Any infinitesimally small particles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gnomie27
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of infinitesimally small particles, with participants debating whether any particles can be considered infinitely small. Mainstream physics views fundamental particles, like electrons and quarks, as point-like with no discernible size, while theories like string theory propose that these particles are actually vibrating strings. Some participants argue that composite particles, such as protons and neutrons, have non-zero sizes despite being made of point-like constituents. The conversation also touches on the implications of quantum mechanics and theories like Einstein-Cartan, which suggest finite sizes for certain particles. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexity and evolving nature of particle physics and the understanding of size at the quantum level.
Gnomie27
Messages
21
Reaction score
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
Depends on what you mean by 'infinitely small'.
 
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:
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
A baseball is a composite particle. It does not have infinitesimal size.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 167 ·
6
Replies
167
Views
7K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K