How can we be certain that particles such as quarks and leptons are in

In summary: That would require a strong coupling to hold it together and still give the observed mass, which is a very hard thing to do.In summary, centuries ago, Greek philosophers believed that atoms were the fundamental building blocks of matter. However, with advancements in technology and the use of particle accelerators, scientists discovered that atoms consisted of even smaller particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. While there is speculation that these particles may be made up of even smaller particles, current evidence suggests that they are indeed elementary. The standard model, which assumes the fundamental nature of these particles, has been extremely successful in predicting and explaining various phenomena. The use of lepton colliders also offers precision
  • #1
jmosque
13
0
Centuries ago, Greek philosophers (such as Democritus) postulated that atoms were the fundamental building blocks of matter. Then, in the 1900s Rutherford along with others discovered that atoms consisted of electrons surrounding a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. With the technological improvement of particle accelerators, a plethora of new "fundamental" particles were discovered in the 1960s and the years that followed.

I can't help but wonder; how do we know that particles such as quarks and leptons are not in turn, made up of even smaller particles? Perhaps our accelerators have not reached energies capable of showing us such evidence.

One should note, that my question originally arose because I was reading an article about the ILC, and it made a comparison between leptons and hadrons (in reference to the LHC). It claimed that producing collisions with leptons at weaker energies than the LHC could produce, would be ideal for research because leptons are fundamental particles whereas hadrons are not and could be subject to colliding at various angles (which in turn, could alter the results).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I can't help but wonder; how do we know that particles such as quarks and leptons are not in turn, made up of even smaller particles? Perhaps our accelerators have not reached energies capable of showing us such evidence.
We cannot be sure (and the LHC experiments look for possible signs of compositeness), but there is good evidence that the known particles are elementary:

- the Lande g-factor of electrons (2.002319304) agrees with the prediction for elementary particles with an incredible precision (all 10 digits I quoted are correct). For composite particles (like protons and neutrons), the value can be "anything" (proton: 5.59, neutron: -3.86), a random agreement would be extremely unlikely.
- the standard model is extremely successful, and it is based on the assumption that quarks and leptons are elementary
- no substructure was found yet. If a particle with a mass of .5 MeV to a few GeV consists of multiple particles of (at least) a few TeV, the coupling between those particles needs significant fine-tuning to give such a low mass as result.
- probably some more things I forgot
 
  • #3
jmosque said:
how do we know that particles such as quarks and leptons are not in turn, made up of even smaller particles? Perhaps our accelerators have not reached energies capable of showing us such evidence.
We don't, for sure. But every theory along those lines that's been developed so far (preons, technicolor, etc) has failed to agree with the observations (and it's not just a question of unreachable energies).

One should note, that my question originally arose because I was reading an article about the ILC, and it made a comparison between leptons and hadrons (in reference to the LHC). It claimed that producing collisions with leptons at weaker energies than the LHC could produce, would be ideal for research because leptons are fundamental particles whereas hadrons are not and could be subject to colliding at various angles (which in turn, could alter the results).
One big advantage that lepton colliders have over hadron colliders is precision. When you collide protons, it's really a pair of quarks inside them that are colliding, and those quarks have a large spread in energy which you have no way of controlling and have to average over.
 
  • #4
If you believe in string theory, everything IS made up of something more fundamental --- strings !

I'm not holding my breath, though. it seems that after a zillion hours of really smart people working on it over something like 40 years, string theory has produced nothing but elegant theory and no substance.
 
  • #5
Thank you both for your responses.
mfb said:
- no substructure was found yet. If a particle with a mass of .5 MeV to a few GeV consists of multiple particles of (at least) a few TeV, the coupling between those particles needs significant fine-tuning to give such a low mass as result.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, would you care to elaborate? It would be much appreciated.

Bill_K said:
We don't, for sure. But every theory along those lines that's been developed so far (preons, technicolor, etc) has failed to agree with the observations (and it's not just a question of unreachable energies).

One big advantage that lepton colliders have over hadron colliders is precision. When you collide protons, it's really a pair of quarks inside them that are colliding, and those quarks have a large spread in energy which you have no way of controlling and have to average over.
That's very interesting, I didn't know about the theorized preons. And thanks for the tidbit about the lepton colliders.
 
  • #6
phinds said:
If you believe in string theory, everything IS made up of something more fundamental --- strings !

I'm not holding my breath, though. it seems that after a zillion hours of really smart people working on it over something like 40 years, string theory has produced nothing but elegant theory and no substance.
If there appears to be observational/experimental evidence that quarks and leptons are not composite, and are indeed fundamental - shouldn't that dispel arguments for string theory? Or does the idea that such particles may be composed of more fundamental strings differ from the idea that quarks are not composite particles?
 
  • #7
phinds said:
I'm not holding my breath, though. it seems that after a zillion hours of really smart people working on it over something like 40 years, string theory has produced nothing but elegant theory and no substance.
Well, some interesting mathematical tools to calculate some tricky problems.

jmosque said:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, would you care to elaborate? It would be much appreciated.
Well, consider a hydrogen atom: It has a mass of ~938 MeV, but you need just ~13 eV to see its substructure.
Positronium is a bit better, just 1 MeV of mass and 6 eV needed to see its substructure.

To improve that ratio, you would need a very strong coupling - a binding energy very close to the rest mass of the particles.

You are looking for a particle with a mass ~MeV to GeV, with TeV of energy needed to see its substructure.
 
  • #8
jmosque said:
If there appears to be observational/experimental evidence that quarks and leptons are not composite, and are indeed fundamental - shouldn't that dispel arguments for string theory? Or does the idea that such particles may be composed of more fundamental strings differ from the idea that quarks are not composite particles?

String theory doesn't so much predict that quarks and leptons are *composed* of strings, it is more that they simply *are* strings. So instead of fundamental point particles you have fundamental strings.
 
  • #9
mfb said:
Well, consider a hydrogen atom: It has a mass of ~938 MeV, but you need just ~13 eV to see its substructure.
Positronium is a bit better, just 1 MeV of mass and 6 eV needed to see its substructure.

To improve that ratio, you would need a very strong coupling - a binding energy very close to the rest mass of the particles.

You are looking for a particle with a mass ~MeV to GeV, with TeV of energy needed to see its substructure.
Okay, I think I understand. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

kurros said:
String theory doesn't so much predict that quarks and leptons are *composed* of strings, it is more that they simply *are* strings. So instead of fundamental point particles you have fundamental strings.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
 

What are quarks and leptons?

Quarks and leptons are subatomic particles that make up the building blocks of matter. They are the smallest known particles and are considered to be the fundamental particles of the universe.

How do we know that quarks and leptons exist?

Quarks and leptons have been observed and studied through experiments using particle accelerators and other high-energy physics tools. The existence of these particles has also been confirmed through the predictions and calculations of various scientific theories, such as the Standard Model.

How can we be certain that quarks and leptons are indivisible?

According to the Standard Model, quarks and leptons are considered to be point-like particles, meaning they have no size or internal structure. This has been supported by various experiments and observations, leading scientists to believe that they are indeed indivisible.

Why do we still study quarks and leptons if they are already well understood?

While quarks and leptons are well-studied, there is still much to learn about these particles and their interactions. For example, scientists are still trying to understand the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which may involve the behavior of quarks and leptons.

How can we apply our knowledge of quarks and leptons in everyday life?

While quarks and leptons may seem far-removed from our daily lives, our understanding of these particles has led to advancements in technology, such as medical imaging and nuclear power. Additionally, studying these particles can help us better understand the fundamental workings of the universe.

Similar threads

B How hard have they banged on quarks, electrons, etc.?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
I What would a hypothetical quark-quark collision yield?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Do Alternative Explanations for Gluons Exist and How Can We Test Them?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
A Interested in the LHC safety assessment - questions about strangelets
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
I How big was the "particle zoo" prior to quark discovery
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Exploring the Limitations of Preon Models in Particle Physics
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
4K
I How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
I New Naming Rules for Exotic Hadrons at the LHC: LHCb Collaboration Paper (2022)
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Is the Melting Quarks Experiment a Scam?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
I How do the collider experiments measure the mass of the W boson?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top