[nyc111]

As usual comments here are more informative than the article. But no one mentioned that this is not a physics subject. The question “What is a particle?” belongs to philosophy not to physics. The problem for physicists is that they assume the Newtonian worldview that the world is made of indivisible units of matter called particles. [1] This assumption cannot be questioned. It is a dogma of the profession. But their experiments tell physicists again and again that the world is not made of indivisible units of matter. Physicists can either respect their experiments and accept that the world is not made of indivisible units of matter called particles or choose sophistry and try to fit their dogma into nature by wordplay. Physicists chose the latter and instead of dropping their dogma they keep changing the definition of the word “particle”. It does not matter what you call those indivisible units of matter. Physicists used to call them “particle” then “field”, then “excitation” and many other names that can be used case by case to save their sacred Newtonian dogma. Physicists’ dilemma is that they do business under the professional name of “particle” physicists. If there is no particle their profession would be redundant. Obviously they cannot call themselves “excitations of the field physicists”. So they keep the word particle but keep changing the meaning of it and they blame the public for not understanding physics jargon. My advice to physicists: respect the authority of your own experiments and drop the Newtonian dogma of a material world made of indivisible units of matter.

[1] "God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles." Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375