Re: What's Inside A Neutron???

In article <17834-428B87D9-607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
G=EMC^2 Glazier <herbertglazier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Gregory Fields used instead of particles Hmmm Please explain he
>structure of afield. Please if you are using string theory tell me the
>structure of a string,and what is making it vibrate? Why is a point
>effected by fields and not a real round object? True you can create new
>sub-micro particles by smashing larger particles together,but can our
>great accelerators create a sub-particle from two fields smashed
>together. Reality is unless the particle has a charge it will not go
>round and round in the accelerators EM field. A field shows itself to us
>by its lines of force going through space to infinity. You can easily
>feel a field by just reaching over to turn on your TV,and see the hair
>on your arms rise up. Crude analogy is what Google gives. Like all of
>us it does not know what is waving or how its waving began. Vibration is
>the same as waving its an up and down motion. What is going up and down
>is a string(oh Ya) Bert
>


Explain the structure of a field? If I told you the field was made of
little particles, would you be happy without asking what the structure of
the little particles are? In the standard model, fields are basic--
they're not made of anything, they're what things are made of. They're
postulated entities with certain behaviors and interactions, and that's
all the theory has to say about it.

I believe the term is made-up metaphysical ***. But it's first-order
made-up metaphysical ***-- it's directly related to observable things.
Trying to decide what the fields are composed of is second-order made-up
metaphysical ***, which is no longer science. Science ends when the
connection to the observable ends.


--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.