Textbooks portray electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. as spheres-because we have no other way of visualizing them. But just what are the composed of? Is there a substance smaller than them that constitutes them>
?
Or are they just imaginary, yet possessing attributes like mass, charge ,etc.?
From der Wiki:
A quark (/ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei. Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, such as baryons (of which protons and neutrons are examples), and mesons. For this reason, much of what is known about quarks has been drawn from observations of the hadrons themselves.
More here:
The electron is the name we use for what appears to be a “sub-atomic particle” with certain properties. What such particles “are” is not known at the moment.
Protons and neutrons are names given to what appeared to be “sub-atomic particles” with certain properties. It was later discovered that they were made up of even smaller particles with other properties. We use the name quark for those “particles”. What they “are” is not known at the moment.
We know how they behave, we know how they make other particles behave through various interactions, we know how large a sphere of influence they have, but as they are the things that matter is made of …
Stuff.
energy
I like to think quarks etc are ultimately made of maths.
No, not “stuff”. They’re made of fundamentals, and constituents… and stuff.
Biology is applied chemistry.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Physics is applied mathematics.
Mathematics is applied philosophy.
So…iddy biddy strings, then?
This is one of the million places where our “common sense” understanding breaks down. We think of things made from stuff. If we get sophisticated we can talk about atoms and molecules, i.e. specific stuff. But sub-atomic particles aren’t anything at all like everyday stuff. There’s no vocabulary even to discuss it.
Well, there is a mathematical universe hypothesis.
Each playing a note in the majestic symphony that is, say, a molecule of oxygen.
Flubber.
They’re made of teeny-tiny planets that you can visit if you have a shrink ray.
Quark gets its name from James Joyce: Quark - definition of quark by The Free Dictionary
I came across a pithy comment somewhere a while ago, demonstrating that sub-atomic (or maybe sub-sub-atomic) “particles” aren’t really “particles” like you normally think of “particles” being itty bitty bits of matter:
If STUFF is made of quarks, then quarks can’t be made of STUFF.
Well, if not stuff, maybe ylem.
Short answer: Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks themselves, as well as electrons, photons, etc. are apparently elementary particles. (That is, I’m not aware of any significant theories or experiments that ascribe composite structure to them, although ideas for some have certainly been floated around). If it’s confusing, think of a fundamental particle as a packet of energy, or an excitation of a field, rather than something like a tiny billiard ball.
They’re certainly not imaginary, and it’s pretty insupportable at this point to say that electrons, protons, quarks, etc. are just mathematical constructs with no basis in reality. I’d go further and say that an electron, for example, is an excitation of a certain field that has certain mass, charge, quantum numbers, etc. It doesn’t make sense to talk about a particle that’s exactly the same as an electron but has twice the mass, or a particle that’s exactly the same as an electron but has twice the charge. That’s what an electron is; at that point, you have a different kind of particle that happens to look very similar to an electron.
Anyway, you should pick up a copy of Griffiths’ “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.” It’s my favorite book with a dead cat on the cover.
I’m with you up until the last one*, but most philosophy seems utterly without content to me.
- With the qualification that there’s a lot of stats in biology.
I remember when it was all fields around here.