What if time doesnt actually exist?

[Esteban1997]

What if it's just an illusion?

 

[Deleted member 26642]

It doesn't

 

[Lebgfinal]

Actually - you cannot prove that. “Fundamental” is always in reference to the current state of the knowledge, which in case of physics means a theory plus supporting experiments. Ancient “scientists” (philosophers, but that was as close to a scientist as possible back then) figured out that there must be fundamental building blocks of the matter and called them “atomos” (indivisible) from which a more modern term of “atom” was brought. Atoms were considered fundamental up to the beginning of 20th century when first nuclear reactions were observed, so it was clear that atoms can be split into “smaller” parts (actually, about the same time, the chemistry already figured out about electrons and how they relate to element’s chemical properties). Anyway, atoms were no longer considered fundamental. The model described atoms “made of” protons and neutrons forming up the nucleus and electrons forming up the shells (orbitals etc) around it, determining the element’s chemical properties. Next, the experimental data of scattering of electrons on nucleons indicated that there is something going on inside of the nucleons. 1964, Gell-Mann and Zweig came up with the model of quarks, that was soon found to be with excellent agreement with the experimental data. So as of now, the commonly assumed model is that electrons and quarks are fundamental particles (although it can be disputed whether one can actually disassemble the nucleon into individual quarks, the way one can split the hydrogen atom into a free proton and a free electron. The model predicts that quarks never dance solo).

No experiments so far indicated that an electron has any internal structure. We did our best to probe it with highest available energies (=smallest possible length scales) and it always came up pointlike - so far. But even since that, you still cannot prove that electron is fundamental instead of being “made of” something else. You can only prove the opposite - by showing the experimental data indicating that you split the electron. Who knows, maybe when we build the Even Larger Hadron Collider one day we actually get there?

If I were to make a bet, I’d still say chances of prooving electrons are not fundamental are quite good. Chances of prooving they are fundemental are poor.. That’s because you see - there is a serious threat to the electon’s fundamental-ness. It’s the String Theory, which holds that the tiny strings are fundamental and electrons, quarks and all that zoo are but vibrations of the strings. However, the energy scales related to the String Theory are so far beyond our capabilities. So far.

 

[Krakowski]

It doesn't

Sv3rige

 

[pentamogged9000]

Actually - you cannot prove that. “Fundamental” is always in reference to the current state of the knowledge, which in case of physics means a theory plus supporting experiments. Ancient “scientists” (philosophers, but that was as close to a scientist as possible back then) figured out that there must be fundamental building blocks of the matter and called them “atomos” (indivisible) from which a more modern term of “atom” was brought. Atoms were considered fundamental up to the beginning of 20th century when first nuclear reactions were observed, so it was clear that atoms can be split into “smaller” parts (actually, about the same time, the chemistry already figured out about electrons and how they relate to element’s chemical properties). Anyway, atoms were no longer considered fundamental. The model described atoms “made of” protons and neutrons forming up the nucleus and electrons forming up the shells (orbitals etc) around it, determining the element’s chemical properties. Next, the experimental data of scattering of electrons on nucleons indicated that there is something going on inside of the nucleons. 1964, Gell-Mann and Zweig came up with the model of quarks, that was soon found to be with excellent agreement with the experimental data. So as of now, the commonly assumed model is that electrons and quarks are fundamental particles (although it can be disputed whether one can actually disassemble the nucleon into individual quarks, the way one can split the hydrogen atom into a free proton and a free electron. The model predicts that quarks never dance solo).

No experiments so far indicated that an electron has any internal structure. We did our best to probe it with highest available energies (=smallest possible length scales) and it always came up pointlike - so far. But even since that, you still cannot prove that electron is fundamental instead of being “made of” something else. You can only prove the opposite - by showing the experimental data indicating that you split the electron. Who knows, maybe when we build the Even Larger Hadron Collider one day we actually get there?

If I were to make a bet, I’d still say chances of prooving electrons are not fundamental are quite good. Chances of prooving they are fundemental are poor.. That’s because you see - there is a serious threat to the electon’s fundamental-ness. It’s the String Theory, which holds that the tiny strings are fundamental and electrons, quarks and all that zoo are but vibrations of the strings. However, the energy scales related to the String Theory are so far beyond our capabilities. So far.

Chatgpt response

 

[Lookologist003]

In that case I am still ugly and still alone. I guess that means im not wasting time here if that's true.

 

[Lebgfinal]

Chatgpt response

 

[pentamogged9000]

Quillbot

 

[Lebgfinal]

Quillbot

what is that

 

[pentamogged9000]

what is that

@Lebgfinal quillbot