3 ms·
> We have no proof (and it's probably impossible to do so), that anything we've found is fundamental. This is a good statement. I've seen many online state th
by ijidak 4y ago
> We have no proof (and it's probably impossible to do so), that anything we've found is fundamental.
This is a good statement.
I've seen many online state that quarks are fundamental.
There is no way we can make such a definitive statement.
Quarks may be not be fundamental.
- shmoe 4y agoWhat would it take to actually prove that they are? I did miss the "impossible" above when first posting this -- but pretend it isn't?
- baremetal 4y agoit would require being able to generate a high enough energy beam But using current accelerator technology it would require an accelerator many times the size of the earth, _many_. I use to work at a particle accelerator, part time, when i was in college. Fun fact i once confirmed Einsteins photoelectric effect using a high energy x-ray beam, a copper target, and high voltage.
- ncmncm 4y agoThis is the problem String theorists have. We will never, in the lifetime of anybody who guesses we ever existed, be able to build an accelerator powerful enough to check whether it is right about gravity. So, they potter and try to show this or that family of variations (among 10^500 imagined) does or doesn't contradict details of the Standard Model we have most confidence in.