I readed in scientific american that something like 99% of the mass of the proton come from the rotational motion of its constituents quarks, that the mass of the quark are realy small.

Can we extend that to the quark and tell that the mass of the quark are 99% motion of it constituent (I know that the standard model consider the quark fundamental)

 

At the end can it be that the only real thing is motion ?

Can we extend that to the quark and tell that the mass of the quark are 99% motion of it constituent (I know that the standard model consider the quark fundamental)

 

On what basis? You said it yourself: We have no evidence of "quark parts".

I readed in scientific american that something like 99% of the mass of the proton come from the rotational motion of its constituents quarks' date=' that the mass of the quark are realy small.

[/quote']

 

That is correct. This is a dynamical generation of mass.

 

Can we extend that to the quark and tell that the mass of the quark are 99% motion of it constituent (I know that the standard model consider the quark fundamental)

 

In out current theory, the quarks are point like objects, so their mass is just set by a parameter in the theory and is not dynamically generated. However, if we ever find out that the quarks are not fundamental, then their constituents will have motion which contributes to the mass. So you are correct in your 'prediction'. Most particle physicists think there will be something more fundamantal (strings?) so this will probably one day be proven correct.

 

At the end can it be that the only real thing is motion ?

 

Interestingly enough, this is also the way that a lot of physicists believe things will turn out. An object having an 'inherent mass' is not very attractive from a theoretical perspective because it is a parameter of the theory which you cannot predict. So probably masses 'come form someting else'.

 

Also interesting is the fact that String Theory is 'conformal'. This is a technical term which basically means that it has no inherent mass scale. So string theory would fit your bill - a theory where mass, as you put it, is all motion.