robinpike

Since a fundamental particle cannot be divided any further (by definition), shouldn't that be a fundamental particle cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, rather than cannot be "made of" anything? The difference between the two meanings is huge. If you did mean cannot be "made up" of anything smaller, is that confirmation that they are made of something? However, if you did mean that a fundamental particle is not made of anything - can you elaborate how that works? For example, how does a particle made of nothing distinguish itself from another, different type of particle made of nothing, and how are the properties of say, electric charge, mass, movement, etc produced?

So the Standard Model does not predict what the elementary particles are made of. So, if someone suggests that the elementary particles are made of the same substance, then they cannot be contradicting the Standard Model, since the Standard Model has no opinion about what elementary particles are made of.

Thanks Swansont, that is a key point. If the Standard Model has the fundamental particles as not made of a substance, doesn't that make the Standard Model more of a hypothesis than a theory?

Thanks for all your points. Just to make sure I understand the principles of the Standard Model correctly... Is the current understanding this: The electron, up quark, down quark and photon are elementary particles and each of these are made of a different substance to the others? If this is not correct, please post the correct understanding, thanks.

It is just convenient to use the same term - a wave in water is the movement of quadrillions of water molecules moving against each other.

You see, this is where I think we have to be careful. The facts of your example above, are the results of the electron scattering experiment - which is undeniable - and the conclusion is that the neutron has three quarks inside it - and it is this part that could be challenged. If someone proposes an alternative explanation of the electron scattering from a neutron that has not been considered before, must their hypothesis have to include mathematics? What if it is difficult to convert their hypothesis into mathematics. For example, what if their hypothesis uses compound particles at the level of the electron, proton, or photon, and therefore requires the mathematics (and engine) of 3D modelling? How would they have the resources to develop such a mathematical model? In that case, why did it take 100 years before Copernicus's explanation was accepted? What were they arguing about? What about the physics of being thrown off a spinning Earth - that conclusion came about through the then known physics of a spinning body (but without the knowledge of gravity)? And then there was the parallax problem, which was only overcome 3 centuries later. I made this post because I would like to have a discussion on the hypothesis that the electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance. But I have a feeling that responses to such a post will simply be: there is no experimental evidence that supports such a hypothesis - there is nothing to discuss?

Physicists describe Copernicus’s Theory ‘On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres’ as complete rubbish… Physicists summarised the theory’s failings by pointing out that, if the Earth really was flying around the sun, then there would be a great wind as the Earth rushed through the air. The physicists continued, “All you need is one failure of a model to prove that it is false, but if you want more…” 1. If the Earth really was spinning on its axis (as required in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory to explain the diurnal motion of the sky), then why don't objects fly off the spinning Earth? Since things do not fly off, the theory is obviously false. 2. If the Earth really was in motion around the sun, then why don’t birds flying in the air get left behind? Since birds do not get left behind, the theory is visibly false. 3. If the Earth really was in orbit around the sun, then why isn't a parallax effect observed on the stars in the sky? That is, the stars should appear to change their position with respect to other stars as the Earth moves in its orbit? (Just as viewing an object first with one eye, and then the other, causes the apparent position of the object to change with respect to its background.) As the parallax effect isn't observed, the theory is patently false. And the physicists continued… The method that Copernicus has used to produce his theory is incorrect: Copernicus has used Astronomy to postulate about Physics, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of Physics to determine things about Astronomy. And what is more, Copernicus has neither read nor understood the arguments of Physics. In essence, Copernicus is deficient in the sciences of physics and logic. It is stupid of Copernicus to contradict an opinion accepted by everyone, over a long period of time, for the strongest of reasons. If he does, then Copernicus must use more powerful and implicit demonstrations and completely dissolve the opposed reasons. But Copernicus does none of these. End of news flash ========================================================== Yes, lighthearted (and not a criticism of anyone), it is a fantastic example of how a speculative theory can be proven to be absolutely and undoubtedly wrong, only later for it to be realised that it is correct and lead to a great leap in understanding. Copernicus assumed the motion of the Earth, but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. At the time, physicists did not realise that the investigation into Copernicus’s ideas would result in a re-thinking of the entire field of physics. It took many years before physicists realised that the objections above were false, this began when Newton introduced the concept of gravity, Kepler the elliptical motion of planets around the sun, and then when astronomers pointed out that stars were at enormous distances from the Earth. It strikes me that when someone posts a speculative theory, the discussion should follow a less absolute line of reasoning than is sometimes produced. For example, “This is proof as to why your theory cannot be true”, or “This is proof as to why the Standard Model must be correct”, cannot necessarily be assured. For as Donald Rumsfeld said: “But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know”. And what we don’t know means that any impeccable line of reasoning could be missing something and be invalid.

Maybe I need to take a step back on this first... Do we understand how the electron and proton have the property of inertia? If so, what is the explanation?

True, but ironically, it is easier to think of complicated explanations than simple explanations. So, if you arrive at a complicated explanation, it is worth thinking about it some more to see if there is a simple explanation - for if there is - then that is far more likely to be how our universe works.

However, when it comes to creating a universe, it is reasonable to expect simple universes to be created far more often than complicated ones. If there is a simple way to create atoms and life, and there is a complicated way to create atoms and life, then it is far more likely that our universe is a version of the simple one.

above post got duplicated

I re-posted this thinking it didn't go in - not realising that the post was then moved to the Physics section. So please reply to it in that section... thanks The discovery of the Higgs is evidence, so yes, I agree it may count, as it was something predicted by theory. On reading the Wikepedia explanation of how the Higgs mechanism gives mass to particles, it is very complicated. I have a few questions: Does the Higgs field give particles inertia, i.e. is that what giving mass to a particle, means? If so, how the does the Higgs field avoid giving a particle continuous inertia that slows it down continuously? And how does the Higgs field give a particle inertia according to Relativity, as presumably, a moving particle is not moving in its own reference frame, and so what reference frame is the Higgs field in when it interacts with a particle?

The discovery of the Higgs is evidence, so yes, I agree it may count, as it was something predicted by theory. On reading the Wikepedia explanation of how the Higgs mechanism gives mass to particles, it is very complicated. I have a few questions: Does the Higgs field give particles inertia, i.e. is that what giving mass to a particle, means? If so, how the does the Higgs field avoid giving a particle continuous inertia that slows it down continuously? And how does the Higgs field give a particle inertia according to Relativity, as presumably, a moving particle is not moving in its own reference frame, and so what reference frame is the Higgs field in when it interacts with a particle?

I agree with the principle of using Occam's Razor - but I disagree with your conclusion using it... Having electrons and light made of the same substance is a much simpler mechanism than the suggestion that electrons and positrons create something different, i.e. light - and then having created this different substance, themselves disappear. By the way, the reason why Occam's Razor applies, is because it is vastly more likely (just on a statistical basis) that we are in a universe that has simple mechanisms at its fundamental level, than a universe that has complex mechanisms at its fundamental level.

Because an electron has mass, and light does not, does not necessarily mean that the two cannot be made of the same substance. To show that the model is a failure, would require the inclusion of how an electron acquires the property of mass, and show that this would also give light the property of mass - therefore showing that the model is flawed. Can that be done?

I don't follow, why must light have a dipole moment if it were made up of charges? And isn't that rather a large step from, light does not have a dipole moment, therefore light is not made up of charges?

Shouldn't that be ...New mathematical tools are found to PREDICT physics?

I think maths in physics is used in a very specific way: in order to predict what things do without necessarily explaining why. In the example above of how much force is required to lift a box, we can have a very accurate mathematical equation that states what force is required to lift a certain weight, without the equation having to explain how the force works, how things obtain weight, how gravity works, what the box is made of etc etc. If someone asks "But how does an object obtain the quality of weight?", this doesn't mean that they are questioning the accuracy of the equation that relates force with weight. This is where a hypothesis seems to be more suitable than maths in explaining why an object does something. For discussion, I gave the example of a hypothesis as "The electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance" and the reply given "The answer is trivially "no" and you don't need math to say that." I can argue back (without using maths as well) that the answer importantly is "Yes", since light can be made using an electron and positron, or light can be made using a proton and an anti-proton.

With regards to the post: Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? Here, as an example, is a hypothesis: The electron, proton and photon are made of the same substance. Are people saying that maths is the only method at our disposal to investigate a hypothesis? Because it strikes me that a lot of non mathematical thinking must surely have to precede any output of equations? In the above example, there are lots of observations that can be used, both for and against the hypothesis, so surely they would be discussed before any use of maths?