Are all fundamental particles singular?

Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.

 

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

 

Particles without any apparent internal structure. Quarks, electrons, etc..

 

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, sorta of like a planet compare to a single Atom is size or is it finally over?

 

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.

 

If there was, it would be know as a Quantum Mono Wave?

 

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.

 

arivero

Except for the "fat graviton" theory, none.

Can you please give a reference to this theory?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

jhmar, google for it

On another subject, I had just given the same advice! I feel justly chastised,
jhmar

 

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.

 

What do you mean by that?


Daniel.