The nonexistence of quarks

PSI Blog 20191023 The nonexistence of quarks

By adhering to quantum mechanics, regressive physicists have a tendency to be hoisted on their own petards. Now comes a new theory that quarks do not exist. They were supposed to be the building blocks of all reality—the finite particle all idealists dream of. But this was a “reality” not too believable, what with their necessity to have partial “spin” and “color” that is not color.

Whether you are into Finite Particle Theory or not, you may find this recent article in New Scientist to be of interest:

What the quark?! Why matter's most basic building blocks may not exist

Quarks are the subatomic particles thought to make up nearly everything we can see. Now it turns out they could be an illusion created by quantum trickery

PHYSICS 2 October 2019

The article is well written and a fairly understandable review of the subject even though the whole quark phantasmagoria is not. It is behind a paywall, but here are a few salient quotes:

“The hunt for matter’s most basic constituents is millennia old. The Greek philosopher Democritus coined a new word to describe fundamental units of matter: atomos meaning indivisible. While physicists today would agree with Democritus in principle, history has played a nasty joke on his terminology. Our modern understanding of atoms suggests that they are composed of particles called electrons that orbit a nucleus made of protons and neutrons. And those latter two are actually made of quarks (see “Nature’s Lego bricks”).”

“The practical applications are only part of the story. Komargodski’s work also raises profound questions about the nature of quarks. If there are circumstances under which quarks seem to be emergent rather than fundamental, does that mean that all quarks are little more than abstractions? If so, what is reality really made of?”

And finally:

“Rho sees it differently. “The fundamental nature of the quark essentially loses its meaning in a highly correlated system like dense matter,” he says. “Quarks are not fundamental any more, I think.” Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Most physicists think that the standard model of particle physics doesn’t capture the full truth about reality, not least because we don’t know why it is like it is. Quarks may represent another rung on the ladder of reality, but we haven’t reached the bottom yet. We may be right back at the beginning.”

Of course, readers know that Infinite Universe Theory implies there can be no finite particles, as we made clear in one of our previous books.[1]

[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

No comments: