I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.
Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.
The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.
No, they weren't.
You are yet to provide any actual paper indicating such.
The Nobel prize was not awarded for anything like that.
Instead it was awarded for electrons interacting in magnetic fields to produce quasiparticles with fractional charges.
These were not real particles. These were not the components of electrons or quarks.
In fact, they are quite the opposite, being composed of electrons.
Do you actually understand that fundamental contradiction?
You are claiming a particle which is made from X, is actually a sub-component of X, i.e. that X is a sub-sub-component of itself.
In the world of reality, that makes no sense at all.
You can easily read the press release to see all that:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/These quasiparticles are not particles in the normal sense but a result of the common dance of electrons in the quantum fluid
This has already been pointed out to you before.
Yet again you are blatantly lying about actual science to pretend your garbage is justified.
When are you going to learn to do your homework?
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521
When will you learn to actually do your homework, rather than just skimming through to find anything you think might support you.
Where in the paper does it indicate any actual evidence of subquarks?
Have you even bothered reading the paper? Or did you just pay attention to the title and assume that it must support you?
A subquark is theoretical. It's existence hasn't been proven. It may or may not exist. Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven. And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was. If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical. Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found. See BOLD.
How about you read what I have bolded.
You quite clearly indicated that until there is proof of existence they do not exist in actuality, i.e. they don't actually exist.
So no, you quite clearly indicated that things will magically start existing when proof of their existence is discovered.
Can you not read... it asks the question......and the answer to the question is a resounding no.
Was that your answer, or the paper's answer?
Based upon what I read of the paper their answer appears to be a resounding maybe.
They provided an explanation for the observed results on the basis of a substructure of quarks. While that is not evidence of subquarks (as it isn't making predictions and testing them and instead is entirely post-hoc), it is also not a resounding no.
Just to clarify things.
Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.
I don't think you understand what that means.
The known universe includes a very large portion of the universe, including distant stars and the planets around them, which could have sentient alien life which could have discovered subquarks.
Being part of the known universe does not mean we know everything about it.
The clue was in the word known.
Yes, which means we know about it, not everything about it.
Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’
Yes, for example, Proxima Centuri is within the scope of knowledge.
We know about it.
In fact, we even know about Proxima Centuri b, a potentially habitable planet which could potential have sentient life on it.
They are within the known universe.
It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.
Currently they are saying subquarks are not there
Again, where?
Is that what they are actually saying, or just what you are claiming they are saying?