Any infinitesimally small particles?

  • Thread starter Gnomie27
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Particles
In summary: Finite sizes for fermions is a pretty recent idea in the field and some people don't like it because it doesn't seem so physical to them! Although I remember there was a physical interpretation to it that made things OK but I'm not sure.In summary, the mainstream view of particles is that they are point-like, infinitely small, but there are some hints that they may not be. There are also theories that suggest composite particles (like a baseball) may not have infinitesimal size.
  • #1
Gnomie27
21
2
is there any particle that is infinitely small? is there anything at all that's infinitely small?

i might have been inclined to say a singularity, but last i checked someone "[took] the singularity out of the black hole".

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Depends on what you mean by 'infinitely small'.
 
  • #3
As far as we can tell today all fundamental particles are point particles meaning they have no internal structure or discernible size. String theory predicts however they are not points but strings.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4
If one considers mainstream QM and SM,the answer is yes,all fundamental particles are point-like,infinitely small.And by combining such point particles you can't get a particle with finite size,so I guess composite particles should be considered point-like too.
But if you want to consider other theories too,I can give you some examples that suggest finite sizes for elementary particles.One of them is string theory which says that the particles are in fact vibrating strings which their vibration patterns determine their properties.
Another example is Einstein-Cartan theory,an extension to GR.It requires the fermions to have finite sizes(I don't know the reason).
And...mmmm...back to the QM...considering particles as point-like makes some troubles which are cured by a process called renormalization.Some people don't like it because it doesn't seem so physical to them!Although I remember there was a physical interpretation to it that made things OK but I'm not sure.
Anyway,although mainstream physics is considering elementary particles as point-like,here and there you can find some little clues stating the contrary!
 
  • #5
Shyan said:
And by combining such point particles you can't get a particle with finite size,so I guess composite particles should be considered point-like too.

The entire macroscopic world is a counterexample to this non sequitur.
 
  • #7
Nugatory said:
The entire macroscopic world is a counterexample to this non sequitur.


No,it is not.Most of the volume of all materials is empty space.Matter exists because of that empty space and various kinds of repulsive forces.In fact a simple analysis will show that the world doesn't need finite sizes for composite particles for its existence
 
  • #8
A baseball is a composite particle. It does not have infinitesimal size.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
A baseball is a composite particle. It does not have infinitesimal size.

A baseball is what I call "matter"...by composite particle I mean protons,neutrons etc...I think I don't have to explain the difference,its just obvious!
 
  • #10
Shyan said:
A baseball is what I call "matter"...by composite particle I mean protons,neutrons etc...I think I don't have to explain the difference,its just obvious!

OK, let's look at a proton or a neutron. It clearly has a non-zero size; and it is composed of three point-particle quarks and a bunch of empty space. I'm still seeing a counter-example to your (IMO absurd) claim that a particle composed of point particles must itself be a point particle.
 
  • #11
Nugatory said:
OK, let's look at a proton or a neutron. It clearly has a non-zero size; and it is composed of three point-particle quarks and a bunch of empty space. I'm still seeing a counter-example to your (IMO absurd) claim that a particle composed of point particles must itself be a point particle.

Oh...sorry...you know,looks like I wasn't looking at it!
Suddenly it came in front of my eye and I now see I was wrong.
Well,sometimes it happens...temporary foolishness about a particular subject!
 
  • #12
Shyan said:
Another example is Einstein-Cartan theory,an extension to GR.It requires the fermions to have finite sizes(I don't know the reason).
Connections in Einstein-Cartan theory are not assumed to have vanishing torsion unlike in GR. That is where it comes from.
 

FAQ: Any infinitesimally small particles?

1. What are infinitesimally small particles?

Infinitesimally small particles, also known as subatomic particles, are the smallest particles that make up matter. They include protons, neutrons, and electrons, which make up atoms, as well as smaller particles like quarks and leptons.

2. How small are infinitesimally small particles?

Infinitesimally small particles are incredibly tiny, with sizes ranging from 10^-15 meters for quarks to 10^-10 meters for atoms. They are so small that they cannot be seen with the naked eye and require special instruments, like microscopes, to be observed.

3. What is the significance of infinitesimally small particles?

Infinitesimally small particles are essential to our understanding of the physical world. They are the building blocks of matter and play a crucial role in chemical reactions and the formation of molecules. They also help explain the behavior of matter on a microscopic level.

4. Can infinitesimally small particles be divided?

According to current scientific understanding, infinitesimally small particles cannot be divided any further. They are considered to be the fundamental units of matter. However, some theories, such as string theory, propose that there may be even smaller particles that make up subatomic particles.

5. How do scientists study infinitesimally small particles?

Scientists use a variety of methods to study infinitesimally small particles, including particle accelerators, electron microscopes, and other specialized equipment. They also use mathematical models and theories to understand the behavior of these particles and make predictions about their properties.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
167
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top