2006-10-21 14:32:32 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Well, since we could never possibally see one, it is impossible to truly state the truth of this statement.
Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
"Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces. The derivation of this word comes from the book Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, where seabirds give "three quarks", akin to three cheers, and probably just take on the sound a seabird makes, like "quack" is for ducks."
What I think on the subject:
Supposedly quarks are the smallest things now, but look back 50 years, and they said that atoms were the smallest things, then electrons, protons, and neutrons, then quarks, then ???.
2006-10-21 14:43:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quarks and leptons are not as fundamental as they could be. String theory says that long strings make up everything in the universe.
2006-10-21 16:40:45 · answer #2 · answered by bldudas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One cannot ascertain that quarks are fundamental particles . there is no real proof except to say that they are broken pieces of atomic elementary component pieces which came out of a synchrotron..
The scientist which would assert that quark is the fundamental elementary particle would be closing his mind to the possibility that there exist in the Universe smaller basic mass structures as well a masseless space structures.
2006-10-21 15:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by goring 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Superstrings, Brian Greene
From Publishers Weekly
"String theory is a recent development in physics that, by positing that all which exists is composed of infinitesimally small vibrating loops of energy, seeks to unify Einstein's theories and those of quantum mechanics into a so-called "theory of everything." In 1999, Greene, one of the world's leading physicists, published The Elegant Universe (Norton), a popular presentation of string theory that became a major bestseller"
2006-10-21 15:31:50 · answer #4 · answered by mad-man 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you know what you get when you try to kick a bound quark out of a hadron? The energy you'd have to use would become a quark-antiquark pair, and you'd end up with a hadron and a meson... and no free quarks.
2006-10-21 16:20:51 · answer #5 · answered by David S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Quarks and leptons are defined as necessary because they are element debris without defined volume. they are in difficulty-free words given mass by using "drag result" led to by technique of the higgs field
2016-12-05 02:17:12 · answer #6 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reason tells us that yes, there's always going to be a smaller particle.
2006-10-21 14:41:10 · answer #7 · answered by Scarlett_156 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not particles but strings...see string theory
2006-10-21 14:40:55 · answer #8 · answered by The Cheminator 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋