On the properties of elementary particles. Anti-science speculation arrogant and ignorant accountant

Arrogant and ignorant - because I adhere to the concept of the information universe .

INFORMATION WORLD is different from PHYSICAL UNIVERSITY assumptions:

1. the material objects around us are records in the database;
2. each act of change (separate entry) leads to a change in an individual unit of the universe — an object;
3. changes may consist of a) changing the properties of an object, b) combining several objects into one or c) dividing one object into several.

Such an informational approach leads to paradoxes, read about one of them below.

Imagine objects that are separated from an unregistered area (such as were not formed by dividing or combining previously registered objects), for example, the first object registered in the system. Such objects, by definition, cannot have any parts, since their properties are given one-time and holistically: they are elementary in their usual usage, not decomposable into component parts due to the lack of such.
')


Several elementary objects can be combined into a new object, which in this case will be a composite , that is, having parts.



Imagine the reverse operation: the division of the composite object into previously registered parts.



But tell me: can an elementary object undergo a separation?

In terms of computer science, nothing prevents that. First, we register a new object in the system (select it from an unregistered area), then divide it into parts:



This is a picture, but from the point of view of "common sense"? "Common" in quotation marks suggests that an elementary object cannot be divided into parts, because it is elementary.

Suppose, can not ... what follows from this? The fact that the objects that stand out directly from the unregistered area are elementary, and that there are no more elementary objects in nature.

If so, then the information universe could be formed:

1. either instantly, while being absolutely divided into parts, that is, consisting of a set of elementary objects, which then began to unite, forming real objects of the material world;
2. or gradually, by introducing more and more elementary objects into the universe, which joined previously formed subjects, slowly increasing their mass.

It is hard to believe in the listed possibilities.

Another theory is preferable: that the only initial one is elementary by definition! - the object was first formed, then it began to be divided into parts, which began to unite with each other, as a result of which the space processes were launched. The point, of course, is not in personal likes and dislikes, but in the fact that from the point of view of computer science there are no obstacles to registering the separation of even an elementary object. Although the ability to divide an object does not mean that it will certainly be divided. In this sense, elementary objects are divided into objects that will never be separated, and objects that will ever be separated. Thus, the elementarity of objects in absolute value is a function of the future.

This seems to me paradoxical. Just imagine, there are two absolutely identical elementary objects, one of which is cut into pieces, then, by combining the separate parts, it is assembled again in absolutely the same configuration:



We get two objects that are identical from the material point of view, one of which, in accordance with our classification, is elementary, and the second is already compound:



Isn't it a paradox?

PS Understanding that on Habré for such a “unsubstantiated” publication on the head is not patted, I decided to prepare for the forthcoming criticism and climbed into Wikipedia to see how this omniscient resource interprets the concept of an elementary particle. The following text was found in Wikipedia:

An elementary particle is a collective term referring to micro-objects on a subnuclear scale that cannot be split into its component parts.
It should be borne in mind that some elementary particles (electron, neutrino, quarks, etc.) are currently considered to be structureless and are considered as primary fundamental particles. Other elementary particles (the so-called composite particles - proton, neutron, etc.) have a complex internal structure, but, nevertheless, according to modern concepts, it is impossible to divide them into parts (see Confinement).

Elementary particles cannot be split into its component parts, however some of them are composite - they have a complex internal structure. And how does it know if the elementary particle cannot be split into its component parts? The only rational explanation is that “Wikipedia” by elementary means the impossibility of splitting an object, regardless of whether it has or does not have an internal structure — its constituent parts. Allegedly, these are completely different properties: the object has component parts and the ability to disassemble an object into its component parts. Well, I do not know, I do not know ... Apparently, the paradox of the universe - or maybe the vagueness of terminology? - it is preserved not only with the informational approach, but also with the physical one.

So:

1. According to what is written in Wikipedia, some elementary objects have components, but these objects cannot be separated. Why it is impossible to divide a composite object, thunder thundering, I do not understand. Not enough power?
2. According to the informational concept, elementary objects do not have components, but can be separated. I fully understand this: at some point in time, the internal structure of the object is not defined - the object is elementary; at the subsequent moment, the internal structure gets the definition by dividing the object into parts (which had never existed before, in the sense that they were not registered in the system).

Ergo, the universe does not have an established structure at each moment, but changes its structure as its state changes . What is quite difficult to deny, if we recognize that the universe is in dynamics.

We come to the following. It cannot be argued that any elementary object has an internal structure in the present, but it can be assumed whether its internal structure is formed in the future: from this point of view, one elementary object can indeed have, and the second elementary object does not have components. This is the solution to the paradox of two identical objects.