/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11081526

71KiB, 742x560, 1571717240119.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 05:10:17 2019 No.11081526 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11081553

how likely is it that there are actually 25 fundamental particles ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:15:05 No.11081533 Report

Quoted By: >>11081536 >>11081539 >>11081541 >>11081546

>how likely is it that there are actually 25 fundamental particles ?
What have you tried?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:19:39 No.11081536 Report

Quoted By: >>11081609

>>11081533
Have you considered that maybe you are unable to fully observe the fundamental particles yet? Because limitations? Do you realize that maybe you don't have a good enough microscope metaphorically speaking? If atoms are complex arrangements of particles, and molecules complex arrangements of atoms, etc., then aren't fundamental particles just complex arrangements of the REAL fundamental particles? That is, there is only a small number of fundamental particles that naturally form distinctive repetitive patterns which are the 16 fundamental particles (or 25)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:21:32 No.11081539 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081533
>What have you tried?
You realize that my resources are just a stick and a rock right? Give me a break.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:22:41 No.11081541 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081533
>What have you tried
What were you expecting me to be able to say?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:26:20 No.11081546 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081533
What if there was only one fundamental particle that's properties allow it to form 16 different complex particle arrangements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:27:44 No.11081549 Report

Quoted By: >>11081551

Hehe...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:28:46 No.11081551 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081549
there's something familiar about this post...

maybe there's only two fundamental particles, one has different functions than the other one and they interact with each other in weird ways as a result...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:29:46 No.11081553 Report

Quoted By: >>11081556 >>11081573

>>11081526
All quantum mechanics is a hoax, everything after Einstein, there are no subatomic particles.
There is no evidence for the existence of subatomic particles.
There is no evidence that light is a particle.
You are caught up in a lie.
You are the victim of a meticulously crafted fantasy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:33:19 No.11081556 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081553
I don't necessarily believe that at all.
I don't believe you lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:43:34 No.11081570 Report

Quoted By: >>11081572

or what if nothing exists as a singular, but things can only exist in terms of their relationship or interaction with other things and their singular existence is only a means to the ends

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:44:37 No.11081572 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081570
there's something familiar about this post...

or what if the means determine the ends? or the ends determine the means? or something else entirely?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:45:35 No.11081573 Report

Quoted By: >>11081577

>>11081553
The denial quantum mechanics is a hoax, everything after Einstein, there are absolutely subatomic particles.
There is evidence for the existence of subatomic particles.
There is evidence that light is a particle.
You are caught up in a lie.
You are the victim of a meticulously crafted fantasy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:48:11 No.11081577 Report

Quoted By: >>11081584

>>11081573
The denial of quantum physics is mostly stupid, there are most-likely subatomic wave-particles
There is evidence for the existence of subatomic wave-particles.
There is evidence that light is a wave-particle.
How do you know that you are either caught up in a lie or not caught up in a lie?
You may be the victim of a meticulously crafted fantasy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:50:45 No.11081584 Report

Quoted By: >>11081590

>>11081577
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 05:52:35 No.11081590 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081584
There's something familiar about that post too...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 06:01:20 No.11081609 Report

Quoted By: >>11082147

>>11081536
>then aren't fundamental particles just complex arrangements of the REAL fundamental particles?

How do you know they are real? Why did you stop there? Why not new particles all the way down?

This is why we have string theory. The string is supposed to be the base unit for everything and what each string does determines its properties.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Oct 2019 12:52:00 No.11082147 Report

Quoted By:

>>11081609

But how is the evidence for that?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches