/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15873780]

I am so fucking tired of the term fundamental and elementary we need to change guys, it's for your own good i swear.
The historical trajectory of particle physics underscores the need for a nuanced perspective on labeling particles as fundamental or indivisible. From the ancient notion of atomos to the identification of electrons, protons, and neutrons as subatomic entities, the understanding of the building blocks of matter has evolved dramatically. What were once considered fundamental particles, devoid of internal structure, have been successively revealed to exhibit substructure upon deeper scrutiny. This pattern suggests that labeling a particle as fundamentally indivisible is more reflective of our current technological limitations than an absolute characteristic of nature.

The implications of adopting a stance that acknowledges potential infinite divisibility in the microscopic realm are profound. It implies that particles currently deemed elementary might, in fact, possess substructure beyond our current detection capabilities. This perspective encourages a more humble and dynamic approach to our understanding of the fundamental constituents of matter. It invites us to consider that, as our experimental techniques advance, particles once thought to be elementary could be discovered to have additional layers of complexity.

If we entertain the notion of infinite divisibility, it opens the door to speculative hypotheses, such as the existence of hypothetical particles like "electronites" or the possibility that electromagnetic fields could be composed of finer constituents. This perspective could also lead to exploring the idea that mass, a property traditionally associated with certain particles, might have a more intricate relationship with the underlying structure of matter. Speculative concepts, like light having mass, could be considered within this framework, challenging established notions and prompting new avenues of inquiry.

[Anonymous No.15873783]

In conclusion, an openness to the potential infinite divisibility of particles, as suggested by the historical pattern in particle physics, encourages a more adaptive and exploratory approach to our understanding of the microscopic world. It emphasizes the provisional nature of our labels and classifications, highlighting the need for continual refinement as technology advances and our knowledge deepens. Such an approach fosters an environment where scientific inquiry can remain dynamic, responsive to new evidence, and resilient in the face of paradigm shifts.

[Anonymous No.15873785]

Also to clarify light and emf having mass further, look at this shit, you stupid piece of shit. Yeah that's right light and emfs travel faster and unimpeded in space. Yeah that's right impeded in the atmosphere. Yeah thats right the particles block the emf and light which means they have mass.

[Anonymous No.15873948]

Maybe I lost you at light and EMFS having mass, maybe I didn't explain the hypothesis. Electrons disintegrate and make electronite clouds known as EMFS. I propose an experiment to see if a EMF would impede light. Perhaps because electrons diffract light less than a hydrogen atom, electronite diffract less than a electron. If the diffraction rate is low enough then there would need to be a sufficient distance covered by the light in the particle less EMF for the sensor to pick up any decrease in speed,wavelength,amplitude. We know electrons in a emf will impede the light, so if we could somehow safely quantify how many electrons would get in the way without an EMF we could find out the exact diffraction rate of electrons and do the same thing with electrons in a EMF and find out if the EMF itself has any effect on the light. Of course we could just test a very long EMF with light to see if it impedes the light in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.15874130]

While I understand that by calling particles fundamental and elementary much like the atom in the past does not make them completely impossible to be split in the future, it definitely is very loaded in the sense that elementary can be linked to elements which are as simple as can be in alchemy. And fundamental as in fundamental math and it does not get simpler. By changing the wording and how we perceive the future and the present as represented by past failures of calling particles fundamental and elementary like the neutron and atom we can avoid the mistake of being wrong again and again by finally giving in to infinite divsibility.

[Anonymous No.15875616]

>>15873780
bump. You deserve more time here.

[Anonymous No.15875619]

>>15873780
Particles are little bit like a milk, you can only buy certain amounts at store, but you maybe can split that when you come home.

[Anonymous No.15878093]

>>15875619
But what if dad never gets home?