Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SkriVanTek t1_iy4u9di wrote

Reply to comment by RLDSXD in Depictions of atomic nuclei often show distinct and individual protons and neutrons, is this accurate? by ZTYTHYZ

one nit pick

in the beginning you point out that particles are not physical things

i strongly disagree with that notion

what else but physical things could particles be?

change the word to solid things if you like but as it stands it is factually incorrect

2

RLDSXD t1_iy4v1di wrote

They’re suspected to be excitations in the underlying quantum field corresponding to that particle. I.e. There are no electrons, just excitations in the electron field. Are the ripples on the surface of a pond physical structures distinct from the pond itself?

15

SkriVanTek t1_iy5hzjo wrote

that's not the question

the question is if the ripples itself are physical things at all. and of course they are

4

n3wb33Farm3r t1_iy5u07k wrote

If the ripple is a physical thing does it add mass when it's occurring and decrease the same mass once the ripple is over?

3

blandrys t1_iy760o7 wrote

You are just playing around with the definition of the word "thing". And sure, if that definition is "everything is a thing" then yes, of course everything is a thing. An energy field is "a thing", that field moving in a particular way is "a thing" and so on. the question is what value there is to be extracted from such a definition. "everything is a thing" is more philosophy than science.

1