Why is there a finite diversity of particles?

>>9159088
7000 years ago mathematicians got together to decide how the universe worked to keep the physics brainlets busy so that they don't bother us with our research and we just decided on the particles and how they act by chance. We made an infinite list of possible particle sets and rules that would equivalently create an universe like this and then we played a round robbin Go tournament. The winner got to pick which particles made it to the actual universe.

>>9159088
>communication no faster than light
isn't that wrong re:spooky action at a distance? thats partly why einstein hated quantum physics.

>>9159088
Discrete math ie real math is as old as Zeno's paradox. The Anthropic Principle implies a retrocausality that completely explains physical laws, does it not? And there is also the retrocausality of human intelligence that happens within Physics, does it not count? And let's say Nature is all there is, it has to get its library of particles from somewhere, so it must get it from itself, that is, again, retrocausality. Any too big of a gap so far?

>communication must go forwards in time and be no faster than light
So not really, that is a not from Quantum Mechanics, otherwise there wouldn't even be the EPR paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

>>9159098
That is a very schizoid post, I do believe you are a mathematician indeed, and not even a good one.

>>9159101
from my understanding, a particle can travel faster than light by quantum hopping. But since it's random, no actual information is being transmitted. Might be wrong though

>>9159107
>Discrete math ie real math is as old as Zeno's paradox. The Anthropic Principle implies a retrocausality that completely explains physical laws, does it not?
Two sentences of pure bullshit in a row. Stopped reading there.

>>9159132
>Stopped reading there
Ahahaha

>>9159112
you seem upset, my friend.

>>9159145
So you think one cannot disapprove of things on the internet, huh

Another sign of schizophrenia

>>9159146
Bad day?

>>9159154
No.

>>9159116
>random, no actual information
you're right

>>9159207
But doesn't this mean you can communicate truly random strings instantaneously, as long as you only care about them being random? Isn't this a perfect way to communicate keys for One Time Pad encryption?

>>9159088
Not everything is stable

What makes the quantum particles we know of; stable, unique, and gives them the properties they have?

>>9159088

Fuck all of the answers in this thread, jesus christ. Here's some actual answers for you

First of all, there are "axioms" of QM that go beyond what you stated, but let's forget about that for the moment.

We have certain fundamental particles, that are exactly that: fundamental. The electron can't split up because there's nothing to split up into. Muons can decay into electrons, but it's not made up of anything else, it just is, a muon.

There are 6 fermions (electron, muon, and tau, and corresponding neutrinos) and 6 quarks. And then all of their antiparticle counterparts (12 more). All composite matter is made from these, and these cannot be broken down into "half electrons" or anything else.

There are finitely many particles due to constraints on having these finitely many fundamental particles, along with energy constraints in terms of, say, a giant fucking particle decaying in an immesurably small time because it just has too much fucking energy.

A down quark does not "lose" an electron, but it can decay into an up quark by emitting a W- boson. The reverse can happen with W+ bosons, too though.

Why there are these three generations of 12 particles is one of the unanswered questions of the standard model. We don't have a reason for why there should be these 12 and the anti 12 versus. 10 more we don't know exist, or something. But these 12 (24) are what are, and every piece of visible matter we've seen in the universe thus far is made of them and them alone