system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why does physics assume the existence of elementary particles?

To make sure I am asking the question correctly, let me elaborate.  Each question seems to lead to another question so I will try to limit this to a small subset.


As I understand the concept of Elementary Particles, fermions and bosons, is that they are not composed of any other particles.  In short that EPs are the smallest of all particles.  I hope this understanding is correct.


If so, then smashing / destroying say a quark would do what?  If there are no other particles of which the quark is composed then what happens to the quark?  Does E=MC^2 come into the equation and nothing but energy remains?  If so, then what does it mean that the Bosons are the force/field carriers?


Its at this point that particles seem to not be logical any more and circular logic starts to kick in.  Or, more likely, that my understanding is faulty.  Any one care to give me insight?
gpt
Physics does not *assume* the existence of elementary particles.  Rather, we construct models, see if they work, and it turns out that models that predict the existence of elementary particles work very well.

When you smash particles together, you are not breaking them apart.  You are taking them and all their energy -- including the energy present in their mass via E=mc^(2) -- and making it possible for that energy to re-form into new entities.

We refer to some objects as matter and some as force carriers because of the way we happen to think about different entities and their interactions, but that is not necessary.