Can you stop the subdivision?

molecules are made up of atoms , atoms are made up of proton, neutron and electrons. Proton and neutrons can be further divided into quarks.
Since quarks exist it cannot be an elementary particle in my opinion and can be subdivided further.
So the subdivision will never end and you will keep subdividing until infinity,
Is the concept of division itself wrong in this case, should some other concept be used?
Is there nothing as an elementary particle?

edit:
I just thought of something a while ago when I was staring at the night sky that there can be no limit to which you can can subdivide any particle. There is no elementary particle. Elementary particle is an illusion. I got this idea while thinking about endless expanses of space. Just as you cannot find the end of universe you cannot discover an elementary particle.
Conversely if you can find the end of universe you can discover an elementary particle.

So if there is no elementary particle is it worth it to keep researching for it? You decide.
All of you feel free to disagree with me this is just my hypothesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This unproven claim is the foundation of your result. You haven't proven it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course I haven't proven it. I cannot, but since everything that has been found has been subdivided I have a feeling that quarks will not last for long. I'm not here to prove anything this is just my theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a theoretical limit to how small things can be, that is the plank length.

 

Well how did one arrive at this deduction? Care to elaborate. Is this universal concept?

 

Planck length might put limits on the smallest physical volume a particle's wavefunction can theoretically occupy, but that wouldn't put limits on its rest mass. In the presently accepted treatments of theoretical physics, particles such as electrons, muons and quarks are treated as fundamental entities that can't be divided (although some of them can decay into other particles), and other particles such as the proton are mathematically treated in a different fashion, as composites of these fundamental particles. Doesn't mean quarks and electrons can't have an internal structure, but they don't seem to have any internal structure as far as we know, and there is strong experimental support for this present view.

 

This will sound stupid but if it exists you can subdivide no questions asked.

 

Says who?

 

You mean "wild guess", not theory.

You're right, it does sound stupid.
Another assumption.

 

says me. Period

 

Wild guess in your opinion and theory in mine.

You have to assume something first to then prove it no assumptions no theories.

 

Tch wrong.

Also wrong.
You start with observation and evidence and then come up with a theory to explain.
Starting with assumptions and looking for proof means you ignore reality and contradictory information.

So according to you everything's based on nothing real?
How smart.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually there are 2 approaches You feel very strongly about something and you go out there to prove it or you observe first, believe 2nd and prove third.

As I already said that they keep on subdividing further there can be no stopping this until you give up concept of division to an entity. This is actually partly based on observations and partly on belief.

 

Oye Tethys don't bother posting anymore you are on the ignore list you will be just banging your head against the wall. Good riddance there was no point in arguing with you anymore.

 

You forgot about the electron. No quarks or anything else in there, so far as anyone has been able to determine.

 

Except that your first "approach" isn't science it's idiocy, crack-pottery and wrong.
By the way "belief" isn't required.

What observation?
Belief? Oh, that's smart of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And no, it isn't based on "observation" since it's more or less self-evident that if everything that's real is sub-divisible, that would make the "actual" basis for reality unreal...

Oops, two mistakes in one. My name isn't Tethys, it's Dywyddyr and please, do put me on ignore. That way I get to point out your stupidity without any inane come-backs from you. Sweet. Thanks very much.

 

Yes but thats only up till now. It will be subdivided it is inevitable I'm sure of it. It may have survived up till now because it is 1836 times smaller than a proton but it will meet its fate eventually.

Like I said this is just my hypothesis you don't have to post if you don't want or don't agree with me.

 

I'm doubtful. Quite a few very smart, industrious people have spent quite a bit of time and money trying to find some internal structure in the electron, without any success.

What makes you so sure that electrons will be subdivided? Would you wager money on such an outcome? How much?

 

Yes, but Planck mass will put a limit on this too

 

My bad, it appears that there is no quantum of mass. This is quite disturbing. Perhaps I should open a seperate thread on this. Is there a possible theoretical smallest mass?

I am not asking what particle has the smallest mass in practice. I am not even questioning the existence of a particle with the smallest mass (im sure there has to be one).

I am just saying, whatever that smallest mass is, is it limited by some fundamental quantity of mass that cannot be divided (in the way that time and space are quantized) or is it just coincidental?