CALLING ALL PHYSICISTS: Is atomic theory almost wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

It is thought that there must be "smallest particles," because without some finite form (that can be described mathematically), matter cannot exist.

However, what if I propose that the smallest material unity is of a form which can be represented by various numerical assignments in a set of qualities (i.e., mass, charge, spin, superstring dimension, etc.) according to the following rule: That the elements of such a set are comprised of a listing of two possibilities: either 0 or the least real number >0?

This should be in the science forum, and not in the general autism forum.

In regards to the question: To my understanding they pretty much have proven that atoms exist. They are not really "indivisible" ( thats why we have atom bombs), but they exist.

Hmm. Ok I hope they move it there.

Of course of course atoms exist. But I am speaking of the notion of a smallest particle. So, something smaller than quarks and strings, etc.

Are you a physicist?

I dont even play one on TV!

My cousin is one, and his dad was one of the Manhatten project physicist. But Im not.

Sorry.

Aw that's cool. You're related to a bomb guy. Which one if I may ask?

Can you elaborate as to what you mean?
My reading comprehension is below average.

Physics is (one of many) my special interests.
I would like to discuss this with you.

Id say the strings in the string theory are composed of something else than charges.

I am wondering, you see, if whatever the foundational particle is, is that which can be described as a permutation of some set A: A= {x1, x2, x3 ... xn} with values for xn either 0 or the smallest real number > 0. Such a set could be those variables which can be used to describe the vibrations of a string.

Actually, as I look at that set idea, the set needs to be composed of elements of either 0 or 1.
But the multiplier of the set would be x: x least real number >0.

Am I making sense here? I am being extraordinarily foundational here.

I'm not sure I'm quite getting your concept of a foundational particle. Are you thinking about this in relation to the standard model?

How does your theoretical ultimate particle relate to quarks, leptons, bosons?

It seems to me that the idea of a smallest unit of stuff sort of ignores some perspectives that come into play in the quantum realm.

It sounds like an attempt to look at the particle zoo in classical terms. Maybe that's not the most helpful direction in the light of current data?

Show the maths.

[Moved from General Autism Discussion to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology]

I second that emotion.

Zero. Or the first real number after zero?

Lol!

That latter would be "one over infinity".

Wouldnt it?

Zero, or "One infinitieth".

Not one of the handful of famous biggies you would have heard of (like Fermi, or Oppenheimer). But he cut his professional teeth at Los Alamos among the other hundreds involved in the Manhatten Project.

::not a physicist::, but here's my 2c

It can, just not inside the mathematical model. New methods can test new models, but ultimately, reality is not something that can be constrained to a metalanguage. This is true by the very nature of language. The map is not the territory, and the sciences are only metalanguages of reality. The true nature of reality is ineffable.