• arctanthrope
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would guess it refers to the fact that we used to think atoms were the smallest things, and then we found protons, neutrons, and electrons. then we thought those were the smallest things until we found quarks and gluons. and maybe some day we’ll find out that there’s something smaller inside quarks

    • DreamButt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

      idk if you can get smaller than vibrations in a field. At least not without a different conceptual model. But I guess that’s always been the problem anyway

    • TheTechnician27
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s probably it.

      and maybe some day we’ll find out that there’s something smaller inside quarks

      I don’t think particle physicists in 2026 wake up in a cold sweat worried about preons. We are still taking measurements, but I don’t think theoreticians have any reason to invoke it – and IIRC its predictions have been outright contradicted experimentally.

    • Aquila@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I saw it as to see smaller and smaller you need higher energy photons. To get down to the planck length the smallest possible size the amount of energy you need to resolve that creates black holes