Timeline for Are fundamental particles more than their properties?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2019 at 4:00 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | It's (probably) more accurate to say that those properties are properties of the various fields; a particle is "just" a quantized excitation of a field. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 6:06 | answer | added | anna v | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 12, 2019 at 2:42 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 126 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 12, 2019 at 1:01 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | I'd want to also say it should not be reasonable to necessarily expect that the Standard Model alone will be describable this way, since we know it cannot be the complete description of our Universe's physics. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:58 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | In particular, such that those properties can be considered as basic "substances" of some form, which subsist wholly within packages known as particles, and for which all processes can then be considered as reapportionments/rearrangements thereof? This idea is rather similar to that from classical philosophies like those of ancient Greece and ancient India with the old system of the four classic elements (sometimes five, six). | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:58 | comment | added | Winston | I answered in chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/93528/… | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:57 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | @Chris : However, one wouldn't necessarily expect all properties one could think of, to be conserved: e.g. particle number - if you can convert particles then having more or less of them afterward seems sensible - but this doesn't necessarily mean that the core idea here is wrong. In particular, it is not "is every conceivable property conserved" but rather, "can we describe each fundamental particle uniquely in terms of variable amounts of some set number of conserved properties?" | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:12 | comment | added | Chris♦ | No, particles are defined by their properties. These properties are just not conserved in interactions. I admit I don't fully get what you are trying to ask here, or I would have just written an answer. | |
| May 12, 2019 at 0:10 | comment | added | Winston | Actually, have you just answered yes to my question, i.e. that particles are more than their properties? | |
| May 11, 2019 at 23:56 | comment | added | Winston | Great. Should I close the question then or is it still possible to get what you said in the form of an answer? | |
| May 11, 2019 at 23:54 | comment | added | Chris♦ | No, they cannot be computed from others. | |
| May 11, 2019 at 23:49 | comment | added | Winston | And they cannot be computed from others? They are orthogonal dimensions, so to speak? | |
| May 11, 2019 at 23:44 | comment | added | Chris♦ | "Those properties are redistributed among the final products." They aren't though- not all properties are conserved. Particle number, strangeness, weak isospin, and lepton family number, just to name a few. | |
| May 11, 2019 at 23:34 | history | asked | Winston | CC BY-SA 4.0 |