of little energy, then the particle cloud, which has energy that we can measure, and then another space of little energy. Charge and spin notwithstanding, we see a rise and fall of energy that we express as a waveform. This is the explanation most easily understood when we explain that everything has a frequency, or wave signature. Words do not adequately explain it and the Math would bore even me, so I'll just say that the difference in waves and particles lies in the measurement and properties which are observed by that measurement. I wish it were explainable, but it is not. Just as we cannot know, with certainty, anything about the quantum environment, so we cannot describe it in words. What goes on at the subatomic level has to defy description in order for the math to work. I know that I have been busy in this treatise, making all manner of non-circular objects into circles to simplify the math, but a discussion of something so unreal as a basic particle will cause that. If there be a basic particle, has it an imaginary twin? If so, then there is more than the basic particle. In order for a particle to be basic, it must be absolutely unique. Both real and imaginary, positive and negative, massless and having mass, a point which has shape. If you define a basic particle, then you soon realize that no single thing can act upon the universe according to the knowledge we now possess. Until such time as we are able to "see the path", it simply does not exist.
Einstein said "there is no space without field", and that would mean that the 'basic particle' is the stuff of which this field is composed. It becomes the canvas upon which the Universe is written, as well as the Medium from which it is designed. An analogy would be to say that it is the clay, the pottery stand, the glace used to decorate it, and in short everything but the Kiln and the Potter. Some scientists postulate that the Kiln should be included in the analogy and that there is no potter. Whatever, I simply wish to point out that we can't pet Schrdinger's cat until we know if it is alive, and then we violate the uncertainty principle. So long as we must use some form of energy to observe, we cannot know.
Learn more about this author, V R Rutledge.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
