Will we ever find the final building block of nature?

I think we'll never "find" them, but we certainly can infer them. Perhaps the ancient Greek atomists were correct after all, except that they didn't know about the intermediate layers of structure existing between their fundamental, unbreakable "atomos" and us--molecules and atoms. In the early 1960s the late Dr. Frank Meno conceived of a size (Planck length--he thought Mother Nature was trying to tell us something there) and shape (basically one-dimensional concave objects--long thin barbells--the geometric opposite of spheres) of the fundamental particles. He thought this shape could allow them to form permanent toroidal vortex structures. Over the past 20 years i've developed his seminal ideas into what I consider to be the 1st ever complete "Theory of Everything," simply by pursuing how it is that such vortices could exist, and not fly apart. It turns out, in this theory (termed "gyron aether theory") that all the strangeness of quantum mechanics and relativity theory arise from the interplay of a Universe-wide matrix of such vortices that constitutes the "luminiferous aether" (a decidedly non-empty "vacuum") and a vastly superluminal, highly energetic flux of "gravitational gyrons" (GGs) moving like arrows (with very low reactive cross-section) throughout the Universe, ejected from the vortices of both matter and the vacuum. But particle physicists will never find these, as all of our tools are many orders of magnitude too large/crude. Their existence has to be inferred in order to explain reality. One really nice thing about the theory is that it is exclusive: no other shaped particles can exist (at least not in significant numbers) else they'd "gunk up the works" inside the vortices, and prevent the long travel of the gravitational gyrons necessary to explain gravity (which transitions to repulsive at large distances, due to matter vortices emitting better aligned, lower reactive cross-section GGs, than their vacuum counterparts. Another nice thing about the theory is that it is as parsimonious as one can wish for: a single type of particle colliding and recoiling in otherwise empty 3D, Cartesian space. And, being purely mechanical, it's testable at many levels. A summary version of it will appear next week in the fringe journal "Physics Essays."

My theory, which I call Ordergonics, is that everything in the universe is composed of order and energy. So the search for the smallest "particle" assumes some fragment of ordered energy. All viable laws and models of physics are essentially statements of perceived order. Scientists keep looking for "particles" when the answer may be identifying the underlying order which makes energy perceptible in any form.

Kudos to Jay Bennett, his sources, and his editors for producing a clear narrative about string theory and quantum loop gravity -- two of the most arcane theories in science. I'm a little surprised that there is no mention of the recent anomalous signal recorded in South Dakota -- a possible dark matter candidate -- and even more surprised that there is no mention of the possibility that AI will advance our theoretical understanding along one axis or another.

Well, the comments in this discussion are quite - something. Will we ever find the final building blocks of nature? Maybe we already have. I love scientific inquiry for the pure knowledge it discovers. Now, though, it feels like the cost in dollars is getting too big.

Yes. In the standard model of particle physics, quarks and leptons are fundamental spin one-half fermions. In the hypothetical model of Haim Harari and Michael Shupe, each quark or lepton is formed of three components, called rishons. Rishons are two-bit particle components: there exist two conjugate pairs, one charged, one neutral. In the hypothetical model of Stuart Anderson (that's me), each quark or lepton is formed of six components, called ekons. Ekons are one-bit particle components: there exists just one charged conjugate pair of ekons. The ordered combinations of six ekons form the sixteen states of flavor and color of a generation or family of quarks and leptons. The spin one-half state of a quark or lepton results from the phased oscillations of its six ekons. My six-component or hexekon model of quarks and leptons is described in papers and articles in my ResearchGate.net profile research. The articles are also available on Quora.com. You might begin by reading the article “What is the evidence for the six-component model of quarks and leptons?” Thank you for your attention.

In 2007, Bilson-Thompson, Markopoulou and Smolin explored an LQG approach that builds the standard model fermions and bosons from simple braids of ±2π twists in the fabric of space. Time Now (New York: Rodin Books, 2025) takes their concept further to construct an axiomatically consistent space, time, matter, causation, origin of the universe and cosmology from the topological relations of a Planck-sized quantum of space (as first mooted by Riemann in 1856) with Calabi-Yau geometry. It naturally resolves recent tensions in astrophysics and cosmology, and yields testable predictions.

I think string theory is an attempt by overzealous theorists to explain everything. Gravity and spacetime are well described by the theories of Einstein and Planck. Gravity is a macroscopic force and spacetime consists of patches the size of the Planck length.

Let’s keep building on those blocks.

The question may not be whether Standard Model particles can be broken into still smaller particles, but whether “particle” is even the correct concept at the deepest level.

In the Quantized Dimensional Ledger (QDL) framework, we are investigating a different possibility: that spacetime, matter, and interactions emerge from a more primitive, densely packed substrate of discrete Quantized Dimensional Cells (QDCs). On this view, quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and perhaps even gravitational behavior would not necessarily be fundamental objects. They could instead be stable collective states, excitations, or transaction patterns of the underlying substrate.

That changes the search for the “final building block.” The endpoint might not be another particle beneath the Standard Model. It may be a minimal physical unit plus a small set of admissible relations and conservation/closure rules from which particles, forces, and geometry all emerge.

The decisive issue is therefore not simply how small we can probe, but whether a deeper theory can derive known physics and produce quantitative predictions that distinguish it experimentally. That is the standard QDL ultimately has to meet.

Before we look for the building blocks of nature. Maybe we should ask some questions about current quantum theory. In the peer-reviewed International Journal of Quantum Foundations, I show that alternatives to the accepted quantum regimes are possible. Frameworks exist that replace concepts like a particle being in two places at once, a wave collapsing its energy into a single point, Star Trek communication faster than light, and math existing in another dimension having influence over reality. I also posit that Bell's theorem and quantum gravity aren't always applicable and that dark matter might have an explanation (in press). The relevant information can be found at https://sites.google.com/view/dipole-wave-ontology/home or at the aforementioned journal. I invite readers to the site and would be thrilled to receive comments.

Mass is energy in confinement. The force of Gravity is inversely related to the distance from Mass.

What if Gravity relates to the confinement field (force/retainment pressure?) and not Mass?

Like containment of Quarks trapped/retained in protons and neutrons.

Yes. I have co-authored a book available at PhilPapers that shows how the universe is comprised of just one type of particle - we call it the microbit. All particles are a grouping of this. For example, the quarks are made up of subquarks and so on down seven levels to the microbit. Microbits arose from the Big Bang. When quarks are found to be comprised of smaller particles and this may happen in a few years time all hell will break loose and people will then start to see the validity of what we are claiming. Remember that there has to be a start or else we face infinite regress and we cannot be here. My book is called: Microbits: A New Unified Physics. Why unified: because there is no real distinction between matter and energy - everything comprises groupings of microbits. Contact is made at the microbit level and so in reality there is no action at a distance and so on…it is the simplest possible physics that explains the maximal diversity.

If we go back a thousand years in molecular science when we just referred to fogs and gases, no particles, no molecule's, that might be close to where we are in particle physics on a relative scale. If that’s anywhere close, that’s exciting not scary.

We have to revive and alter fatio theory so that it includes space being full of entities interacting together to form systems called particles, opposite non equal effect on object we call gravity and when emitted by something having a frequency, the emissions are light. My free book suggests just that

That is more of a philosophical question than an empirical question. My answer is no; you can't say we have found the ultimate truth of the reality of space-time. I believe it is knowable. It's not idealist. No god awaits at the end of this infinite journey.

Breaking an atom takes ~14eV of energy. Breaking a nucleus requires several millions of eV. Breaking proton or neutron requires billions of eV. Even if matter can be divided into ever “more elementary” particles the energy required may exceed all energy produced. Hence, even if there is no fundamental limit of disability of matter, the practical limits do exist.

Please explain how a particle "carries" force. Is there a better word for "carries" which to ordinary humans seems like a bucket used to carry water. Or, is it that scientists don't actually know how a particle carries a force in any common sense.