Explanation for the behavior of the top quark

Click For Summary
The top quark is described as the most massive quark, which leads to confusion about its size. Quarks are considered fundamental particles, treated as point-like with no defined volume, making the concept of "size" less relevant. The mass of the top quark requires high energy to produce, and this energy relates to the depth of interactions rather than physical size. Understanding quarks in terms of quantum fields clarifies that mass is linked to energy and field stiffness rather than volume. Thus, the top quark's mass does not imply a larger size; it reflects the nature of particle physics.
mrcollet
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I read that the top quark is "the smallest quark, which means it is the most massive".

How can it be the smallest and yet the most massive?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mrcollet said:
I read that the top quark is "the smallest quark, which means it is the most massive".

How can it be the smallest and yet the most massive?

Could you give a reference? My understanding is that quark volumes are extremely vague and for practical purposes are considered points.
 
this can be either your misunderstanding of what you read, or your source is not reliable/nonsense. Quarks are "fundamental particles" so far, meaning we deal them as pointlike particles. The top is a quark.
The only thing that has to do with the distance and the top, is that in order to create a top quark you need high energies [because it's massive]. Now some people tend to use instead of energies the distance r [which is ~1/E] in charts... so higher energies means you "see deeper" but that's actually not useful and has nothing to do with the top's mass, but with how energetic [or how deep] your interactions can take place.
 
mrcollet said:
I read that the top quark is "the smallest quark, which means it is the most massive".

How can it be the smallest and yet the most massive?

Think in terms of fields rather than particles and the picture is more clear. A particle having a large mass means that it takes a lot of energy to kick an excitation out of the underlying quantum field. The field is more "stiff" if you like and doesn't respond easily. It also means that such an excitation is carrying a lot of energy around with it. But the excitation is just a vibration of the field, so its "size" doesn't matter at all to this picture, and indeed as others said it will be considered as a superposition of point-like vibrations. It isn't like classical matter, where you need to collect more "stuff" into some volume to make a heavier object.
 
This is just a comment for the de Broglie wavelength.

The top is most massive and therefore the most small
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is Toponium a Reality Despite Top Quark's Rapid Decay?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
865
Graduate Color confinement in high-energy quark knockout
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Why Can't a Top Quark Decay Into a Charm or Up Quark?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Why Can a W Boson Decay into Quarks of Different Generations?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School How hard have they banged on quarks, electrons, etc.?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
High School Kinetic energy of quarks in a baryon
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate What New Experiments, If Any, Would Help Determine Light Quark Masses?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
Undergrad Down Quark: Composed of Up Quark and Electron?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Do Alternative Explanations for Gluons Exist and How Can We Test Them?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Undergrad Can a Higgs boson decay into two top quarks off-shell?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K