Must there be a base article of matter?

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

Big whorls have little whorls,
Which feed on their velocity;
And little whorls have lesser whorls,
And so on to viscosity
(in the molecular sense).

Recently, in discussing the string theory with a colleague, we had a dispute on whether or not there must be a base particle of matter, 100 percent of a particular particle (like a string). He said that everything must be broken down, but I disagree. What are some of your thoughts.

Jazzfreak13 wrote:

Recently, in discussing the string theory with a colleague, we had a dispute on whether or not there must be a base particle of matter, 100 percent of a particular particle (like a string). He said that everything must be broken down, but I disagree. What are some of your thoughts.

There are no particles. There are only fields.

rosborne979 wrote:

Jazzfreak13 wrote:

Recently, in discussing the string theory with a colleague, we had a dispute on whether or not there must be a base particle of matter, 100 percent of a particular particle (like a string). He said that everything must be broken down, but I disagree. What are some of your thoughts.

There are no particles. There are only fields.

Can you show me a reference for this? Thanks.

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Jazzfreak13 wrote:

Recently, in discussing the string theory with a colleague, we had a dispute on whether or not there must be a base particle of matter, 100 percent of a particular particle (like a string). He said that everything must be broken down, but I disagree. What are some of your thoughts.

There are no particles. There are only fields.

Can you show me a reference for this? Thanks.

It's just my opinion Brandon.

After watching physics break down the various particles into smaller and smaller units over the years, and after watching the math we use to describe such things move toward loops of compacted dimensions instead of points, and after listening to QED tell us about uncertainty, I simply decided to anticipate that single conceptual units (points) probably don't exist, and instead the Universe is composed of tightly packed semi-discrete fields which only behave like points depending on how you observe them.

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Jazzfreak13 wrote:

Recently, in discussing the string theory with a colleague, we had a dispute on whether or not there must be a base particle of matter, 100 percent of a particular particle (like a string). He said that everything must be broken down, but I disagree. What are some of your thoughts.

There are no particles. There are only fields.

Can you show me a reference for this? Thanks.

It's just my opinion Brandon.

After watching physics break down the various particles into smaller and smaller units over the years, and after watching the math we use to describe such things move toward loops of compacted dimensions instead of points, and after listening to QED tell us about uncertainty, I simply decided to anticipate that single conceptual units (points) probably don't exist, and instead the Universe is composed of tightly packed semi-discrete fields which only behave like points depending on how you observe them.

Well, you know there are people who have devoted their entire careers to studying QED, and it would be kind of odd for all of them to miss it for several generations, and someone not in the field to get it intuitively without any real mathematical derivation. Furthermore, you didn't present it as a suspicion, but as a known fact.

I didn't mean to mislead you Brandon. I'm sorry. Most of the time my posts are based on standard theory or reasonable deduction on my part. But sometimes I prefer to give a more evasive, yet thought provoking answer. Do you know for a fact that my answer is incorrect?

I didn't mean to mislead you Brandon. I'm sorry. Most of the time my posts are based on standard theory or reasonable deduction on my part. But sometimes I prefer to give a more evasive, yet thought provoking answer. Do you know for a fact that my answer is incorrect?

I know for a fact that it is not the existing theory, haven received two degrees in Physics and never heard this in a class. There is a pretty universally held division of the universe into matter and energy. Perhaps you can find a qualified citation echoing your opinion.

What are the biggest flaws in my theory? (Please no more than 100)

I disagree...mostly.

I feel free to speculate here. Correct me if I'm out of place, I am a newbie after all, but it's not like I'm sending my submission to New Scientist.

Also, was it not Einstein that said imagination is by far the most important factor?

I developed a theory about 12 years ago that planetary magnetic fields could be caused by differences in the rotation of a planets core with respect to the rest of the planet, because it was the only way I could explain the occasional reversals of polarity. I hadn't read anything about the generally accepted cause and I'm still not sure because I'm not committed enough to research it, but that doesn't stop me having the idea in the first place.

My point is, I think too much knowledge can get in the way of a good imagination and especially when it comes to generating NEW ideas in the tradition of centuries past as opposed to furthering the current data with a slighlty more accurate measurement of the width of a quark.

(Having said that, I did study science at university level, and I could not be more devoted to the strict application of the scientific method so I am perhaps not as ignorant as I seem)

Finally, and by way of clarification, I think many of the biggest ideas in the history of science were "derived intuitively rather than strictly and mathematically" and then the research and the maths have been done to see if the facts support the theory. I would go so far as to say it is the BETTER way, since the other way keeps you within the boundaries of current theory.

What say you Brandon9000 ?

Oh, and can you see how my theory does not fit with the present sum of universal knowledge? I'd still like to know.

...and to take up your analogy, I probably could come up with 10 possible methods of removing a brain tumor other than the conventional method and I might just come up with something useful that the doctors had never thought to try. That is more analogous to what I have attempted here. Do you agree?

...and to take up your analogy, I probably could come up with 10 possible methods of removing a brain tumor other than the conventional method and I might just come up with something useful that the doctors had never thought to try. That is more analogous to what I have attempted here. Do you agree?