Asked and answered. Physics isn't about opinions, however. There's just no difference between mathematical structures, that describe physical phenomena, and the physical phenomena themselves. The only difference is between the mathematical structures that describe physical phenomena and those that don't.

Dear Stam - I think that is a bit shallow as an answer. The unit charge, for example, is a physical constant that we can observe. We cannot observe partial charges. Likewise, the rest mass of the Higgs particle is calculated to be equal to 125 GeV/c2. Even at the speed of light - which such massive particle cannot aspire to attain – it could not travel more than a few tenths of a femtometer: about 0.3x10-15 m, to be precise. That’s not something you would associate it with the idea of a particle: a resonance in particle physics has the same lifetime. I could mention many other examples.

Mathematical equations or descriptions need to be reducible to equations in terms of the physical dimensions of the SI system of units (as revised in 2019). And a basic distinction should be made between equilibrium and non-equilibrium energy states.

Kind regards - Jean Louis

Dear Sydney - Txs for the long reply. The quantization of space (or 'spacetime') is a topic which I consider to be resolved: Planck's quantum of action may either express itself as momentum over a distance, or as energy during some time (cf. the Nms dimension physical action). The (variable) 'geometry' of both expressions can be easily explained by Wheeler's mass-without-mass idea.

I have also come to the conclusion that the use of natural units is a tricky matter (as evidenced by the different approaches to it: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units), and I should re-visit it considering the 2019 revision of the system of SI units: it may or may not allow to define/transform/expand Nature's fundamental constants (principally c, h, e) in a larger set of constants expressed in units of fundamental SI units (N, m, s, etc.), but it will still mask/hide the actual physics of whatever it is that we are trying to model. Personally, I think setting c to 1 is all that is needed to elucidate a lot of physics: going beyond that involves choices that may or may not reflect the basic equations of physics. [I think Einstein once casually remarked the various systems of natural units were designed before the Planck-Einstein relation was established. I would add: they were surely designed before the 2019 revision of SI units, which may or may not complete physics.]

The interesting thing about the S-matrix program is that it abstracts away from physical dimensions and, at the same time, it does not. Occam's Razor tells us that the possibilities inherent in our mathematical description of physical events should correspond to actual physical realities, and vice versa. I think pre-WWII QM theory respects that criterion. Theories that are mathematically flawed do not. To be precise, perturbation theory is, obviously, mathematically OK, but not if it is applied outside of its (mathematically defined) field of application, which is what is being done in QFT.

Bombardelli's paper (Article Lectures on S-matrices and Integrability

Preprint Ontology and physics

Kind regards - Jean Louis

Curved spacetime is just an alternative representation of the gravitational force. The geometry of gravity is rather easy because gravity is a one-dimensional force acting on a single 'charge' ('mass', no plus/minus sign). The EM force is 2D and the nuclear force is 3D (planar electron vs. spherical proton), but a geometric representation (multi-dimensional curvature of spacetime) should be possible too - based on tensor algebra (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_31.html). The math will be much more complicated. In short, it is easier to model all forces as forces so we can use the superposition principle and analyze all in terms of 3D space and 1D time, using invariant vector equations. But all that has nothing much to do with the question under consideration here: can high-energy reactions be fully determined using S-matrices and the 'classical' conservation laws (conservation of physical action, energy, linear and angular momentum, and (elementary) charge, i.e. without making use of ad hoc symmetry-breaking hypotheses (except for the overall CPT-symmetry condition, which should be inherent in the matrix equation)? THAT is the question. :-)

To add to the question, I have been thinking we may use quaternion math to correctly model S-matrix equations. At the same time, based on the standard physical explanation of Compton scattering in terms of energy and momentum conservation, I've come to the conclusion that the S-matrix representation seems to lose track of the (linear) momenta (magnitudes as well as direction) of the incoming and outgoing particles, which I now think of as a major disadvantage of the approach. See: Preprint RealQM: A Realist S-Matrix (formerly: The Zitterbewegung Hyp...

кварки-это квазичастицы

Quarks are quasi-particles. What do you mean with that? I understand lightparticles, field particles, particle-particles, virtual particles, but quasi-particles? What's the definition? Mathematical representation? Etc. Please elaborate. JL

There is no doubt that quarks are totally artificial which is supported by the fact that no serious experimentalist wants to deal with them. In fact, their existence is even less likely than the so called Higgs particle which, like the quarks, does not appear be possible to appear by itself. The whole situation shows that the nature is being more and more described with additions that are questionably truly natural.

Hi Anatoly - Can you translate? My knowledge of Russian is non-existent. :-)

Dear Jean, an example of a quasiparticle is a phonon - a quantum of sound. Its energy is determined similarly to the energy of a photon - a quantum of light, but unlike ordinary particles, a phonon cannot exist without a medium, for example, a crystal. Quarks also cannot exist without a medium. For quarks, the medium is an elementary particle, for example, a proton.

They are clever form factors helping to Close the gap. This is ok as long the basic physics is respected. Particularly, the conservation laws, particularly of the energy.

I just come across this stream and I was quite surprised, maybe even stunned.

I was surprised by the very first answer of Stam Nicolis. On its own right a good respected scientist with almost nonexistent background in philosophy as judged by his response. I thought that the reasonable answer by Jean Luis van Belle would restore my trust in depth of science discussions on RG but I was even more so disappointed particularly with his belief that quantization of space-time is a solved problem. Dear Stam even if you deeply believe in unity of science, stating that there is no difference between mathematical structures and physical phenomena is just nonsense and contradiction in terms. Everything about these fields of human inquiry is different. Sure one stimulates another but... If they were synonymous why having two if one would suffice. In reality the problem is as deep as many streams on RG that count in many thousands of entries. Historically, physics as a human activity understood as active experimentation, existed way before the mathematical foundation of its modern description was ever conceived. In return a lot of math will never find any direct reflection in the "real world". Domains, methods, conclusions and range of subjects will never be overlapping no matter how many theoretical physicist mathematical education will produce. It is not the time nor space to be more rigorous with trying to define physics and/or math in this post but suffice that they developed as separate fields for clear and discernible purpose.

However, subsequently, I was equally shocked by a statement of Jean Luis that the quantization of space-time is a solved problem. He showed almost the same arrogance as Stam in his statement about math and physics. Dear Jean ask yourself whether you have any operational experiment that would prove existence of a single point in space or time. Think in terms of the "real world" physical experiment not in terms of mathematical abstraction as expressed by "gedanken experiments" of our predecessors as some limiting process. You will quickly discover that physics has basic problems with the most basic entities such as a physical dimension or definitions of preliminary basic properties of the "real world" to even remotely claim that quantization is a solved problem.

Coming finally to the answer to the main question there is clearly a misunderstanding of the extend of vocabulary used in this post. We do not have any clear definition of material point (in classical physics) as we do not have any better definition of a field (in QFT). All these entities are only used as operational numerically oriented outcomes. In terms of philosophical ontological existence quarks exist in exactly the same manner as electrons despite not comparable life time. They are a similar math constructs that give similar numerical predictions. That our beautiful crowning achievement of a Standard Model can describe approximately 4% of observable (at least on a Cosmological scale) real world cannot be the point of ultimate pride, but should rather be a humiliating experience. We do not even have any philosophical conviction about the materiality (read existence) of the wave function in classical Quantum Mechanics despite beautiful visualizations of the probabilities outcomes in many experiments. So dear Josip I would not advertise your views that Quarks are "totally artificial" because maybe our entire world would become totally artificial and we would be forced to believe in a radical form of "subjective realism" in which we are all only an illusion that is materialess.

So, happy discussing further, but maybe we should clarify first, what math and physics is, so we avoid discussing nonexistence. I would rather start with a discussion of a role of a model in math and physics.

Bog

Dear Dr. Stec - When I meant the quantization of space is solved, I referred to my explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment. This shows the negative electric charge has a finite fractal structure. See: Preprint RealQM: A Realist S-Matrix (formerly: The Zitterbewegung Hyp...

My philosophical viewpoint is well explained in papers that overlap with this, especially:

Preprint De Broglie's matter-wave: concept and issues

Preprint The Meaning of Uncertainty and the Geometry of the Wavefunction

Quantization of space is given by the Planck-Einstein relation: physical action (a force over some distance (linear or non-linear) during some time) can be expressed as energy times the time, or momentum times the distance. Both imply a non-finite space over which the physical action is expended, and Planck's quantum is the quantum of physical action and, therefore, quantizes space, energy, momentum - and all related physical variables. So the Planck-Einstein relation quantizes space (or spacetime, if you want) but its a 'variable geometry' (using Mitterand's famous words for the EU here).

Einstein's mass-energy relation - combined with the equations for orbital energies - then defines the charge as that what gives mass to matter-particles (light-particles are merely field oscillations: they do not carry charge but can interact with charged particles). For the rest, it is just Occam's Razor Principle: all of the mathematical possibilities in the fundamental equations do correspond to physical realities, in my humble view.

The question I am raising here is in regard to factorization of scattering matrices: what do these mathematical factors correspond to? As for ontological/philosophical issues, I have a few papers on that, but trying to reduce it all to a K-12 level introduction is probably what is needed. I made a start at that with Preprint Wavefunction math and dimensional analysis

Kindest regards - Jean Louis

I still believe that quarks bare artificial. There are two simple reasons. One, acknowledged physicist had find anything to continue nuclear physics. The price that this physics pays is that it has to be practically continuously adjusted to fit the data,

I add an answer from a longer email discussion with a former SLAC researcher on this, which might resume my final position on the question.

Hi [X] – I do recognize the idea of quarks (and gluons) come out of experimental data – as Feynman does when introducing the idea of the conservation of strangeness. I greatly admire the vast amount of data and measurements that goes into the PDG ‘inventories’ of particle reactions, and I do fully agree the quark scheme is a useful scheme of organizing that data, but a three-color scheme with two entities (quarks and gluons) is mathematically equivalent to a 12-parton model (see my paper https://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0007v1.pdf ), so I still think these things are just common factors that come out of the factorization of scattering matrices.

Neither the quark-gluon or the 12-parton model or the factorization model is perfect [in this regard], however, because everything that cannot be classified in the PDG scheme of things is referred to as ‘symmetry-breaking’ without further ado. So I look at it as a some kind of grand statistical analysis in which you are going to try to model a very complex reality – which combines lots of neutral and charged currents, in equilibrium or disequilibrium – according to a one- or two-sigma scheme. [I have a background in econometrics, so I know a thing or two about organizing vast amounts of data and distilling some (linear or non-linear) relations out of them using GLM techniques and matrix factorization.]

Any case, this discussion has been most useful to me because, at some point, I was actually wondering whether the idea of a nuclear force and potential was still useful. I did a five-pager now on ‘language philosophy’ in the context of physics (Preprint All of physics

Cheers – JL