[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.06 MB, 1226x946, STAR_ev2_front1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2542369 No.2542369 [Reply] [Original]

is there a building block of all matter?
If we don't know of one now, will one be discovered?

>> No.2542418

Maybe I'm missing some part of your question, but the answer since 3rd grade has been the atom.

>> No.2542421

>>2542418
erm, smaller things have been found

>> No.2542427

>>2542418
hurdur but what are atoms made of, and what are those things made of, and how about the things that make up those things that make up matter?

>> No.2542431

We don't know, we're looking.

>> No.2542435
File: 42 KB, 400x400, trollgif.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2542435

Little Strings

>> No.2542436

>>2542431
ergo LHC

>> No.2542438

>>2542369
the simple answer is probly, right now the def is an atom is the building block of matter, but those are made of elctrons, protons, and neutrons. but protons and neutrons are made of even smaller particles. It is best just to say all matter is made of energy. we dont know how small things get, but everything smaller than an atom is no longer considered matter at that point but energy.

>> No.2542440

>>2542427
Electrons, neutrons, protons. Einstein also theorized that energy and matter are analogous.

>> No.2542442

puppy dogs and kittens

>> No.2542443

>>2542418
not to burst your bubble but they lied to you in the 3rd grade.

>>2542369
There are a number of so called "fundamental particles" that have been discovered. These include electrons, various quarks, positrons, etc. We think these particles are indivisible. Just like all science this only holds true until disproven.

>> No.2542445

strings dood, strings.

>> No.2542448

Little pieces of baby Jesus love.

>> No.2542450

>>2542440
this is just so unsightly true that its not even worth saying. of course they are the same things, its not really a theory for me at this point.

>> No.2542452

>>2542440
protons and neutrons are made of quarks.

>> No.2542456

what if it's nothing....

matter come from nothing...

what then...

>> No.2542457

>>2542450
It's not a theory? then what is it?

>> No.2542460

>>2542443
>We think these particles are indivisible
No we don't. We have nothing that such a thought could be based on. The standard model has quarks and electrons as fundamental particles. That doesn't imply that we think they are actually fundamental or not. Believers in string theory think they're not. I doubt many seriously thinks they are.

>> No.2542485

>>2542460
We think they're indivisible because we havnt found what, if anything, they're composed of. Scientists dont base theory on hunches. We have no reason to believe there are any 'smaller' particles so we dont believe in them...

>> No.2542542

>>2542443
>electrons
>indivisible
We need a physicist in here, stat

>> No.2542864

Today, the most explainig theory is the ...
Quantum chromodynamics (look on Wiki)
atoms are
1) made of electrons (negatives charges)
2) orbiting (in fact according quatum mechanics they have a probability distribution to be in certain positions around the nucleus and different energy = diffrent probability distribution)
3) around the nucleus composed of neutrons (neutral charged particles) and protons (positives charged particles)

>> No.2542869

I guess the pic of the thread is taken from ATLAS, it's a freaking huge particle collider located in Switzerland (the famous LHC), each line represent the trajectory of a quark. As sub-atomical particles, they can be seen independently only at fucking high energies, so we need to collide particles between them to obtain quark, they are really reactive with matter (except neutrinos) so they return in "normal" matter (as atoms) in less than a few microsecond (10^-6 s) or even less.

Actually right now, there is 2 big questions to solve :
1) During the Big Bang, matter and anti-matter were generated just as the same proportion, but today, the entire uiverse seems composed of matter, so what the fuck did happen to the anti-matter (and yes, that's true, matter touching anti-matter destroy themselves and are transformed into energy, but it DON'T explode !)
2) Some quark predicted by the theory aren't still proven to be existing. Most especially the Higgs boson, which could explain why the matter has a weight. And therefore why there is gravity.

>> No.2542885

yes. plasma. duh, it was written on the oldest textbooks in the history of man. rock. op's pic related

>> No.2542899

>>2542869
>Higgs boson
>some quark
>boson
>quark

>> No.2542937

>>2542869
>Some quark predicted by the theory aren't still proven to be existing.

no kidding, hence why no one cares

>> No.2542948

Matter is your interpretation of an objective phenomenon. You can build on the interpretation indefinitely

>> No.2542961

>>2542948
go away, we're scientists here.

>> No.2542973

>>2542961
Sorry
insert huge math equation here

>> No.2543004

>>2542864

I am not disagreeing, I am mostly adding to your post to clarify an interesting point that I learned through a study of pure math PDEs...
the schrodinger equation is a complex diffusion equation... NOT a wave equation (just look up both PDEs and compare them, the form is very important and they are fundamentally different).

the schrodinger equation describes the time dependent spatial diffusion of a particle's probability density with respect to some potential (which can basically be though of as a constant "source" in diffusion theory, whose reach/affect on the diffusion is spatially and/or time dependent).


I mention this because people often, mistakenly "beat in" the concept that the Schrodinger equation models "waves"


this is not true. indeed, all forms of the schrodinger equation are so similar to the diffusion equation, that I find it hilarious that physics classes do not START by teaching this theory to students.

it is an intuitive viewpoint that I feel neglected for only learning AFTER i took all of my quantum mechanics.

>> No.2543044
File: 451 KB, 1615x1052, 0511013_01-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2543044

Das ist Physics !

>> No.2543083

>>2543004
This nonsense again? The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation. Not a diffusion equation. You don't get a diffusion equation unless you plug in t -> it. Sure, it's not "the" wave equation that we use to describe waves whose phase (and group) velocity is independent of their wavelength. (It would be stupid to use that equation, as matter obviously does not always travel at the same speed.) But there are plenty of other differential equations that are wave equations, and Schrodinger is one of them. Every solution to the free Schrodinger equation is a superposition of plane waves.

>> No.2543091

There is, its called an atom.

>> No.2543117

Regress argument incoming