Would you be surprised to learn that physics does not investigate objects?

From the Oxford English Dictionary the definitive guide to the English Language A material thing that can be seen and touched That excludes electrons. But more importantly an object has both form and matter; a cup the form of which deviates so much from the norm that it no longer holds liquid is no longer a cup. A cup made a matter to insubstantial to hold liquid is also not a cup. The position, velocity of an object can be measured. These statements are not true of an electron. Again an object cannot be a wave, though objects can 'carry' a wave, as in a sea wave. An electron exhibits behaviour of a wave therefore it is of some other category. all the best urban

By that definition, neither hydrogen nor oxygen is an object. Nor are electrons incapable of being touched. An electron beam works by shooting electrons at a target, and looking what results from all the times an electron collides with the target material. Each collision is an electron touching another particle. You have also failed to understand the Uncertainty principle. The position and velocity of an electron are measured every day, what one cannot do is know those values with absolute certainty. One has the same error of measurement with macroscopic objects, but that uncertainty is such a small percentage of, say, a millimeter that the approximation is sufficient. All science, not only physics, concerns itself not only with what it measures, but with to how many decimal places the measurement is both accurate and precise.

I would say that Oxford English Dictionary let you down. A material thing that can be seen and touched. 1st off I don't like the "see AND touch" if that was true than air molecules wouldn't be objects. If all humans were born blind then everything wouldn't be an object either. You kinda get what I'm saying? Secondly, a black hole. We can't see it at all. We can only see what is missing and how things are being affects by it. But we know it's a real object. If it wasn't then it couldn't affect anything physically at all. It affects things so much it even affects time itself!

Immediately after posting, I realised I should have qualified the descriptor physicist. What objects does your son-in-law study? all the best urban

No, when they say particle that is a linguistic short cut, the phenomenon they investigate are not objects. Objects have consistent potentialities (Properties) the electron, for instance, is not an object since it exhibits wave/particle duality, nor is it a wave, rather it is some other category of entity. What the people at CERN investigate is the theoretical model of the electron as a particle. Or rather more precisely, they investigate the potential to behave in such a manner under such conditions or that theoretical model. all the best urban

He working in the field of biomechanics. I just remembered I should have mentioned the people at CERN who work with the large hydron collider and that is working with physical objects albeit that they are very small

"Scientists examine particles after they collide through a particle accelerator." Thank you, that exactly captures the problem, when scientists say they examine particles that is a linguistic short-cut. What are referred to as sub-atomic particles are theoretical models and they don't examine them but rather their potential to behave in certain ways under certain conditions. If that is unclear, take the example of an electron. An electron my be modelled as a particle and the potentiality to behave in such a way examined or it may be modelled as a wave and it potentiality to behave is such a way examined. What is clear is that it cannot be both wave and particle, rather it is neither but something other that has the potentiality to behave in such a way under such conditions and another way under different conditions. This then is what is examined the theoretical model of the electron. all the best urban

Aye, school physics is really the history of 19th and early 20th century physics all the best urban

But notice I said 'modern' physics, of course physics starts with objects all the best urban

Actually, no one studies dark matter, no such thing has been shown to exist all the best urban

Half of this is modern. I don't remember Isaac Newton coming up with the idea that our 3 dimensions are like pieces of fabric and that's why there is gravity. That was a later physicist and a later discovery. But physics is a constant changing being. We are even studying black holes. We can't even see them but we collect data from them by how they affect things. Even dark matter. I believe there is a lot you think you know about physics but you should study some more. We judge the properties of stars and planets based on their gravitational force and their brightness and so forth. I just don't see how you think physics doesn't investigate real objects. Perhaps it's because you are looking too narrowly at such a broad subject.