|
Right well first of all iv read that IF it was possible to split the quark :P then it would require that mankind can produce more energy than was produced in the big bang to overcome the quarks internal structure strengths (forces if there are any smaller particles) and split it. we're not talking about breaking atoms here, these particles are assumed to be the basis of all matter, now assuming is dangerous i agree, but if these particles are the first out of the big bang, show no signs of being able to exist alone, let alone to be split into compnent parts, and behave as if they are partly in another universe half the time then its going to be very difficult to get inside them, also gluons and gravitons are zero mass particles but the reason i say 'technically' they dont exist is because they are only means of exchanging forces, whether or not they do exist i suppose is up for debate but if they do we will never EVER get any DIRECT evidence for them due to quantum mechanics. As for stingc defining particles, fair enough if he wants a distinction thats up to him, when i think of particles i think of stationary if possible or at least low energy objects (objects meaning things not round balls) and they are pretty easy to describe etc. if they called particles, if you want to get into muliple paths, quantum wave forms or even (curse) subatomic string theory then go ahead. the science might not be correct but if you give me a break its not wrong either and ill be happy to debate long and hard 1v1 with u about current breakthroughs or developments in any area of physics large or small. and on a side note, letting off sources of energy not seen since the most violent event we know of is probably not wise, might not be fatal to the universe, is certainly impossible to let off more energy than exists anyway, there fore it kinda says these objects are the wall if its actually impossible to go any futhrar, supposing of course there is anything smaller, which is doubtful
|