How do we know that atoms aren't made out of other

>>8714665
We do know that. We've known it for like 100 years now, you've never heard of protons or neutrons?

>>8714665
They are

File: image.jpg (89KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x590px

>>8714665
Please be a troll

>>8714671
Then how do we know that protons and neutrons aren't made out of other smaller particles?

>>8714681
They are. Jesus Christ man.
>"but why?" posting for all intents and purposes

>>8714665
Let me ask the profoundly stupid question in a slightly less stupid way... how do we know there is some ultimately fundamental particle, or might it be "turtles all the way down?"

>>8714693
There are no 'fundamental particles' it's an infinite regression. If you had enough energy you could keep smashing atoms into smaller and smaller pieces for eternity.

>>8714703
The vermin only teaze and pinch
Their foes superior by an inch.
So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.

They're too fuzzy.

File: image.jpg (53KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 645x773px

>>8714703
>wut are quarks for $5000

>>8714841
You can smash them and get even smaller particles. We just don't have an accelerator with enough energy to do it

>>8714665
Smaller than an atom? Don't be stupid OP. What would we call it?? A sub-atomic particle?

>>8714932
thank you.. some people

>>8714665
believe it or not there are theories about what makes up sub atomic particles
read a book

>>8714665
STRING THEORY YOU FUCKING NIGGER!
FINISH HIGH SCHOOL BEFORE YOU COME OVER AND ASK STUPID QUESTIONS.

>>8714901
STRING THEORY.
MOST LOGICAL THEORY!
WITH IT THERE WOULDN'T BE A NEED FOR INFINATELY SMALL PARTICLES

>>8715017
>>8715012
thats just a theory tho

File: 1484788018366.jpg (103KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 540x720px

>>8714665

>>8714901
There is no evidence of that. The truth is we don't know.
If we did, why the fuck are we researching it? It's research for a reason, this thread is dumb.

>>8715163
My question is: if we calculate all the available energy in the universe and used it to find a new particle, would that particle be the most fundamental, just by way of exhaustion? Or will there always be philosotards that say "well if we had more energy than there is in the universe then there would be an even more fundamental particle"

>>8715180
At some point we might find your dick and who would want that?

>>8714681
protons and neutrons are made of quarks

>>8714703
[citation needed]

The fundamental "particles" are bits. 0 and 1. Yes and No.

https://youtu.be/t_RwcGzGurc

File: 1486886492047.jpg (60KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 512x640px

I believe this is an accurate depiction of particle physics

You smash the small bits together and smaller bits come out

>>8714665
We have no idea what they are made of other than what we can observe.

If dark matter is a legitimate phenomenon, and is the majority of matter in a galaxy, as is required for the standard model of physics to work.

It's very possible that there are dark building blocks.

>>8714703
>>8714693
What is planck lenght?

>>8715180
>all the available energy in the universe
I wonder how you are going to set up this experiment. Arguing something based on impossible premises is practically the same as referring to The God.

I have a slightly more or less retarded question. I know that a neutron by itself is unstable and will decay to an electronic and a proton but how the fuck does that happen? Makes no sense to me

>>8717162
When time moves forward, neutron is forced to choose one new quantum state from all possible states, and abandon the old state. Different states have weighted probability of being chosen. With a very tiny probability, neutron chooses a state that cannot hold all the energy contained in mass and it's decay becomes very likely.

>>8714665
As you've shown with your fractals, it's a resolution problem. Look Gober's holograph for which he won NP.

>>8714665
>Mandel_zoom_06_double_hook.jpg
>double_hook
ironic hook posting is still hook posting

>>8714665
A dude named Rutherford shot some particles at a gold sheet. A few bounced back which meant there was super dense particles inside the sheet. Behold, the nucleus.

>>8717073
>He thinks the planck length is a fundamental unit.

>>8714901
>You can smash them and get even smaller particles
I suggest you try that with eletrons