3 ms·
Actually I think you might have fallen for an easy misreading of my question, because I specifically omitted the word "fundamental" before the word "particle" d
by wfunction 10y ago
Actually I think you might have fallen for an easy misreading of my question, because I specifically omitted the word "fundamental" before the word "particle" due to the fact that they are still made of quarks. The assumption in my question was that "particle" has a reasonable definition... unless you're suggesting it doesn't?
(Edit: slightly recorded comment to make it sound less sarcastic, since I wasn't trying to be. I actually do think it's completely possible that "particle" doesn't have a definition; I just didn't think it was likely that that was what was being said.)
- tgb 10y agoI certainly was taking a stab and tried to address what I thought you were most likely thinking about. It's hard to judge over text and I think my comment provided useful context for people reading it, even if you already knew it. I'd also be interested in knowing whether particle physicists expect a finite number of quark-based particles and, if so, why.
- Natanael_L 10y agoTechnically that makes neutron stars a big particle
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]