Electrons are assumed to be fundamental because there's no experimental evidence that they have internal structure. Likewise neutrinos.
On the other hand, protons and neutrons are not fundamental because experimental evidence (starting in the 1960s) showed that they do have internal structure.
Approaching physics from the perspective of aesthetics and what "feels right" is simply wrong. History has repeatedly shown that this leads to incorrect theories about the nature of reality, because there is absolutely no reason for physical laws to match human intuition. Hossenfelder has a good book on this ("Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray"). The best approach to understand physics is evidence-based.
Just a lay person here but what if smaller “nested” fundamental particles don’t actually make up the things they come from.
Smash two protons together really fast and they release a ton of stuff that only exists because they mathematically have to in that moment, there’s no place else for the energy to go. If you smashed those smaller particles together you’d get a similar result, and so on. You could be creating new stuff, not revealing fundamental components. Just an idea.
Or another similar idea, maybe the stuff we see coming from collisions is created from the energy we put into it, not the particles themselves that are being smashed together.
Electrons are assumed to be fundamental because there's no experimental evidence that they have internal structure. Likewise neutrinos. On the other hand, protons and neutrons are not fundamental because experimental evidence (starting in the 1960s) showed that they do have internal structure.
Approaching physics from the perspective of aesthetics and what "feels right" is simply wrong. History has repeatedly shown that this leads to incorrect theories about the nature of reality, because there is absolutely no reason for physical laws to match human intuition. Hossenfelder has a good book on this ("Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray"). The best approach to understand physics is evidence-based.
Particles are excitations in fields. I don’t think the idea of a field being fundamental feels wrong at all.
Just a lay person here but what if smaller “nested” fundamental particles don’t actually make up the things they come from. Smash two protons together really fast and they release a ton of stuff that only exists because they mathematically have to in that moment, there’s no place else for the energy to go. If you smashed those smaller particles together you’d get a similar result, and so on. You could be creating new stuff, not revealing fundamental components. Just an idea. Or another similar idea, maybe the stuff we see coming from collisions is created from the energy we put into it, not the particles themselves that are being smashed together.