First collisions at the LHC with unprecedented Energy! (Ask a particle physisicist)

[Pyrrho]

That sounds lovely.  The only way it could be much better would be to have an entire bottle of wine, and someone to share it with and...

From The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, as translated by Edward FitzGerald, fifth edition:

XII.


 A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
 A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
   Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
 Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rubai...h_edition)

Lovely - I'd only heard of the Rubaiyat in connection with the mysterious dead spy chiffre case, but never read any of it...

I highly recommend it.  For English, I like Edward FitzGerald, and I think I like his 5th (his final) edition best, though all of his editions are good.  For German, I have no clue what translation would be good, if any.

Of course, since we are talking about poetry, translations do not keep to the exact meaning of the original, and in this case, typically only some of the quatrains are translated; I do not know if anyone has translated them all.

But, it would be nice, relaxing beneath a tree on a warm day, with your head in your wife's lap while she reads The Rubáiyát  to you, with her fingers gently running through your hair, drinking wine and having some good bread and other food.

Anyway, your description of your time in a garden in the shade of a tree, drinking wine, made me think of such kinds of things.

So again, you wonder whether or how we can talk about particles without knowing what particles actually are. As I have alluded to earlier, I don't think this is necessarily in the realm of science - but - I also believe that we regularly leave the realm of science when we talk about nature. This is a deep philosophy of science question and I am no philosopher of science, so I can only offer you a half baked cake of my own making. I think the question what particles really are, might possibly not be a valid question. My impression is that we can't help but talk about the objects and goings on in the world in terms of our theories about these objects, and that only in the framework of a theory a multitude of phenomena can be unified into a single object. What is a cup of coffee really? Is it still the same cup if you rotate it 180° and why? In order to talk about *the cup*, we have to relate a multitude of phenomena in different channels, touch, sight, and its reaction to touch, and a theory of rigid  rotations in space and how they form equivalence classes between objects, all have to relate these things in a theoretical construct you call *the cup*. I don't think particle physics is all that different, except that quantum weirdness makes it harder to express the state of an object in everyday language.

Concerning the second question, I have wondered that myself. The interpretation of forces as particle exchange is an intuition that comes out of the mathematical construction of Feynman diagrams. It is real work to try and map this question (how do the particles that are exchanged decide to get flying, do they see their goal?) to the maths of the derivation of feynman diagrams. My preliminary answer is thusly: Particles send off virtual particles all the time in this picture. If another is in sight, it gets caught. But this does not explain why particles don't "lose " energy via virtual particles all the time.

I have noticed this distinction in your earlier posts.  I seem to recall you alluding to the distinction between metaphysics and science in the distant past, but I can give an example from yesterday (which is why I gave the post kudos):

Brilliant questions, will try to address later. But yes, I talk of theory objects as if they are objects in nature. I don't know what is *really* going on, and that's possibly not a phtsics question

It is recognizing and keeping clear on this distinction that shows really good sense, which is one of the reasons I like and respect you.

Lest anyone suppose I am denigrating philosophy, I will make a slight digression before getting to what I want to say.  In the history of philosophy, among the ancients, Plato and Aristotle are the biggest names in philosophy.   Among modern philosophers, David Hume and Immanuel Kant are generally regarded as the most important.  I mention this so that everyone will see I am not quoting a fringe philosopher, but one of the most respected philosophers of all time.

Here is something Hume had to say on this subject:


When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_328


Usually, though, I am content to quote Oscar Wilde in connection with this topic:


Ah! that is clearly a metaphysical speculation, and like most metaphysical speculations has very little reference at all to the actual facts of real life, as we know them.

— Gwendolen, in The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/844/844-h/844-h.htm


Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you are a scientist, and not a metaphysician.  It has not gone unnoticed.