Are all fundamental particles singular?

  • #1
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Is there a fundamental particle (like a Planck black hole) that has a finite radius?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
arivero
Gold Member
3,398
123
Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.
 
  • #3
reilly
Science Advisor
1,077
1
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a fundamental particle, but protons and neutrons have finite charge radii (Hofstadter's experiments at Stanford)
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
  • #4
Entropy
478
0
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a fundamental particle

Particles without any apparent internal structure. Quarks, electrons, etc..
 
  • #5
jhmar
77
0
Particles without any apparent internal structure. Quarks, electrons, etc

This the QT view, particle physics give figures for the electron radius and atomic nuclei radii. Therefore they must have internal structure, its the old take your choice atitude.
 
  • #6
Intuitive
270
0
jhmar said:
Particles without any apparent internal structure. Quarks, electrons, etc

This the QT view, particle physics give figures for the electron radius and atomic nuclei radii. Therefore they must have internal structure, its the old take your choice atitude.

Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sort of of like a planet compare to a single Atom is size or is it finally over?
 
  • #7
jhmar
77
0
Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sort of of like a planet compare to a single Atom is size or is it finally over?

As far as I know no part of QT predicts smaller particles. There have been attempts to build a 'Single Elementary Particle Theory' using QT (do a google search) but, so far, none have gained general acceptance.
 
  • #8
Spin_Network
375
0
Loren Booda said:
Is there a fundamental particle (like a Planck black hole) that has a finite radius?

If there was, it would be know as a Quantum Mono Wave?
 
  • #9
jhmar
77
0
Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sort of of like a planet compare to a single Atom is size or is it finally over?

As far as I know no part of QT predicts smaller particles. There have been attempts to build a 'Single Elementary Particle Theory' using QT (do a google search) but, so far, none have gained general acceptance.
 
  • #10
jhmar
77
0
arivero

Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.

Can you please give a reference to this theory?
 
  • #11
kublai
31
0
QT treats particles as wavy perturbations in a field of said particles, therefore no finite bounds, think fuzzy. Since QT is a nondeterministic, probablistic theory it could not allow for discrete, finite particles. The days are gone where particles were little round, hard balls. sigh

Atoms are made of parts that don't add up to the mass of the atom, quarks' mass doesn't add up to the particles' mass. Maybe it's like peeling an onion, at the final layer it still only onion, with mass it's only energy at the bottom.
 
  • #12
arivero
Gold Member
3,398
123
jhmar, google for it. I think that Zee was a defender of this possibility, and Smolin refers to it somewhere. Basically a delocalised graviton instead of extra dimensions.
 
  • #13
arivero
Gold Member
3,398
123
As for quark compositeness (preon theory) it is very limited because of a principle related to anomalous currents. But some work is done from time to time. My own position is that quarks are not composites but SUSY to composites... of quarks.
 
  • #14
jhmar
77
0
jhmar, google for it

On another subject, I had just given the same advice! I feel justly chastised,
jhmar
 
  • #15
arivero
Gold Member
3,398
123
well. the point is that "fat graviton", with quotes, is a search narrow enough to get links of quality in the first page of results, and that my own acquitance with this theory is rather poor. And I suggested "Zee" and "Smolin" as additional keywords to narrow the search.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,264
1,551
kublai said:
QT treats particles as wavy perturbations in a field of said particles, therefore no finite bounds, think fuzzy. Since QT is a nondeterministic, probablistic theory it could not allow for discrete, finite particles. The days are gone where particles were little round, hard balls. sigh

What do you mean by that? :confused:


Daniel.
 

Suggested for: Are all fundamental particles singular?

Replies
6
Views
860
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
814
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
938
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
140
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
1K
Top