3 ms·

Not in the context of a "quark system", and "point space", and most importantly "Standard Model", i.e. the remainder of your post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

Not in the context of a "quark system", and "point space", and most importantly "Standard Model", i.e. the remainder of your post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

soulofmischief 7y ago
Sure, if you change the context from what was intended then you have the power to twist the meaning of anything. I don't understand why you are choosing to conflate a quark and a molecule of carbon. My entire point is that the usage of the word particle, which literally means "a point in space", for such a range of systems is inadequate. You can have dust particles as well, which are macroscopic and much bigger than molecules, so I'm not sure what position you're trying to establish, exactly. I know what an elementary particle is, I'm not just saying fancy words like quark and standard model because I read them in a Pop Sci magazine or skimmed a Wikipedia article. An elementary particle is a type of particle, but let's not move goalposts here.
- davrosthedalek 7y ago
  Sorry, but your use of the word particle is surrounded with statements about elementary particles. Then, you, not me, conflate this context with another context in which particles are more general. It's as helpful as claiming that quarks are a misnomer, because they are obviously not a dairy product. Here, have a fish, for me it's EOT.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    > conflate this context with another context in which particles are more general I can't help it if you want to willfully ignore the meaning of the word "particle" in order to make an irrelevant argument on the internet. You failed to understand the context of my original post and are continuing to double down on this absurd position. Just because you were thinking of just elementary particles doesn't mean that's all that was being discussed. > It's as helpful as claiming that quarks are a misnomer, because they are obviously not a dairy product. Quark is a made up word and has nothing to do with dairy. What on earth are you talking about? How can you sit here and argue that particle isn't a good word for these systems and then say that I'm misusing the word "particle" when I've clearly been pointing out from the start that I don't like the broad application the word has. It's not my fault that the word "particle" means what it does, but you tried to shift the discussion to just the class of elementary particles, not me. You're literally arguing just to argue. And your need to downvote me and attempt to insult my intelligence instead of having a civil discussion just reinforces what kind of person you are. Please stop embarrassing yourself and read up on these things before interjecting as an armchair physicist.
    - rmu09 7y ago
      > Quark is a made up word and has nothing to do with dairy. What on earth are you talking about? The german word "Quark" is a dairy product, "curd" or "curd cheese" in english according to dictionary.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        Fair enough, apparently there is a German quark as well.

soulofmischief 7y ago

Sure, if you change the context from what was intended then you have the power to twist the meaning of anything. I don't understand why you are choosing to conflate a quark and a molecule of carbon. My entire point is that the usage of the word particle, which literally means "a point in space", for such a range of systems is inadequate. You can have dust particles as well, which are macroscopic and much bigger than molecules, so I'm not sure what position you're trying to establish, exactly. I know what an elementary particle is, I'm not just saying fancy words like quark and standard model because I read them in a Pop Sci magazine or skimmed a Wikipedia article. An elementary particle is a type of particle, but let's not move goalposts here.

davrosthedalek 7y ago
Sorry, but your use of the word particle is surrounded with statements about elementary particles. Then, you, not me, conflate this context with another context in which particles are more general. It's as helpful as claiming that quarks are a misnomer, because they are obviously not a dairy product. Here, have a fish, for me it's EOT.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  > conflate this context with another context in which particles are more general I can't help it if you want to willfully ignore the meaning of the word "particle" in order to make an irrelevant argument on the internet. You failed to understand the context of my original post and are continuing to double down on this absurd position. Just because you were thinking of just elementary particles doesn't mean that's all that was being discussed. > It's as helpful as claiming that quarks are a misnomer, because they are obviously not a dairy product. Quark is a made up word and has nothing to do with dairy. What on earth are you talking about? How can you sit here and argue that particle isn't a good word for these systems and then say that I'm misusing the word "particle" when I've clearly been pointing out from the start that I don't like the broad application the word has. It's not my fault that the word "particle" means what it does, but you tried to shift the discussion to just the class of elementary particles, not me. You're literally arguing just to argue. And your need to downvote me and attempt to insult my intelligence instead of having a civil discussion just reinforces what kind of person you are. Please stop embarrassing yourself and read up on these things before interjecting as an armchair physicist.
  - rmu09 7y ago
    > Quark is a made up word and has nothing to do with dairy. What on earth are you talking about? The german word "Quark" is a dairy product, "curd" or "curd cheese" in english according to dictionary.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      Fair enough, apparently there is a German quark as well.