particle theory of matters?
482088
That all matter is formed of particles, originally defined at atoms, then smaller and defined as neutrons, protons, and electrons, and now still smaller to quarks.
326065
There are some fields of human activity that exist and develop, solely for the advancement of knowledge, regardless of whether we find any use of that knowledge or not. Theoretical Physics in general (and particle physics in particular), happens to be one of those fields. Though the results of particle physics may someday prove useful in many areas that DO exist solely for their utility, theoretical and experimental particle physics, for the most part, do not have the utility factor in view. \n\nHence, particle physicists do not need to provide justification of their discoveries of particles in materialistic or utilitarian terms. I hope that answers your question.
64985
Quantum Theory, also quantum mechanics, in physics, a theory based on using the concept of the quantum unit to describe the dynamic properties of subatomic particles and the interactions of matter and radiation. The foundation was laid by the German physicist Max Planck, who postulated in 1900 that energy can be emitted or absorbed by matter only in small, discrete units called quanta. Also fundamental to the development of quantum mechanics was the uncertainty principle, formulated by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, which states that the position and momentum of a subatomic particle cannot be specified simultaneously.
474119
Space does not come in particles.\n\nThere is no aether.\n\nQuantrons do not exist.\n\nBut apart from that I'd say you're probably almost right.
394207
Boson condensation why not Fermion condensation? \nPlank time, Plank length is there a Plank mass?
396443
This is an excellent question and is quite tedious for a large number of particles, but there have been some papers written on this question. See http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/docs/forum/hoops_links/energy.html for an interesting aside, http://tracer.lcc.uma.es/problems/thomson/thomson.html for some illustration and http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+AND+problem+Thomson/0/1/0/all/0/1 for the actual mathematics.
381267
according to the theory of quantum mechanics particles can exhibit a wave like behaviour, ie particles such as electrons which fundamentally are thought of as particles can infact difract and behave like a wave. for more info look up the wave-particle duality.
81056
ja :), that's a good one. E=mc^2 talks about the equivalence between matter and energy; c is just the constant that joins them both ..you won't attain a c ¨velocity¨out of it ; you'll just have to use \n E=mc^2/(sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) ( Is it Lorenz transf?) and I think Xav was pretty clear with his explanation! :)
721826
"Arent all particles material?"\n\nNo.\n\nThere is a concept called wave-particle duality.\n\nHere is an example of a non-material particle, the phonon:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
317299
Ever since man took an interest in the sciences, from perhaps the time of Aristotle onwards, from time to time great ideas have been put forward. Some of these have seemed initially ludicrous, and turned out to be so. Others, with a little development, have given us a great insight into the way that the world works and enabled us to move on. \nAt a given moment of time, it may appear that what we know is fairly correct and will correct timelessly. However, history has shown that this is not the case. Eventually, perhaps, we will know everything, but right now this is far from the case. \nTake one of the fundamental aspects of physics, for instance. For a long time now people have thought that the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles; atoms and their sub-components. This is the model we learn and that everyone worked around. \nYet in recent times, this has been challenged, by what is known as string theory - and it now seems that this is a better model, perhaps the more 'correct' one. \nString theory, against the traditional theory of matter, says that matter is caused by the vibrations of a string-like structure. These are the fundamental building blocks of matter. It is a bizarre sounding radical theory at first, but now has much support. \nJust like a violin string when plucked will produce sounds, and different sounds when plucked in different ways, so it is with the universe - with string theory, the fluctuations give rise to matter. On this view, the universe may romantically be described as a symphony. The framework of the vibrating string causes the song that we see around us. \nThis, then, in outline is string theory, and it has greatly changed the way that modern physicists do their subject.
945829
Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space, so that would be people, cars, gases, anything really except for things that are not tangible like thoughts.
68885
I think that simple answer is, no one knows. We have theories, but we really do not know. \n\nFor example, maybe the antimatter particles decay much faster (see reference). Maybe the universe is only locally mainly matter, and there are other patches of the universe that are locally mainly antimatter (see reference). \n\nWhat science is, is a series of problems and questions that scientists attempt to answer. You have asked one of those questions that is so far, in the unresolved category.
1081648
matter, intelligence,
156513
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/
297208
As my education impressed on my mind; there is no empty space.  What we think of as "space" is not empty but a constant dance of virtual particals (protons/antiprotons, etc) constantly appearing out of the vacuum travelling a short distance, then touching and annihilating into nothing once again.  \n\n"Empty" space is filled with these interactions which I believe are known as vacuum fluctuations.  The law of "convservation of energy" is really something that holds on average.  Another principle called the uncertainty principle states that we cannot measure simultaneously the energy and time of a (system of particles?) more accurate than a constantant called h or hbar (a very small but finite number). \n\nSo in theory the universe can "borrow" energy from nowhere as long as that energy is returned before the h bar uncertainty in time runs out.  And thus "empty" space is filled with these vacuum fluctuations and is not really empty after all.  Of course I don't think I explained that too well.  See "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribben for a more coherent description
527404
Bose-Einstein condensate - or "space."
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.