Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: subatomic particles

  1. #1 subatomic particles 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    A quick question on subatomic particles for any of you have the time for it.

    Is it true that the only thing we know about subatomic particles is by default via deconstructing normal atomic conditions, and therefore revealing the inner workings of an atom, the sub structure to what would otherwise be a natirally occuring event? Perhaps the word "deconstrcting" is a little harsh. What about the idea of subatomic particles representing the "pre" and "post" state of standard gross atomic particles, that subatomic particles are the "features" (of standard atomic particles) either always "ahead" or "behind", seemingly, in time?

    I have heard many accounts given by others of subatomic particles, and they give one the impression that they, subatomic particles, represent a type of naturally occurring "closer to zero" event than the standard gross atomic particles (such as the proton, neutron and electron, which always seem to exist other than being deconstructed to reveal subatomic entities which mirror pre or post state electron/proton/neutron).

    Can anyone help clarify this with me?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: subatomic particles 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    A quick question on subatomic particles for any of you have the time for it.

    Is it true that the only thing we know about subatomic particles is by default via deconstructing normal atomic conditions, and therefore revealing the inner workings of an atom, the sub structure to what would otherwise be a natirally occuring event? Perhaps the word "deconstrcting" is a little harsh. What about the idea of subatomic particles representing the "pre" and "post" state of standard gross atomic particles, that subatomic particles are the "features" (of standard atomic particles) either always "ahead" or "behind", seemingly, in time?

    I have heard many accounts given by others of subatomic particles, and they give one the impression that they, subatomic particles, represent a type of naturally occurring "closer to zero" event than the standard gross atomic particles (such as the proton, neutron and electron, which always seem to exist other than being deconstructed to reveal subatomic entities which mirror pre or post state electron/proton/neutron).

    Can anyone help clarify this with me?
    Probably not. I am a physicist but I don't know what language you are speaking. Are you philosophy major, or did you just learn to speak reading Derrida or something?

    Physicists are basically critical realists and mathematicians so they can give you an answer posed in either of those two languages. You can think of mathematics being their native language and critical realism something which they translate things into in order to communicate with the rest of the world.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    As a physicist you are obviously a highly intelligent person.

    Maybe you could explain what a subatomic particle is in real terms, minus all the mechanisms to investigate their existence. For instance, are they naturally occurring, independent of the gross atomic particles, (p, n, e) or must they exist relevant to (in association with) their greater gross atomic particles (p, n, e).

    I apologise for seeming initially obscure with that request.

    How about I pose it in the following way:

    Do subatomic particles exist:
    - independent of the mechanisms used to prove their existence? (think about that)
    - independent of the gross atomic particles (p, n, e).
    (i.e, are they independent entities and thus can be measured as though independent animals (so to speak) in the subatomic wild (so to speak) not affected by the instruments used to measure their existence (sorry if that sounds too philosophical)).
    - dependent on the gross atomic paritcles (m, n, e)
    - can only be proven to exist in using experiment techniques that alter the naturally occuring state of the gross atomic particles.

    These are merely questions. If they make no sense, which part of them makes no sense? I would be happy to elaborate. basically, my questions are in the aim of establishing the exact link between the atomic particles and the subatomic particles, and what part the mechanics, the particle accelerators and colliders, of research have on the gross particles (e, p, n) to suggest (is that the right word) the existence of subatomic particles.

    Don't be offended. I am not trying to offend. I would like to know from a physicist what the official line is, as I am not a physicist, nor philosopher, just someone genuinely interested in what I am told of subatomic physics. As I read it, as I hear it, from the media, physics actually tells a story of subatomic particles as independently existing particles, like the standard atomic particles (e, p, n). Is that though the proper story? Are they independent existing particles, or do they depend on "experimental" conditions, conditions not naturally found? A particle accelerator for instance is not an naturally occuring thing, but the force of collisions "derives" circumstances suggesting "sub-structures" to what we know as gross atomic phenomena, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •