1. We know that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They are made of quarks. What makes up quarks? What makes up the the thing that makes up quarks? Etc. How far does it go? Is there a point at which matter itself is made up of energy? E=MC^2, M/C^2=E? Is energy the simplest state of existance? If not, what is the composition energy?

2.

3. Okay first of all the equation E=MC^2 means that if you "unravell" matter you get a large amount of energy and likewise you need a lare amount of energy to create matter. It is by no means an exact equation.

Secondly, a quark is a fundamental particle in the standard model, that is to say they cannot be broken down any further, just like the electron. A Large amount of energy in a small enough space will usually create a quark.

4. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Okay first of all the equation E=MC^2 means that if you "unravell" matter you get a large amount of energy and likewise you need a lare amount of energy to create matter. It is by no means an exact equation.

Secondly, a quark is a fundamental particle in the standard model, that is to say they cannot be broken down any further, just like the electron. A Large amount of energy in a small enough space will usually create a quark.
Okay, but if you can can make matter(quarks) from large amounts of energy, and matter can not be created from nothing, woulden't that mean that the energy makes up the quark?

5. String theory dictates that Quarks are bands of energy vibrating at various frequencies. You can't break it down any further than that.

6. Originally Posted by Tenacity
String theory dictates that Quarks are bands of energy vibrating at various frequencies. You can't break it down any further than that.
So matter is just a state of energy?

7. Originally Posted by Raymond K
Originally Posted by Tenacity
String theory dictates that Quarks are bands of energy vibrating at various frequencies. You can't break it down any further than that.
So matter is just a state of energy?

8. You have it there yeah. Not a hard concept to be honest when you can convert Matter to Energy and supposedly Energy to Matter, could also help explain wave particle duality.

9. E=mc<sup>2</sup> dictates the equivalence of matter and energy, so you're right, matter is energy, energy is matter.

10. Originally Posted by Tenacity
String theory dictates that Quarks are bands of energy vibrating at various frequencies. You can't break it down any further than that.
I personally am suspicious about this. It seem to have happened many times int the. Many times people thought they knew the smallest state of matter, but then this was discovered to be wrong. It seems like we might discover something else in the future.

11. Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
I personally am suspicious about this. It seem to have happened many times int the. Many times people thought they knew the smallest state of matter, but then this was discovered to be wrong. It seems like we might discover something else in the future.
Are you the type of person who having rolled an odd number on a die three times in a row start thinking the next roll has to be odd as well?

No this situation is not comparable but neither is the situation now comparable to the previous sitations when quarks theory was proposed.

The Standard Model has stood quite solid for decades while physicist have tried everything to find a flaw in it. Why? Because they are convinced that there must by an underlying theory which includes both quantum field theory and gravity. This is the reason for work on string theory. But the situation is now that the Standard model is what physicists must measure string theory against to see if it is correct. Just as Newton's theory of gravity was the first test of General Relativity.

Unlike protons, neutrons and mesons, quarks are fundamental point particles like electrons and neutrinos. There is no never-ending reduction to smaller particles. Quarks were the answer to a lot of unexplained physics in particle accelerators giving us the Standard Model which explains all the physics in particle accelerators.

If you are expecting a scientific revolution in physics then you have been misled by Kuhn for this is not a good description of what happens in the development of physics at all.

12. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
If you are expecting a scientific revolution in physics then you have been misled by Kuhn for this is not a good description of what happens in the development of physics at all.
:wink:

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement