Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Are all fundamental particles singular?

  1. Sep 17, 2005 #1
    Is there a fundamental particle (like a Planck black hole) that has a finite radius?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2005 #2

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.
     
  4. Sep 18, 2005 #3

    reilly

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  5. Sep 18, 2005 #4
    Particles without any apparent internal structure. Quarks, electrons, etc..
     
  6. Sep 24, 2005 #5
    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.
     
  7. Sep 24, 2005 #6
    Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sorta of like a planet compare to a single Atom is size or is it finally over?
     
  8. Sep 25, 2005 #7
    Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sorta 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.
     
  9. Sep 25, 2005 #8
    If there was, it would be know as a Quantum Mono Wave?
     
  10. Sep 25, 2005 #9
    Maybe Quarks and Electrons are built from particles to small to be detected yet, sorta 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.
     
  11. Sep 25, 2005 #10
    arivero

    Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.

    Can you please give a reference to this theory?
     
  12. Sep 25, 2005 #11
    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.
     
  13. Sep 25, 2005 #12

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Sep 25, 2005 #13

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Sep 26, 2005 #14
    jhmar, google for it

    On another subject, I had just given the same advice! I feel justly chastised,
    jhmar
     
  16. Sep 26, 2005 #15

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Sep 26, 2005
  17. Sep 26, 2005 #16

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What do you mean by that? :confused:


    Daniel.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Are all fundamental particles singular?
  1. Fundamental Particles (Replies: 3)

  2. Fundamental particle? (Replies: 8)

  3. All Particles (Replies: 1)

Loading...