Bhushan,

The mathematical part of physics has been brilliantly developed because a huge investment in it has been made by physicists and mathematicians. Now, it seems as the physical part of physics should be equally invested in and developed. The combination of these two efforts would give us a complete understanding of the nature of particles and forces, which is everything.

"New Physics Framework", which was recently uploaded to this site, was developed and is presented to aid in our understanding of the physical part of physics. If viewed with an open mind, it should provide insight into the physical nature of particles and forces. It is meant to supplement and extend our current knowledge of physical physics, not to detract from mathematical physics.

Regards,

Dan S. Correnti

Book New Physics Framework (Post #5.3)

Science is mainly considered with the question : HOW?

All other questions, what, why, etc have no meaning in science because they cannot be refuted. Any question whose answer cannot be refuted or debated upon with scientific arguments cannot be entertained by science. Anyone can come and say and electron is Bhushan Poojary because he satisfies such and such a property of electrons (Just an example friend!!). Now no one can refute the statement, unless they disprove the said properties being followed, which can only be done scientifically. Now again the question is open, and it will go on and on and on.

A very wonderful statement that I read in Griffiths Particle physics book is the following: 'An electron is an electron is an electron is an electron!' And that is it. Yes I agree with you it is important to know what are electrons...but they just are!!

We can know their constituents by various experiments, but that's that their constituents do not tell us what they are. 

Hope I helped!!

'An electron is an electron is an electron is an electron!'

Jaskaran I got your point , but we have to find out , we cannot simply say Chicken is Chicken, we went inside and came to know there are many things inside it.

Similarly we should be able to answer these kind of questions.

Bhushan once I visited a guy who used to repair electronics near our home. His shop was always a mess of electronic devices (can't name all...or even a few!!) Looking at those devices no one could tell that some of them would turn out to be a TV radio or whatsoever when assembled. Knowing the constituents alone does not enable one to describe the system. More information has to come by looking at the system as a whole. We know the proton is made up of 3 quarks, but still our knowledge about the proton is only as much as about the electron. Your question could as well refer to the proton instead of an electron and it would be no different.

However we can know its properties well enough, and frankly that is what science is concerned about. 

Look at this this way: Can we tell who Bhushan is?? Yes he is a human...but thats just a property... and any answer you can cook up will only be explaining a property and not describing the system.

In quantum mechanics the analogy is quite well explained and more faithful. An operator in a hilbert space can only be defined by the actions of it on the basis of the vector space under consideration. Hence only by defining its properties can we actually define an operator in QM.

Similarly only defining the properties of an electron is sufficient enough to describe it....and quite frankly it is the only way we can define it...and not by looking at its constituents.

Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM. What's assumed known must be specified in advance. The name of a particle is irrelevant; its properties mean something, that must be explained. IF Lorentz invariance is assumed, then mass and spin are invariants, so they can label the particle usefully. If interactions are assumed, with certain symmetry properties, then the corresponding charges, also, come into consideration. So an electron is a (relativistic) particle, of spin 1/2, that carries global charges, such as electron leptonic number and gauge charges, namely, electric and weak charges, whose mass is thus described by the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism and whose left handed component, along with the electron neutrino, transforms as a doublet under SU(2) x U(1), while its right-handed component as a singlet. With that information one can describe all properties of the electron. The symmetries of the theory describe the dynamics-and allow to impose constraints on unknown properties. So *if* the electron were composite, it is possible to describe this. 

Stam I didn't mean electrons are made up of sub atomic particles, I meant what are they made up of. What makes them stand apart from normal space around us?.

I agree with you properties define most of the stuff related to electrons or whatever particles, my goal is can we simulate all physics law which we know (as well as we don't know, which should be output of simulation) in super computer ?

As Feynman argues in the interview I linked to, learning to pose useful questions is part of physics and, thus the understanding of Nature. What makes electrons ``stand out'' is their mass, spin and charges. These properties define electrons and their interactions. 

And, yes, we can and do simulate all laws of physics these days: it is possible to formulate (parts of) the Standard Model on a computer and calculate, from first principles, many quantities, some to precision comparable to experiment. 

Stam if we would have simulated all laws we would have able to unify Quantam Mechanics and Relativity and we would have been in position to unify all fundamental forces as well.

I may be wrong here , but I hope you got my point , we still have many unanswered questions in Physics.

We have unified quantum mechanics with special relativity-that's quantum field theory, an example of which is the Standard Model. It's not yet known how to compute gravitational effects beyond the equations of motion, however-though the gravity/gauge theory duality does provide some insights in this direction. 

Of course, there's a lot to be understood and it's important to learn how to formulate ``useful'' questions-not any question is equally useful. 

Dear Bhushan,

Before the operation of some of the functions of the universe can be properly understood, we have to first, physically (not just mathematically) understand what is all around us everyday on earth – this is matter.

A good place to start our understanding of matter is the electron; physically model the electron by studying what the electron is made of and how and why the electron mechanism works. From this, we will see what constitutes the electron’s magnetic moment, magnetic B-field, electric charge, energy, mass, and gravitational potential. For this purpose, "Unveiling of the Electron with a Pictorial View" is attached for your perusal.

Once the electron is adequately modeled, it will then be possible to physically (not just mathematically) model a proton, neutron, atom, and molecule – all based on the modeled electron. Understanding how and why other dynamic mechanisms work will naturally follow also. Such mechanisms include the nuclear force, electromagnetic waves, heat, Pauli’s exclusion principle, Lenz’s law, the Lamb shift, and antimatter.

Extending this study of matter will also allow determination of the following: whether dark matter and dark energy exist or not; and whether merging relativity with quantum mechanics is valid concept or not.

I know this is a lot to comprehend all at once, but at least, it gives you a place to start in response to your curiosities that we all have on this subject. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, Dan S. Correnti

https://www.academia.edu/10065615/UNVEILING_of_the_ELECTRON_with_a_Pictorial_View_POST_1_

Hello Stam,

"there's a lot to be understood and it's important to learn how to formulate ``useful'' questions-not any question is equally useful. "

When we use computer application we see user interface, we can use this application and know all its properties and we can define set of rules how this applications works.

But underlying this there is computer code written by developer which makes it run that way.

I want to know this code (not only the application), because when you know  the code you can undersatnd all the applications out there.

This is only analogy, if we understand the underlying frmework of the universe everything will become simplier to understand.

We have so many pieces now becuase we fail to explain various aspects of same problem.

Question can be usefull or useless but question should have some answer, becuase you never know if the answer becomes usefull later.

Regards,

Bhushan Poojary

Physicists do not know what is the fundamental object of our universe. Some think it is a unified field others think there are point-particles and others think it is a 11 dimensional string. In quantum field theory we consider a field as a fundamental object but we detect particles in practice. Dirac believed fermions should be considered as particles and bosons as field. The paper '' The causal interpretation of quantum fields and the vacuum''  by Kaloyerou , is very useful.

Dear Bhushan!

The matter is physicists have long-learn to answer on the questions "how much it is" before definition “what it is", within adopted ideology and unspoken standards in modern physics. There needed a little bit other science however, to solve your questions. Einstein has tried to change physics in his time and many people also has understand necessity of it (as Lee Smolin for example) but it is not possible yet; I think there are political directive.

Thanks George

Last line is intresting

Regards,

Bhushan Poojary

4me NO: the fact is that the list of properties is not known in advance ... so we are able to clarify properties only on the basis of responses related to phenomenological-mechanisms ... but the phenomena are potentially infinite. Better: a list of properties distinguish an entity just in term of the "current" knowledge of reality. (atomic speaking: there is a degeneracy that could be resolved adding more properties... ;) )

Thank you Arno

Can you please share book name ?

Yes Thomas you are right.

Thank you for your answer.

But there is not much effort put to understand this part of Physics.

Bhushan,

The mathematical part of physics has been brilliantly developed because a huge investment in it has been made by physicists and mathematicians. Now, it seems as the physical part of physics should be equally invested in and developed. The combination of these two efforts would give us a complete understanding of the nature of particles and forces, which is everything.

"New Physics Framework", which was recently uploaded to this site, was developed and is presented to aid in our understanding of the physical part of physics. If viewed with an open mind, it should provide insight into the physical nature of particles and forces. It is meant to supplement and extend our current knowledge of physical physics, not to detract from mathematical physics.

Regards,

Dan S. Correnti

Book New Physics Framework (Post #5.3)

Indeed a very good question, but really you could rephrase it as 'what is the nature of reality' - your question is really about the ultimate NOR. The more you delve into the NOR, by whichever angle, the more you always realize that to understand that particular part you must understand it all. 

That's where the cutting edge of physics is today, and many are approaching answers by one route or another (Max Tegmark, Burkhard Heim clones, Marcelo Gleiser, Arno Gorgels, and many others) but it will take some time before any consensus takes hold

Thank you Chris,

Yes one day we will know for sure.

Regards,

Bhushan Poojary

Just to reference a non broadly accepted view for electron, that of Johan Prins, who actually argues that electron is a kind of electromagnetic field, see his profile at RG and his publications.

There are many views, but the consensus, as right H Chris mentioned, is so difficult to be achieved because of the demand for a beautiful underlying math theory...

(You see we do not accept a simple explanation, we prefer to make it as difficult as it could be, probably in order to prevent understanding it from the mass audience...)