is there any way phase out without disturbing or vibrating any particles even the sub atomic ones
Answers
Answered by
0
No ...... I don't think so
leonaidas23:
does vaccum embeds sub atomic particles
but vaccumm has positron
Answered by
0
When you break apart a clock, you see all of the pieces that come out and conclude that they were the parts of the clock.
When you break apart a nucleus and see a bunch of quark-antiquark pairs, many people would conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks.
But if you also know that subatomic particles like quarks appear and disappear out of thin air and magically transform into other types of particles and that a quark has never been observed in isolation (it always comes in a matter-antimatter pair), I’m not sure that it makes sense to conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks, just because it is possible to put together a model of the nucleus using quarks. That is a logical leap which isn’t really valid.
You could also make a model of the nucleus using protons and electrons by creating an electrostatically stable geometric arrangement. We have never seen a quark in a nucleus or had applications which require the notion of a quark in a nucleus. As far as I can tell, the only thing we can say about quarks with 100% certainty is that when you slam electrons together or protons together, you get quark-antiquark pairs and a lot of other junk with no engineering application since its discovery 50 years ago.
Anything else which has been claimed about how the nucleus is structured or how the beginning of time played out is pure, unscientific speculation which has been sold to the public like a CERN-centric religion.
When you break apart a nucleus and see a bunch of quark-antiquark pairs, many people would conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks.
But if you also know that subatomic particles like quarks appear and disappear out of thin air and magically transform into other types of particles and that a quark has never been observed in isolation (it always comes in a matter-antimatter pair), I’m not sure that it makes sense to conclude that a nucleus is made up of quarks, just because it is possible to put together a model of the nucleus using quarks. That is a logical leap which isn’t really valid.
You could also make a model of the nucleus using protons and electrons by creating an electrostatically stable geometric arrangement. We have never seen a quark in a nucleus or had applications which require the notion of a quark in a nucleus. As far as I can tell, the only thing we can say about quarks with 100% certainty is that when you slam electrons together or protons together, you get quark-antiquark pairs and a lot of other junk with no engineering application since its discovery 50 years ago.
Anything else which has been claimed about how the nucleus is structured or how the beginning of time played out is pure, unscientific speculation which has been sold to the public like a CERN-centric religion.
how about photons ,meons,higgs-bosons, leptons,neutrinos how to overcome those
Similar questions