why do we still use electrons for anything electronical/computational/energeti

>>9101925
we do use them.... for scifi tv shows

>>9101925
Electrons are easy to manipulate, just put a potential difference in a conductor.

Most quarks and leptons decay, not that quarks by themselves would be of any use.
Z and W bosons and Higgs decay.
Not sure about free gluons but I guess they interact too strongly.
Neutrinos don't interact strongly enough.
Photons are used in communications, but their logic components are not yet good enough for computation.

Basically electrons are great because they are stable and interact just the right amount, and then some stuff about electron orbitals. Simply having a rod of metal works as a medium because of free electrons. Logic is also comparatively easy to make because of semiconductors.

In communications you want less interaction, so photons are good for that. You can steer them around but they have very little attenuation. I suppose neutrinos would be even better if they didn't require massive isolated receivers.

File: conductor.jpg (60KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x500px

>>9101945
ok how do i create an potential difference without shifting electrons first? the existance of an potential difference implies that the electrons were already manipulated, right? non EE detected

>>9101925
Top quark: it barely exists for an instant, also hard to create

Bottom quark: same issue, but less so.

Charm quark: same issue, but less so.

Strange quark: same issue, but less so.

Down quark: trapped with other quarks (and gluons), it must be used together.

Up quark: same issue.

Gluons: same issue.

>>9102132
Higgs boson: exists too briefly, also hard to create

Z boson: same issue, but less so. It also has no charge.

W bosons: same issue, but less so.

Tau lepton: same issue, but less so.

Mu lepton: same issue, but less so.

Neutrinos: could see some issue in long range communications, but very hard to detect.

>>9102135
Electrons: we use those all the time.
Photons: we use those all the time.

Up+down+gluons: we technically use those all the time.

>>9102140
#WOKE

>>9102102
>how do i create an potential difference without shifting electrons first
You don't, and that hardly refutes my argument.

I was referring to electrons in an electric circuit.

To generate the potential difference, we use chemical reactions and electromagnetism.
Like you said, that implies electron shifting.

In conclusion, I was referring to manipulating electrons in a circuit so we can perform computations.

>Why do we use electrons for electronics
The same reason we use liquids for hydraulics?

>>9101925
What's with the naming conventions of Quarks?

I assume Up, Down, Top and Bottom relate to some property or position, but what the heck do strange and charm mean?

I know Neutrinos almost don't interact, so this is probably a silly question: would it make sense to use neutrinos to communicate with the chinese? We in the moment have to use sattelites, and that path to the orient is just giantnormous. Could we send beams of neutrinos through the mantle, taking advantage of earth's spherical shape, or is the mantle just too dense?

>>9101925
Are you literally retarded op?

Do you even know what electricity is? Do you gen understand a single particle on the standard model in the slightest?

>>9102238
we use the universal electron on every circuit. liquids could be water, oil, milk, coke

>>9102356
Yes, it's possible.
The problem is not that the mantle is too dense.
The problem is that neutrinos pass right through the earth and similarly right through any sensor the opposing end would have.
I've only read popsci stuff regarding neutrinos, but I assume their receiver attenuation would be around 300dB, i.e. they pick one neutrino out of 10^30 or so.
Then there's the problem that the sun causes a lot of neutrino noise, and that the receivers are really big.
Current technology also can't direct neutrinos, so no beams either.