9 ms·
> It's somewhat shameful that we physicists still call these constructs 'particles' Are they any less particle-like than an electron? Than a proton? Even thou
by cbd1984 12y ago
> It's somewhat shameful that we physicists still call these constructs 'particles'
Are they any less particle-like than an electron? Than a proton?
Even though a proton isn't fundamental, it's still considered a particle.
- cozzyd 12y agoWell, there is clearly a hierarchy of importance of particles, although I don't know a very clear cut criterion (other than being "interesting"). Protons and neutrons are clearly important, but excited states thereof (e.g. N(1440), N(1520), etc., see http://pdg8.lbl.gov/rpp2014v1/pdgLive/ParticleGroup.action?node=BXXX005 http://pdg8.lbl.gov/rpp2014v1/pdgLive/ParticleGroup.action?n...) are clearly less so. Their masses and quantum numbers obviously tell us something about how baryons work, but nobody will get too excited about N(XXXX).
- duaneb 12y agoI would imagine the particulate properties would change at different scales, energies, etc, so being a 'particle' is an emergent property of more fundamental states.
- maaku 12y agoElectrons are fundamental particles as far as we know, protons are not. You can shoot something at a proton and see that there are three little things inside. That is I think an important distinction to make.