1. What are quarks composed of? I know that neutrons and protons are composed of up and down quarks, among other things, but I can find no resources about the make up of quarks themselves.
2. What is energy? I mean that, when we come right down to it, we have four basic forces, and all energy is derived from those forces, but what is energy /really/? This is not a "Does 2+2 really really equal 4" question. I believe (IOW, I anticipate) that gravitational energy is the warping of space time by mass, but what is electromagnetic energy, for example? And how is that contained as a quantum field we call a photon?
I'm not really interested in untestable hypotheticals. String "theory" being one of those.
ETA: And if these are really stupid questions, please let me know. My qualifications are but a year of non majors physics in undergrad.
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
1. What are quarks composed of?
Muster Mark's coffee grounds.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Someone once told me they might be energy, but that's speculative as I understand it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 23, 2010, 09:11:50 PM
Someone once told me they might be energy, but that's speculative as I understand it.
Which goes back to "what is energy". As I understand it from physics, energy is the ability to do work, and while we order energy in all these different forms (potential, kinetic, heat, light, etc), there are really only 4 basic forms, coming from the four forces. So, what is electromagnetic energy? What is that energy responsible for holding the nucleus together (strong nuclear force) and what in the world is the energy responsible for radioactive decay (weak nuclear force)? If gravitational force is in reality the warping effect of quark and lepton mass (whatever those might actually be) on 4-dimensional space time, then at least that has an answer. Not that I can actually wrap my head around the tesseract like nature of 4 dimensions, but I'm not sure thats possible for humans at the moment.
Or maybe quarks are responsible for strong nuclear forces. Take a set of two up-down-down configurations and pair those with a set of two down-up-up configurations and whoila, a helium nucleus, stable, inert. The most perfect example of strong nuclear "forces". Maybe it's just in the quarks.
I think quarks are still a label for X in the model.
Well, I really have no answers but in attempting to find one I learned some stuff. :lol:
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:39:06 PM
Or maybe quarks are responsible for strong nuclear forces. Take a set of two up-down-down configurations and pair those with a set of two down-up-up configurations and whoila, a helium nucleus, stable, inert. The most perfect example of strong nuclear "forces". Maybe it's just in the quarks.
The strong nuclear force is transmitted by "gluons"
The electromagnetic by photons
The weak nuclear is transmitted by W and Z bosons.
Gravity is, of course, awkward.
Ridiculous analogy: Two people on rollerskates throwing a ball back and forth. They are repelled by exchanging the ball. It's kind of the same for two electrons exchanging (virtual) photons and being repelled.
So you could say energy is made of exchange particles. A photon (or gluon or graviton) is defined as being a "quantum of energy"; the smallest possible amount of energy. Of course, then you ask what's a photon?
Smells like the teacher's password.
Quote from: Igor on July 23, 2010, 09:57:59 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:39:06 PM
Or maybe quarks are responsible for strong nuclear forces. Take a set of two up-down-down configurations and pair those with a set of two down-up-up configurations and whoila, a helium nucleus, stable, inert. The most perfect example of strong nuclear "forces". Maybe it's just in the quarks.
The strong nuclear force is transmitted by "gluons"
The electromagnetic by photons
The weak nuclear is transmitted by W and Z bosons.
Gravity is, of course, awkward.
Ridiculous analogy: Two people on rollerskates throwing a ball back and forth. They are repelled by exchanging the ball. It's kind of the same for two electrons exchanging (virtual) photons and being repelled.
So you could say energy is made of exchange particles. A photon (or gluon or graviton) is defined as being a "quantum of energy"; the smallest possible amount of energy. Of course, then you ask what's a photon?
I guess I'm trying to figure out where to press
Worship.
Gluons haven't been substantiated, AFAIK. They're about as supported as string theory, which is to say, not at all.
W and Z bosons have, but I don't really understand them. Are they just somehow hiding in the nucleus of all atoms, or just radioactive atoms? If so, how the hell do they get in radioactive atoms? Thats a hell of a lot of mass to hide away.
And then theres the matter of photons. Not only the issue of what /is/ a photon really, but why is it that an exchange between two electrons (whatever those might be; not made of quarks) or two protons causes repulsion but the swap between electrons and protons is attractive?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 23, 2010, 10:03:53 PM
Smells like the teacher's password.
And that's precisely why I don't buy many explanations I read of these things. Most people would answer "why do protons repel each other but electrons and protons attract" with "because protons are positive and electrons are negative" and leave it at that. But positive and negative are just simply names we've put on reality we can't explain. We could say "because protons are strange and electrons are charm" and it would be equally as non-explanatory.
Which is why I'll bother studying physics when I'm retired. They'll know more by then.
No, gluons are a verified part of the Standard Model. Which is where I'm taking all this from, and which is why I'm not mentioning gravity.
This list of all the elementary particles might help. The purple are quarks. The green are leptons, ie electron and neutrinos. And the blue are the bosons. Bosons are the exchange particles. They are, in a way, energy.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/archive/0/00/20090627001006!Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg/600px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg.png)
Currently it doesn't make sense to ask what are these things. At this point, these things just are. Maybe that's a good spot to "worship"?
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Solid.
I keep a jar of them on my desk. But they're really hard to see if you spill them.
No, not seamonkeys.
Quote from: Igor on July 23, 2010, 10:32:48 PM
No, gluons are a verified part of the Standard Model. Which is where I'm taking all this from, and which is why I'm not mentioning gravity.
Fancy pictures are more fake evidence cf. "teacher's passwords" if they don't actually explain anything.
It's like answering "heat convection!" to the question "why is the plate hottest on the side closest to the fire?" You might as well say "Phlogiston!" for as much understanding it conveys.
Well, mass and energy are pretty much the same thing.
And we still don't really know what mass is. So far, it's been a really weird series of coincidences that everything has the same gravitational mass as inertial mass.
And that's not even counting potential energy. If you take a rock and pick it up off the ground, it has more energy. It isn't hotter, it doesn't spin faster, it isn't even heavier (in fact, it will be lighter since it's further away from Earth.) We can't even say how much of this virtual energy it has - you could define that rock to be at zero potential, and then any other rock closer to the ground would have negative virtual energy, and both still hurt if you drop them on your foot. There's no real reason to go around saying that some rocks have negative potential energy and some have positive potential energy, except that the math works out beautifully if you do.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 12:25:05 AM
Well, mass and energy are pretty much the same thing.
Thank you for reminding me of that.
QuoteAnd we still don't really know what mass is. So far, it's been a really weird series of coincidences that everything has the same gravitational mass as inertial mass.
Please explain gravitational and inertial mass.
QuoteAnd that's not even counting potential energy. If you take a rock and pick it up off the ground, it has more energy. It isn't hotter, it doesn't spin faster, it isn't even heavier (in fact, it will be lighter since it's further away from Earth.) We can't even say how much of this virtual energy it has - you could define that rock to be at zero potential, and then any other rock closer to the ground would have negative virtual energy, and both still hurt if you drop them on your foot. There's no real reason to go around saying that some rocks have negative potential energy and some have positive potential energy, except that the math works out beautifully if you do.
I think that just confused the fuck out of my head. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 11:25:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Solid.
I keep a jar of them on my desk. But they're really hard to see if you spill them.
Am I taking this too seriously?
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 12:25:05 AM
And that's not even counting potential energy. If you take a rock and pick it up off the ground, it has more energy. It isn't hotter, it doesn't spin faster, it isn't even heavier (in fact, it will be lighter since it's further away from Earth.) We can't even say how much of this virtual energy it has - you could define that rock to be at zero potential, and then any other rock closer to the ground would have negative virtual energy, and both still hurt if you drop them on your foot. There's no real reason to go around saying that some rocks have negative potential energy and some have positive potential energy, except that the math works out beautifully if you do.
I think that just confused the fuck out of my head. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Gravitational potential energy can only be defined relatively. You can say what the difference between two potential energies is, but not what their
absolute potential energy is. Well, you can, but you have to choose an arbitrary zero point. Which is why it still works if things go negative.
Quote from: Igor on July 24, 2010, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 24, 2010, 12:25:05 AM
And that's not even counting potential energy. If you take a rock and pick it up off the ground, it has more energy. It isn't hotter, it doesn't spin faster, it isn't even heavier (in fact, it will be lighter since it's further away from Earth.) We can't even say how much of this virtual energy it has - you could define that rock to be at zero potential, and then any other rock closer to the ground would have negative virtual energy, and both still hurt if you drop them on your foot. There's no real reason to go around saying that some rocks have negative potential energy and some have positive potential energy, except that the math works out beautifully if you do.
I think that just confused the fuck out of my head. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Gravitational potential energy can only be defined relatively. You can say what the difference between two potential energies is, but not what their absolute potential energy is. Well, you can, but you have to choose an arbitrary zero point. Which is why it still works if things go negative.
Explain that again, except Taboo "potential energy".
Yeah, I did use that phrase a lot...
It's pretty much the same as height. You can say how high something is off the ground, but this requires you to define what ground level is. So some stuff will inevitably be below that mark and have "negative height", so to speak. The only rigorous way of defining heights is saying "this is taller than that", rather than, as I said, choosing an arbitrary zero point (or ground level).
Does that make more sense?
I'm getting the feeling that I'm not great at explaining these concepts, which would suggest that I don't understand them fully myself. Oh well.
Quote from: Igor on July 24, 2010, 01:18:34 AM
Yeah, I did use that phrase a lot...
It's pretty much the same as height. You can say how high something is off the ground, but this requires you to define what ground level is. So some stuff will inevitably be below that mark and have "negative height", so to speak. The only rigorous way of defining heights is saying "this is taller than that", rather than, as I said, choosing an arbitrary zero point (or ground level).
Does that make more sense?
I'm getting the feeling that I'm not great at explaining these concepts, which would suggest that I don't understand them fully myself. Oh well.
It would seem to me that every object everywhere has potential energy in relation to the absolute center of gravity for every other object in the universe, and that potential energy as it is used in basic physics exercises is useful in anticipating measures of velocity and acceleration, but is otherwise "floating" from the absolute zero point which is the center of the earth. Potential energy in this sense is predicted effect of gravitational attraction upon kinetic energy.
Gravity: In short we have nothing solid on this, because of the large range of influence and the low energy of the effect, we cant measure it precisely, so we can only work on theoretical stuff for it. Unfortunately Every theory for it so far falls apart because mathematically you keep getting infinity when you start plugging in values.
We have been able to work out an awful lot on small particles by replacing theoretical data with their mesured mass, giving remarkably accurate, repeatable equations for stuff down to the quark level.
Asking what any subatomic particle is at this level is inviting a migraine, we can tell you some of its characteristics and how it interacts with other things but anything more is currently closer to a philosophical question then anything else.
What is electromagnetism: Electromagnetism is the description given to the activity corresponding to the observed rules (maxwells mostly), that describe the interaction of the magnetic field and the electric field.
How does it interact with other stuff: Photons.
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 07:15:37 PM
2. What is energy? I mean that, when we come right down to it, we have four basic forces, and all energy is derived from those forces, but what is energy /really/? This is not a "Does 2+2 really really equal 4" question. I believe (IOW, I anticipate) that gravitational energy is the warping of space time by mass, but what is electromagnetic energy, for example? And how is that contained as a quantum field we call a photon?
No one can answer that.
My personal and very vague idea is this: Every single physical law we have boils down to transformation, or interaction. A changing magnetic field gives an electric field. Energy or whatever you want to call it is probably the result of something changing somewhere else.
Quote
ETA: And if these are really stupid questions, please let me know. My qualifications are but a year of non majors physics in undergrad.
They aren't stupid but:
Quote
I'm not really interested in untestable hypotheticals. String "theory" being one of those.
At a certain level the only available answers are hypotheticals.
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 01:38:34 AM
Potential energy in this sense is predicted effect of gravitational attraction upon kinetic energy.
Yes, that's potential energy in any sense not just gravitational, It is a resultant based on vectors of force, one of which happens to be the attraction between two bodies.
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 01:38:34 AM
Potential energy in this sense is predicted effect of gravitational attraction upon kinetic energy.
Yes, that's potential energy in any sense not just gravitational, It is a resultant based on vectors of force, one of which happens to be the attraction between two bodies.
And it remains in potential while receiving an equal and opposite force. In the case of gravitation, that force is electromagnetic (repulsion of electrons). No net force leads to the object remaining at rest.
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Everything below a certain amount of kinetic energy does the weird probability field (except when its not) thing (at least according to my textbooks from when I did physics). So in theory they're wave-particle hybrids most of the time and particles if you get them moving fast enough. I don't know to what extent experimentation has borne this out.
This is the most accurate and most vague answer, and because it's Quantum, it's most true: physics has, though it's history, quantified and calculated physical events. Those events have become so small that we can no longer observe the events, only the detectors of the events. From there, we can determine if those detectors matched our equations. Our current model/equations say that quarks are elemental, which means our equations can't break them apart. So, quarks "are" equations that line up with all the experimental data that we have acquired throughout the last century.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 24, 2010, 03:39:09 AM
This is the most accurate and most vague answer, and because it's Quantum, it's most true: physics has, though it's history, quantified and calculated physical events. Those events have become so small that we can no longer observe the events, only the detectors of the events. From there, we can determine if those detectors matched our equations. Our current model/equations say that quarks are elemental, which means our equations can't break them apart. So, quarks "are" equations that line up with all the experimental data that we have acquired throughout the last century.
That is so fucking fascinating, because to me it sounds like a point where reality breaks down into energy and information.
But perhaps it only sounds that way because my metaphysical dualism is energy and information.
Perhaps.
We have derived calculations that work. The observations of our detectors confirm our calculations.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 24, 2010, 04:50:09 AM
Perhaps.
We have derived calculations that work. The observations of our detectors confirm our calculations.
Yep, all we have is the masses of some particles and how they interact with other ones. Asking for much more is stretching it a bit.
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 01:38:34 AM
Potential energy in this sense is predicted effect of gravitational attraction upon kinetic energy.
Yes, that's potential energy in any sense not just gravitational, It is a resultant based on vectors of force, one of which happens to be the attraction between two bodies.
And it remains in potential while receiving an equal and opposite force. In the case of gravitation, that force is electromagnetic (repulsion of electrons). No net force leads to the object remaining at rest.
No, gravity doesn't transmit its force in the same way that particles interact. Its definitely not the repulsion of electrons, they are waaaay to big to be the transmittable force for gravity. Even photons are too big. I mean it has to have some method of transfer, its just so tiny we cant figure out what it is.
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 11:06:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 24, 2010, 04:50:09 AM
Perhaps.
We have derived calculations that work. The observations of our detectors confirm our calculations.
Yep, all we have is the masses of some particles and how they interact with other ones. Asking for much more is stretching it a bit.
So you're saying physics only describes reality so far?
Well, to describe it fully accurately, you'd need to replicate the Universe, so...
I hate that some knowledge is simply off-limits, but I guess I'll live. :lol:
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 24, 2010, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 11:06:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 24, 2010, 04:50:09 AM
Perhaps.
We have derived calculations that work. The observations of our detectors confirm our calculations.
Yep, all we have is the masses of some particles and how they interact with other ones. Asking for much more is stretching it a bit.
So you're saying physics only describes reality so far?
We can take a good guess at all large scale (classical physics stuff). Quantum Mechanics is incomplete (for example no one can explain the gravitation force yet). Its nice, it means we still have new frontiers to explore.
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 01:38:34 AM
Potential energy in this sense is predicted effect of gravitational attraction upon kinetic energy.
Yes, that's potential energy in any sense not just gravitational, It is a resultant based on vectors of force, one of which happens to be the attraction between two bodies.
And it remains in potential while receiving an equal and opposite force. In the case of gravitation, that force is electromagnetic (repulsion of electrons). No net force leads to the object remaining at rest.
No, gravity doesn't transmit its force in the same way that particles interact. Its definitely not the repulsion of electrons, they are waaaay to big to be the transmittable force for gravity. Even photons are too big. I mean it has to have some method of transfer, its just so tiny we cant figure out what it is.
I meant that the electromagnetic repulsion is the opposite and equal force to gravitational attraction when an object is at rest on the surface of the earth, or on the surface of any object suspended above the earth.
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 12:30:32 AM
QuoteAnd we still don't really know what mass is. So far, it's been a really weird series of coincidences that everything has the same gravitational mass as inertial mass.
Please explain gravitational and inertial mass.
Think of gravitational mass as how much something weighs (kinda.) The more gravitational mass something has, the more it feels the force of gravity, and the stronger its gravitational field is. If you were to double the gravitational mass of the Earth, everything on it would weigh twice as much. The Earth itself would also be pulled twice as hard towards the Sun, so what would probably happen is that the moon would crash into Earth and then both would fall into the Sun. This is the m in g = G*m1*m2 / r^2 (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.)
Inertial mass is how hard you have to push something to speed it up or slow it down. A car with lots of inertial mass will take more fuel to get up to speed than a lighter car, and has to have stronger brakes to slow it back down at the same speed (or just brakes more slowly.) If you take a car and double its inertial mass, you also double its stopping distance - the brakes have to exert the stopping force for twice the distance. This is the m in F = m * a (Newton's Second Law of Motion.)
The weird coincidence is that nobody's ever been able to find or create an object that has more or less gravitational mass than inertial mass - or come up with a good reason why such an object can't exist. In science fiction they often have a super-metal with a strong gravitational mass but low inertial mass. If such a thing existed, you could line the floors of your spaceship with it and get Earth-normal gravity inside (because it has a high gravitational mass, and creates a strong gravitational field) without having to spend a whole lot more fuel to push the spaceship around the cosmos (since it doesn't have correspondingly high inertial mass.) Conversely, you could imagine a planet with normal inertial mass for a planet (if you try to push a planet, what happens is that you go backwards and the planet stays right where it is, thankyouverymuch) but with no gravitational mass - it wouldn't have a gravitational field, everything nearby would simply be weightless.
I think, after hearing your explanation, it's more confusing that some people would think an object could have unequal gravitational to inertial mass than the opposite and commonly accepted notion. If mass is energy via mass-energy equivalence, then to have unequal inertial to gravitational mass there would have to be some violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 09:34:15 PM
I think, after hearing your explanation, it's more confusing that some people would think an object could have unequal gravitational to inertial mass than the opposite and commonly accepted notion. If mass is energy via mass-energy equivalence, then to have unequal inertial to gravitational mass there would have to be some violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
It doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics we just don't know the actual values of the transmitant force of gravity.
Quote
I meant that the electromagnetic repulsion is the opposite and equal force to gravitational attraction when an object is at rest on the surface of the earth, or on the surface of any object suspended above the earth.
Not equal and opposite, different ratios, most of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism would be simple if they were one to one.
For instance a bigger electric field doesn't give a bigger magnetic field, its the rate of change of the E field that controls that. other stuff like resistance changes the values.
So as above gravity doesn't violate the first law because we don't know the the values of things interacting on different masses all we know is the gravitational force is small and has huge range.
I'm spending a lot of time with this thread on my mind.
I'm reading the wiki on gravitational waves, it's got a lot to chew on.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 24, 2010, 11:43:02 PM
I'm spending a lot of time with this thread on my mind.
I'm reading the wiki on gravitational waves, it's got a lot to chew on.
Its bizarre, isn't it. QM + EM was my favourite subject last year but its really tough and quite humbling really.
I keep having to remember not to let my jaw go slack.
Quote from: Faust on July 24, 2010, 11:51:29 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 24, 2010, 11:43:02 PM
I'm spending a lot of time with this thread on my mind.
I'm reading the wiki on gravitational waves, it's got a lot to chew on.
Its bizarre, isn't it. QM + EM was my favourite subject last year but its really tough and quite humbling really.
I'm sure that me being a biologist and striding into the field of elementary physics is much like the inverse. Some things are really well defined (newtonian gravitation and DNA/RNA synthesis), others are extremely complex and unintuitive (quantum mechanics and protein folding).
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 12:37:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 11:25:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Solid.
I keep a jar of them on my desk. But they're really hard to see if you spill them.
Am I taking this too seriously?
No, I was just being an ass. :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 26, 2010, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 24, 2010, 12:37:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 23, 2010, 11:25:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 23, 2010, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 23, 2010, 07:58:59 PM
1. Quarks, for now, seem to be elemental. They aren't made of anything, they simply are. Kind of like how we thought atoms were elelmental, before we found out they had parts. For now, they "are" the building blocks.
2. Short answer: dunno. Still trying to work that one out.
Longer answers available upon request.
So, are quarks solid, or are they probability fields, like photons?
Solid.
I keep a jar of them on my desk. But they're really hard to see if you spill them.
Am I taking this too seriously?
No, I was just being an ass. :)
Fair enough. :)