# What Are Sub-Atomic paricles composed Of? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 3, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571 "2013-07-03T18:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/21 "2013-07-03T22:35:24Z")
ARTHUR: Camelot! SIR GALAHAD: Camelot! LANCELOT: Camelot! PATSY: It’s only a model. ARTHUR: Shh! ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/22 "2013-07-03T22:59:15Z")
See, I think one thing that needs to happen, for improved common understand (or at least for reduced misunderstanding), is to purge from our vocabularies the word “particles”, as used for these sub-atomic thingies, at least down at the quark/electron/photon level. The notion that “particle” == "very tiny, perhaps indivisible, bit of _stuff"_ is too ingrained in the popular consciousness. Scientists were perhaps on the right track when they started calling some of these thingies “wavicles”. Can someone knowledgeable help us understand what a “field” is, in the context of quantum-level [del]stuff[/del] whatever, or an “excitation” thereof? This [del]stuff[/del] whatever seems to be comprehensible _only_ in terms of the abstract mathematical descriptions thereof, and even that, only to people with the requisite math know-how. For the rest of us, this unfortunately boils down to little more than abstract and incomprehensible mumbo jumbo. What does it mean, in terms a layman could understand (if possible), to say that these elementary [del]particles[/del] whatevers are just “excitations of [some] field”? ETA: In 25 words or less. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/23 "2013-07-03T23:10:20Z")
Tiny black holes. Lots of tiny black holes. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/24 "2013-07-03T23:16:42Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > ETA: In 25 words or less. Everything we see, everything we feel, is but the interference patterns of ripples on many ponds. _adopts hippy face_ ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/25 "2013-07-03T23:17:26Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Tiny black holes. > > Lots of tiny black holes. No, no, no. You have electrons confused with the universe. We live in a black hole. I can prove it logically, but only as Evil!Skald. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/26 "2013-07-03T23:30:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Itself** : > > 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. The cat on the cover is alive. And incidentally, Griffith’s particle physics book is even better, though it does presume some prior exposure to quantum mechanics. **Senegoid** , all a field is is something that has a quantifiable value at every point in space. It’s an extremely general term. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/27 "2013-07-03T23:45:36Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] The cat on the cover is alive. [/QUOTE] I think they’ve come out with newer editions since I bought mine, but I could have sworn the cat on the front cover was alive and the cat on the back cover was dead. And yeah, this sort of question is more QFT than quantum mechanics, but you have to start somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/28 "2013-07-03T23:52:36Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Scientists were perhaps on the right track when they started calling some of these thingies “wavicles”. Because, like testicles, the wavicles are [always in motion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3198139#post3198139). ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/29 "2013-07-04T00:11:53Z")
Also both wavicles and testicles shrink when observed. Wavicles collapse to point phenomena, testicles are subject to [scrotal shrinkage](http://teens.webmd.com/boys/testicles-faq). ---
**Author:** ![eltro102](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@eltro102](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eltro102)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/30 "2013-07-04T00:29:30Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > See, I think one thing that needs to happen, for improved common understand (or at least for reduced misunderstanding), is to purge from our vocabularies the word “particles”, as used for these sub-atomic thingies, at least down at the quark/electron/photon level. The notion that “particle” == "very tiny, perhaps indivisible, bit of _stuff"_ is too ingrained in the popular consciousness. > > Scientists were perhaps on the right track when they started calling some of these thingies “wavicles”. > > Can someone knowledgeable help us understand what a “field” is, in the context of quantum-level [del]stuff[/del] whatever, or an “excitation” thereof? > > This [del]stuff[/del] whatever seems to be comprehensible _only_ in terms of the abstract mathematical descriptions thereof, and even that, only to people with the requisite math know-how. For the rest of us, this unfortunately boils down to little more than abstract and incomprehensible mumbo jumbo. What does it mean, in terms a layman could understand (if possible), to say that these elementary [del]particles[/del] whatevers are just “excitations of [some] field”? > > ETA: In 25 words or less. an excitation is a pinch in a field ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/31 "2013-07-04T00:35:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I think they’ve come out with newer editions since I bought mine, but I could have sworn the cat on the front cover was alive and the cat on the back cover was dead. Indeed. I was attempting to make a joke, while also making a perfectly true (if incomplete) statement. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/32 "2013-07-04T00:36:54Z")
Ultimately, science tells us what things DO, not what things ARE. When we say “this is an electron”, “electron” is merely a tag that we use to refer to a particular set of properties. Calling something an electron is a quick way to describe how a particular chunk of the universe will behave under certain circumstances. It says nothing about what that chunk of the universe “actually” is. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/33 "2013-07-04T01:14:17Z")
_Big fleas have little fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em. And little fleas have lesser fleas And so, ad infinitum._ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/34 "2013-07-04T01:25:33Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > _Big fleas have little fleas > Upon their backs to bite 'em. > And little fleas have lesser fleas > And so, ad infinitum._ Fuck, I came here to post that. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/35 "2013-07-04T01:34:24Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > Biology is applied chemistry. > Chemistry is applied physics. > Physics is applied mathematics. > Mathematics is applied philosophy. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I’m with you up until the last one … Perhaps it will help to consider that mathematics is not just about numbers. [Venn diagrams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram) and [truth tables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table) are also mathematics. Biology, at its most basic level, is about how molecules interact. Chemistry, at its most basic level is about the attractions between atoms. Physics, at its most basic level, has nothing to do with matter as we know it, but about solving equations. Mathematics, at its most basic level, is about formulating self-consistent rules that don’t violate each other. If that doesn’t help, then please accept my apologies for hijacking the thread, and we can move onwards. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/36 "2013-07-04T02:22:30Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Indeed. I was attempting to make a joke, while also making a perfectly true (if incomplete) statement. [/QUOTE] Er…yes. Sorry, I left my joke detector back at work this morning, along with my general competence. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/37 "2013-07-04T02:43:00Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > Perhaps it will help to consider that mathematics is not just about numbers. [Venn diagrams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram) and [truth tables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table) are also mathematics. More importantly, though, mathematics can only exist if it rests on pre-defined rules. You can’t discuss these rules without veering off into philosophy. You can’t use math to argue the validity of the Peano axioms, for instance. It’s not a coincidence that from Pythagoras to Leibniz, Descartes, Pointcarré, or Bertrand Russell, so many great mathematicians were also philosophers. Which is why ultimately the OP’s question can only lead to opening the big bag of worms of metaphysics. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/38 "2013-07-04T02:44:00Z")
“Itself” explained it well. The only thing I’d like to add is that the truly elementary particles (the electrons and quarks, for example) have no measurable size. For all we know, they are point particles. In string theory, however, they are of finite but very tiny size in at least one of their dimensions. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/39 "2013-07-04T02:53:06Z")
[QUOTE=jovan] It’s not a coincidence that from Pythagoras to Leibniz, Descartes, Poincaré, or Bertrand Russell, so many great mathematicians were also philosophers. [/QUOTE] While that may have been true even 50 years ago, it certainly isn’t true anymore. Until the 17th century, there wasn’t even such a thing as a mathematician; you were simply a natural philosopher who was adept with numbers, and probably had some training in physics (which was also embryonic) and engineering. Now, aside from some overlap in mathematical logic and set theory, there’s really not a very strong connection between philosophy and math at all. More to the point of the thread, the contribution of philosophers in the field of quantum physics has been overwhelmingly underwhelming. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571/40 "2013-07-04T02:57:16Z")
> [@jovan](#): > > More importantly, though, mathematics can only exist if it rests on pre-defined rules. You can’t discuss these rules without veering off into philosophy. You can’t use math to argue the validity of the Peano axioms, for instance. It’s not a coincidence that from Pythagoras to Leibniz, Descartes, Pointcarré, or Bertrand Russell, so many great mathematicians were also philosophers. > > Which is why ultimately the OP’s question can only lead to opening the big bag of worms of metaphysics. Those axioms apply to set theory, right? What about type theory. Does that have the same problems? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-sub-atomic-paricles-composed-of/662571.md?page=3)