Is the theroy of particles  really true or it just a guess?then if it is guess ,y books wrote abt them?
101623
What does it mean to be "true"? The quantum theory (I suppose that's what you're asking about) can explain a lot of physical experiments, so, up to a certain extent, it has been proven true. It is also the truest physical theory for small scales up to today.\nScience isn't about finding absolute truths, it's about providing a description of reality that suits your needs. Take newton's gravity laws for example: while proven false in absolute by einstein's relativity, they are still really useful and tought in many places.\nOf course the goal is to one day provide a theory (a description of reality, not "a guess") that explains everything, but for now that's still a dream.
103742
Your reasoning does not necessarily follow. \n\nConsider one of the suppositions that some scientists have posited as a possible conclusion to the unknowable state of subatomic particles posited by Quantum theory: every choice may spin off a new universe. \n\nNow - mind you - I am not positing that this is what happens, but some serious people have proposed this - every choice you can make, some iteration of you does make, since thought itself is quite possibly quantum mechanical (it is passed via electrons, so the possibility cannot be precluded.) And each of these choices spins a new thread off the universe into a multiverse of possible outcomes. \n\nAs you can see, this is just one possible means by which you actually can have complete control of your destiny, and for God to still know the outcome. An infinite God would still be God of a multiverse of infinite possibility.\n\nYour choices are yours. You know you make them. You can feel yourself make them, as you make them - I don't need to prove this, anyone reading can intuit for themselves that I am telling a basic truth.\n\nThe fact that God does have some inkling of how all this will turn out does not represent any sort of interference with your free will. Nor is it a disproof of God. It is merely a reflection that an infinite wisdom can consider infinite possibilities, and find any of them to be quite unsurprising.\n\nSo no - while God is self-limiting in the sense that he does not appear to want to interfere in our doings (and the universe appears to have been explicitly designed to permit free will) - this is not an argument for God's powerlessness or non-existence. It is proof only that, if there is a God, infinite choices and possibilities are not out of reach of his infinite power.
814309
No.  The scientific method is to try to think of a rule or equation which will fit the observed data you already have, and apply it mathematically to predict the result of observations or experiments you have not made yet.  When you make them, and get the predicted results, the rule or equation is more likely, but it is never completely certain.\n\nThe mathematical method is as old as Euclid (about 500 BC).  From axioms, we deduce theorems which are at least as true as the axioms, and from these theorems we deduce more theorems.  All the way along, if the axioms are true, then the theorems are true too.
505249
no.its the force produced due to the movement of other particles(electrons).so..
175717
I've heard of this parallel universe theory..well, it's not a theory really it would be like a conclusion if string theory is someday proved ; there may be infinite universes each with a different law of physics and ours will be just one of many others .\nsounds weird huh? that there are hidden worlds beyond ours, well, that's because there are particles like e- that can stay in more than one place at a time ..so one explanation could be that this particles don't exist just in our universe but in an infinite number of them ( parallel universes)..reality is even more amazing than fiction sometimes :P
517189
both, they are laws in the sense that it has been tried and tested over and over again that it is safe to conclude that they explain the universe in a "correct way", but it can also be just a limited understanding of a more complex physical law that is yet to be discovered.\n\nin the same way newton's classical mechanics has been found out to be an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, our physical laws today might be proven to be an approximation of some other undiscovered law.
697707
Quantum mechanics is fascinating, as Einstein's famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe" is turned on its head.  The random nature associated with the inner workings of atoms and quarks is astonishing when one considers that despite all of the unpredictability of subatomic activity, things in the macroscopic world follow predictable patterns that seem to defy common sense.
29764
None really - science is a methodology.  The scientists might have faith in all sorts of things -but science itself does not.
231248
The clue is in your question:  "We find."  How do you know what becomes of antiparticles we don't find?
53598
there are many theories had been formulated by scientists...\n1. the big bang theory -- it states that at first there was a blazing or hot sphere...untill time goes on this sphere continues to acccumulate heat..after such time it bursted and emitted particles and this particles formed into different galaxies.\n2. the collision theory--scientist said that there was a comet heading to another comet in space..then this two comets collided with each other and there particles scattered into space and therefore creating galaxies.\nand there are other more theories..\nbut for me it is really god who created the galaxies and space...cause if there is a thing or a galaxy probably somebody puts it there..or somebody is responsible for it to be created...
367288
Yes.\nStuff that make up the protons and neutrons.\nAnd stuff that make up the stuff that make up the protons and neutrons.\nAnd ..................it goes on and on, but we humans do not know where it ends, or even if it does end, there are only theories about it.
648100
CIH is spot on, but you should also realise from what he said that electromagnetic waves or particles are ways of describing and calculating what a photon will do, they are not the actual photon itself (whatever that is). \n\nSometimes it easy to think that the description of an object IS the object, especially if it fits it well. If it was possible to write an equation or model which fully described a motor vehicle, you still wouldn't be able to drive it to the shops, but you would be able to accurately descibe how it drove there.\n\nIsn't physics wonderful! Philosopy and science all neatly wrapped up in one unifying theory of lots of theories!
632020
That we've found so far, anyway. The Michael Crichton book Timeline (not the movie, dear God not the movie) talks about light particle/waves as indicative of the existence of parallel universes. It's very interesting. Not only do they exhibit particle/wave behavior but no one can observe a photon where it is, only where it was. And sometimes it seems to have disappeared entirely only to reappear in a different place. Makes me wish I was smart enough to full grasp quantum physics.
4008
the formulas are what convince me.  I've had to derive so many complicate formulas myself, and most of them, especially mechanics formulas can be proven, such as measuring a quantities, solving for a missing variable, then doing an experiment and getting the same answer.  This is too much to be a coincedence or something.  Most theories and things are developed before formulas and actual mathamatical relationships are found, then they find them and it all fits together nicely.  Even with reletivity and things with spacetime, there are a lot of concrete formulas, and once you have the satisfaction of deriving them yourself from previously proven formulas... it all clicks nicely, that's why im a physics major, curiosity about everything like this.  I guess human perception can be valid once connections start being made between things, because when ideas are incorrect, they really don't connect to other things very easily.
620911
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.
335040
It is hard to explain here. \n\nIt is a hypothetical particle predicted by standard model of particle physics. And it was originally predicted by Peter Higgs.
202172
It hasn't been observed, if that's what you mean by proven, but it is a widely accepted idea because the theoretical underpinnings are very solid.  I don't think anyone contests the idea much these days.  If we're lucky, when the LHC at CERN comes on line in late 2007, we may be able to make microsingularities and watch them evaporate, giving direct proof of Hawking radiation.