Is dimensionless singularity truly dimensionless?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter No-where-man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Singularity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of singularities, particularly in the context of the Big Bang, and whether these singularities can be considered truly dimensionless. Participants explore the implications of dimensionless particles and the challenges of conceptualizing existence and causality in relation to singularities and the universe's origins.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if a dimensionless singularity can truly exist, given that extreme gravity might destroy all known physical concepts.
  • Another participant suggests that causality may not apply to the first event, implying that nothing caused the singularity.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the reality of singularities, indicating that many scientists view them as points where current theories break down.
  • There is a discussion about whether dimensionless particles exist and how the concept of size is meaningful at the quantum level.
  • One participant raises a hypothetical scenario about separating universes created from dimensionless singularities and questions how one could access another universe if nothing exists outside of them.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of claims regarding portals to other universes, with some participants suggesting that such ideas may not align with mainstream scientific understanding.
  • Participants acknowledge the limitations of current scientific models in addressing questions about the origins of the universe and the nature of singularities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the existence or nature of singularities, with participants expressing a range of views on whether they are real or merely theoretical constructs. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of dimensionless-ness and the existence of dimensionless particles.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that many questions posed are beyond the current capabilities of science to answer definitively, highlighting the limitations of existing theories and models in cosmology.

  • #31
To bounce off of TumblingDice, note that this is commonplace is physics. For example, the mass and electric charge of a photon are taken to be zero, but real measurements can only measure to a finite degree of accuracy.

The very first section of the following paper shows that the mass of the photon has been measured to be less than 1 x 10-18 eV and the electric charge has been measured to be less than 1x10-35 e.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/rpp2009-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
TumblingDice said:
I think the words "less than" are of significance here. This is how physicists tighten the noose on values to the best of their measurement capabilities. A similar example you'll come across is that the mass of a (massless) photon is "less than" some value. Many times information like this is misinterpreted. These statements aren't meant to suggest that an electron has a size or that a photon has mass, but rather to aggressively test these values to the limits that current technologies allow.

Drakkith said:
To bounce off of TumblingDice, note that this is commonplace is physics. For example, the mass and electric charge of a photon are taken to be zero, but real measurements can only measure to a finite degree of accuracy.

The very first section of the following paper shows that the mass of the photon has been measured to be less than 1 x 10-18 eV and the electric charge has been measured to be less than 1x10-35 e.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/rpp2009-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf

But if that's all correct, than it's not fair to say that electron/quark/photon or whatever particle has no size or mass if technologies are unable to prove or disprove this hypothesis?
Believe it or not, there are phsicists who actually think that these particles do have size, for example.
I guess, unless you can truly prove something 100%, than there will never be possible to say ok, these particles are dimensionless, and none is questioning this anymore, because it's 100% irrefutably, 100% proven scientific fact.
Like you said the problem is with detection and measurement abilities that our technologies can provide-and they are very limited.
Unless we have a technology that can directly both detect and measure infinitely small sizes, there is absolutely no way to know what exactly is true: particles do have size, or particles do not have size?
It's a zillion dollar question.
To be honest, I'd like that science can 100% prove that these particles are truly dimensionless, but that is only my wishful thinking, since it's impossible to prove or disprove if all particles are truly dimensionless or all particles actually do have a size.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
A little logic never hurts. Is it reasonable to assume an electron has infinite charge or mass density? I doubt you will find any credible scientist who would agree.
 
  • #34
I need advice from all of the members-physicists here:
I'm right in the situation that I'm in a debate with someone who is studying physics and who is far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to physics.

But the problem is that he says that dimensionless particles are 100% irrefutably, 100% proven scientific facts as well as the mathematics which enabled us to come to these conclusions, unlike people here this is why I asked you all here on the forum for your professional opinions about this subject.
Unlike him, neither of you is coming to fast conclusions and neither is saying that is 100% proven that particles are truly dimensionless and neither is really claiming that it is 100% proven they have size-basically, from what I can see you are always neutral and objective (which is the best position you can take).

Since he knows physics much better than I do, the only thing I'm saying is that it is unprovable that particles are truly dimensionless or that they do have a size-mostly because of technologies available which are very limited when it comes measurement and detection of infinitely small things/particles/fields and etc., and you would need technology that would be able to directly detect and measure infinitely small things, particles, singularities, whatever.

So, I'm asking you all what do you recommend what should I answer to him?
Is he right or wrong, of being so sure that particles are truly dimensionless?

Am I right when I say that is impossible to prove or disprove that particles are truly dimensionless because of the measurements and detections that technologies can provide which are all very limited?
I don't understand why is he such an absolutist?
If he is so sure about this than I guess for him there is no rule: in science there is nothing that can be proven or disproven, and that's golden rule for any scientist, or at least should be, if you're truly an objective scientist.

In the end what do you recommend me?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
It might be worth exploring a parallel question - why is an electron not infinitely dense [i.e., a black hole]? For discussion, see http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~ogelman/guide/e/ . This is a ridiculous proposition that entirely lacks observational support.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Last edited:
  • #37
Chronos said:
A little logic never hurts. Is it reasonable to assume an electron has infinite charge or mass density? I doubt you will find any credible scientist who would agree.

Chronos said:
It might be worth exploring a parallel question - why is an electron not infinitely dense [i.e., a black hole]? For discussion, see http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~ogelman/guide/e/ . This is a ridiculous proposition that entirely lacks observational support.

This is a good thing to know; that all credible physicists know that an electron does not really have infinite charge or infinite mass density after all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
No-where-man said:
I also have one quick question:
How can electron, quark, photon be dimensionless if the smallest quantum size limit-the Planck's length is below their size, since all of the particles are bigger in size than Planck's length?
Most likely, I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't know what exactly.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...you-dont-know-about-black-holes/#.UzphiVT_RXo

To quote the article (underlining mine):

At some point, the collapsing core will be smaller than an atom, smaller than a nucleus, smaller than an electron. It’ll eventually reach a size called the Planck Length, a unit so small that quantum mechanics rules it with an iron fist. A Planck Length is a kind of quantum size limit: if an object gets smaller than this, we literally cannot know much about it with any certainty.

All this says is that IF something is smaller than the Planck length, we simply cannot know anything about it. It's not saying that an object cannot be smaller than this length. Besides, I don't know where you're getting the idea that all particles are larger than this size. It's that the upper limit to their sizes are larger than this, which is a result of our measurement methods having finite accuracy and precision.

So, I'm asking you all what do you recommend what should I answer to him?
Is he right or wrong, of being so sure that particles are truly dimensionless?

Am I right when I say that is impossible to prove or disprove that particles are truly dimensionless because of the measurements and detections that technologies can provide which are all very limited?
I don't understand why is he such an absolutist?
If he is so sure about this than I guess for him there is no rule: in science there is nothing that can be proven or disproven, and that's golden rule for any scientist, or at least should be, if you're truly an objective scientist.

I don't know how to answer this since I don't know his rationale for claiming that particles have been proven to be point particles. I'd recommend asking him why he believes this.
 
  • #39
No-where-man said:
I also have one quick question:
How can electron, quark, photon be dimensionless if the smallest quantum size limit-the Planck's length is below their size, since all of the particles are bigger in size than Planck's length?
Most likely, I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't know what exactly.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...you-dont-know-about-black-holes/#.UzphiVT_RXo

...Maybe he is referring to the 18+ or so dimensionless parameter of Standard model. Anyways, QFT doesn't have a fundamental measurement since it is always has some adjustable parameters. It is subject to rescaled unless we have a Quantum theory that reduces energies less than some large energy to confine particle to a degree.. This is actually how they determine the mass of proton. They can only measure to a certain constraint and it can't be absolute. Those measurements has value but has unpredictable real quantities. (The link i provided has a good straight forward bird droppings/sublinks. Chapter b3-4 should give you a rundown).



...Instead of debating with your friend. Try to get as much info. Ask questions, investigate and re-evaluate. (He's more knowledgeable on the subject). BTW. Learn more on his/her language..^^
 
  • #40
No-where-man said:
I also have one quick question:
How can electron, quark, photon be dimensionless if the smallest quantum size limit-the Planck's length is below their size, since all of the particles are bigger in size than Planck's length?

We've already discussed this. There is no proven significance of the Planck length, though modern theories of quantum physics take the Planck length as a minimum size of an object very seriously. They remain unproven. It's also worth reminding yourself of the scale comparision that I gave to see how small the Planck length really is.


No-where-man said:
...
So, I'm asking you all what do you recommend what should I answer to him?
Is he right or wrong, of being so sure that particles are truly dimensionless?
...
In the end what do you recommend me?

In all seriousness, my recommendation is that you politely excuse yourself from the argument. I don't see what either of you can gain by trying to defeat the other. Which of you is right comes down to subtleties of definitions, so if one of you does walk away the victor, it will be a very hollow victory.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
In the real world, you apply logic and causality - neither of which explains an infinitely dense charge or mass density.
 
  • #42
Chronos said:
In the real world, you apply logic and causality - neither of which explains an infinitely dense charge or mass density.

Sure, he will say than, that human logic has made mistakes through history-which is true, so, he will say, that if math says that dimensionless singularity, dimensionless particles, an infinitely dense charge and infinite mass density all do exist, because they are 100% proven to exist, and that all of this is 100% experimentally proven.

craigi said:
We've already discussed this. There is no proven significance of the Planck length, though modern theories of quantum physics take the Planck length as a minimum size of an object very seriously. They remain unproven. It's also worth reminding yourself of the scale comparision that I gave to see how small the Planck length really is.

What do you exactly mean? You mean that is particles are dimensionless despite the Planck's length-which is the quantum size limit, or that is uncertain (and it will always be uncertain) that particles are truly dimensionless?

In all seriousness, my recommendation is that you politely excuse yourself from the argument. I don't see what either of you can gain by trying to defeat the other. Which of you is right comes down to subtleties of definitions, so if one of you does walk away the victor, it will be a very hollow victory.

Trust me, I did not argue with this guy who knows physics very good, this is not a fight like you thought it is, the only thing I was asking him, why is so sure about what he is saying about dimensionless objects; sure we have mathematics and experimantal evidences, but it's far from being 100% proven as he claims it is.
What I can see in the forums that none here is absolutist when it comes dimensionlessness, dimensionless particles, singularity and etc. none of you ever said or even thought that all of this in physics is 100% proven, you simply use words; it is uncertain-which is the only true thing (as you all specifically confirmed), because nothing in science can ever be 100% proven or disproven.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
julcab12 said:
...Maybe he is referring to the 18+ or so dimensionless parameter of Standard model. Anyways, QFT doesn't have a fundamental measurement since it is always has some adjustable parameters. It is subject to rescaled unless we have a Quantum theory that reduces energies less than some large energy to confine particle to a degree.. This is actually how they determine the mass of proton. They can only measure to a certain constraint and it can't be absolute. Those measurements has value but has unpredictable real quantities. (The link i provided has a good straight forward bird droppings/sublinks. Chapter b3-4 should give you a rundown).



...Instead of debating with your friend. Try to get as much info. Ask questions, investigate and re-evaluate. (He's more knowledgeable on the subject). BTW. Learn more on his/her language..^^

Thanks for the support, as I said above to Chronos and Craigi in post #42, I did not try to debate him at all because he knows physics so much more than I do, basically what I was saying all the time to him, that nothing in science can be 100% proven or disproven, as well as the problems with measurements, and detection, there are always shreds of doubt that are present, and there is truly nothing 100% provable/proven/disproven-I think these statements are accurate, and yes I will look up to this link that you gave me, and I will listen to your advices.
Big thanks to all for help and advices.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
No-where-man said:
Thanks for the support, as I said above to Chronos and Craigi in post #42, I did not try to debate him at all because he knows physics so much more than I do, basically what I was saying all the time to him, that nothing in science can be 100% proven or disproven, as well as the problems with measurements, and detection, there are always shreds of doubt that are present, and there is truly nothing 100% provable/proven/disproven-I think these statements are accurate, and yes I will look up to this link that you gave me, and I will listen to your advices.
Big thanks to all for help and advices.

The problem that I have with this thread is that you're clearly using it to generate ammunition for an argument that you're having on a Croation religion forum, here: http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?p=49381433

You're not following what we're telling you, rather you cherry-pick the parts that suit your purpose then throw them at someone else without context, in the other thread. It doesn't matter which side of the religious debate that you're on, this isn't how science works and it isn't how this forum works either. It doesn't form a reasonable basis for debate in theology or philosophy either, for that matter. Contrary, to what we've suggested previously, if you take anything away from this thread it should be that.

I don't speak Crotatian and machine translations aren't particularly reliable, but it doesn't seem that the guy in the other thread is telling you anything different to what we're telling you here. It seems like you're arguing with different physicists who agree on the same concepts, but filtering them through a one-man Chinese whisper machine.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
craigi said:
The problem that I have with this thread is that you're clearly using it to generate ammunition for an argument that you're having on a Croation religion forum, here: http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?p=49381433

You're not following what we're telling you, rather you cherry-pick the parts that suit your purpose then throw them at some one else without context, in the other thread. It doesn't matter which side of the relgious debate that you're on, this isn't how science works and it isn't how this forum works either. It doesn't form a reasonable basis for debate in theology or philosophy either, for that matter. Contrary, to what we've suggested previously, if you take anything away from this thread it should be this.

Trust me, I pick no side at all, if there is a side I pick, its the side of pure science. We were simply discussing about if it's 100% proven that particles are dimensionless and about singularity, so although the thread is from religion forum, the theme that NOD and I were discussing were based purely on science and what is 100% proven and what is 100% disproven; plus the poster is an obviously a physicist who knows what he is talking about and who is using science/physics for arguments, but he is absolutely sure that what he says about the existence of dimensionlessnes, dimensionless particles and dimensionless singularity are 100% mathematically and 100% experimentally proven and that the existence of dimensionlessnes, dimensionless particles and dimensionless singularity all are 100% irrefutably, 100% proven scientific facts.

But in this thread on physics forums, I see that it's obvious that story with is far from over, since nothing in science can be 100% proven or disproven.
I will listen to all of your advices, what you, Craigi, and the rest of people/physicists here on this forum suggested me to do.
Big thanks to all.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
No-where-man said:
Trust me, I pick no side at all, if there is a side I pick, its the side of pure science. We were simply discussing about if it's 100% proven that particles are dimensionless and about singularity, so although the thread is from religion forum, the theme that NOD and I were discussing were based purely on science and what is 100% proven and what is 100% disproven; plus the poster is an obviously a physicist who knows what he is talking about and who is using science/physics for arguments, but he is absolutely sure that what he says about dimensionlessnes, dimensionless particles and dimensionless singularity is 100% mathematically and 100% experimentally proven, as in this thread it's obvious that story is far from over, since nothing in science can be 100% proven or disproven.
I will listen to advices, what you, Craigi, and the rest of people/physicists here on this forum suggested me to do.
Big thanks to all.

If you want to discuss science on a science forum, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cast doubt on the scientific method when you're presented with a conclusion that you don't like. Scientists are, of course, aware that to prove anything we need to make a philosophical assumption about the validity of the method, but it should be no surprise to you that we don't debate this assumption within the field of science.

You can see an detailed description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, but for obvious reasons this isn't up for discussion on this forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
craigi said:
If you want to discuss science on a science forum, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cast doubt on the scientific method when you're presented with a conclusion that you don't like. Scientists are, of course, aware that to prove anything we need to make a philosophical assumption about the validity of the method, but it should be no surprise to you that we don't debate this assumption within the field of science.

You can see an detailed description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, but for obvious reasons this isn't up for discussion on this forum.

Actually this was indeed discussed in science sub-forum in the same forum as well, I will give you a link if you don't believe me:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=818634

I posted the same thing that you were answering me as well as the fact there are posters who know physics in this thread in science sub-forum and they agreed with me.
This NOD for some reason kept continuing to be absolutist on Religion sub-forum, claiming that when it comes to dimensionless particles, singularity and etc, is all 100% proven.
Sure NOD does know physics but there other people on the forum who know more physics than he does, but unlike NOD, some other posters who truly know physics are not absolutists like NOD is, because they know, unlike NOD, that there is always that degree of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
No-where-man said:
Actually this was indeed discussed in science sub-forum in the same forum as well, I will give you a link if you don't believe me:
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=818634

I posted the same thing that you were answering me as well as the fact there are posters who know physics in this thread in science sub-forum and they agreed with me.
This NOD for some reason kept continuing to be absolutist on Religion sub-forum, claiming that when it comes to dimensionless particles, singularity and etc, is all 100% proven.
Sure NOD does know physics but there other people on the forum who know more physics than he does, but unlike NOD, some other posters who truly know physics are not absolutists like NOD is, because they know, unlike NOD, that there is always that degree of uncertainty.

Case closed.

This thread should be too.
 
  • #49
Here is a weird question: Does gravity has a size at all?
Yes, gravity is a force, but does it have a size, or it is completely dimensionless?
I'm asking this because everything that has to do with gravity is/are basically effects of gravity and not the gravity itself.
For that matter, does a force/any force have a size, and does energy have a size at all, or what we can see everywhere in the universe, are simply effects of forces and energy?
I'm not sure if I asked this question right or wrong.
I'm not sure how to ask this question.

I'm opened to other posters' suggestions, opinions and whatever.
Big thanks in advance to all.
 
  • #50
No-where-man said:
Here is a weird question: Does gravity has a size at all?
Yes, gravity is a force, but does it have a size, or it is completely dimensionless?
I'm asking this because everything that has to do with gravity is/are basically effects of gravity and not the gravity itself.
For that matter, does a force/any force have a size, and does energy have a size at all, or what we can see everywhere in the universe, are simply effects of forces and energy?
I'm not sure if I asked this question right or wrong.
I'm not sure how to ask this question.

That really depends on what you mean by "size". By the way you've worded your question I assume you're asking if it has physical dimensions like a physical object would. In that case, no, gravity does not have a size because it is not an object. Gravity takes up no space. It has no volume.

Of course, I'm sure someone will point out the event horizon of a black hole, but that is also not a physical object. An infalling observer would never know they crossed the event horizon. It is merely the radius where the strength of gravity won't let even light escape.

Also, by "dimensionless", are you asking about dimensionless quantities?
 
  • #52
Drakkith said:
That really depends on what you mean by "size". By the way you've worded your question I assume you're asking if it has physical dimensions like a physical object would. In that case, no, gravity does not have a size because it is not an object. Gravity takes up no space. It has no volume.

Of course, I'm sure someone will point out the event horizon of a black hole, but that is also not a physical object. An infalling observer would never know they crossed the event horizon. It is merely the radius where the strength of gravity won't let even light escape.

Also, by "dimensionless", are you asking about dimensionless quantities?

Hi, Drakkith, big thanks for your reply, and yes, I actually meant on both.
Also, if you by size and volume, than event horizon of the black hole and the black hole itself are both physical effects of gravity, but not the gravity/gravitational force/energy itself.

Also, we have physical effects of EM force/energy everywhere in entire universe, but EM force/energy does not have size at all, the same thing/principle is equally the same for strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and all forms of energy-obviously, dimensionlessness does exist.

Regarding dimensionless quantities-can you recommend an physics book about them, the only thing I read was on wikipedia just in short, but I want to know and study more about dimensionless quantities in a more detailed way.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
skydivephil said:
Nothing in science is ever 100% proved. we can get to levels of evidence that are overwhelming and silly to doubt but that's not quite the same thing
Two short articles on singularities I think you should read:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs
http://plus.maths.org/content/what-happened-big-bang

I was thinking more about terms in physics like force and energy-the fact we can only see physical effects of all forms of forces and the forces themselves, we can only see physical effects of all kinds of forms of energy, but not the energy itself, because neither forces or forms energy themselves do not have physical size-we only have their physical effects-and who says dimensionlessness does not exist, when it does if we include force and energy.
BTW, huge thanks for the links.
 
  • #54
Drakkith said:
This is a complicated issue that cannot be answered in just a few sentences. Elementary particles are considered to be "point-like", but this does not mean that they are truly dimensionless objects. The reality is that the concept of size isn't very meaningful at the quantum level for fundamental particles.

Size doesn't make sense on the galactic level either. Galaxies, distances, the size of stars etc but we don't just say they're infinitely large.

The way I see it is no matter how small an object is, for it to physically exist, it must have some dimensions, no matter how small.

I know things are not always straight forward in physics but the scientific community are extremely poor at getting across a point in a way that more people can understand. Singularities fly in the face of everything we know to be true. The math says its false, logic says its false, chances are it's probably false.

Having an object with 0 dimensions means you don't actually have an object. Afterall if elementary particles were point like and had 0 dimensions then you could never create a 2D or 3D object...
 
  • #55
iDimension said:
The way I see it is no matter how small an object is, for it to physically exist, it must have some dimensions, no matter how small.
The way you see it differs from mainstream physics.

the scientific community are extremely poor at getting across a point in a way that more people can understand.
Just because a point is difficult to understand does not mean it is false.

Singularities fly in the face of everything we know to be true. The math says its false, logic says its false, chances are it's probably false. Having an object with 0 dimensions means you don't actually have an object.
The math says that elementary particles are pointlike. So far all experiments conform to this.

Afterall if elementary particles were point like and had 0 dimensions then you could never create a 2D or 3D object...
You are apparently confusing zero size with zero number of dimensions.
 
  • #56
Bill_K said:
Just because a point is difficult to understand does not mean it is false.
It’s not that it’s difficult to understand, it’s just that it’s impossible given what we know to be true.

I singularity is described as being an object. I argue that an object cannot physically exist without having some physical dimensions... By all means explain to me how an object can exist, without have a single dimension... Love, gravity, height and momentum for example don't have any dimensions, but we don't regard them as being physical objects. See where I'm coming from? Saying a particle is a physical object with 0 dimensions is like saying height is an object.

Bill_K said:
The math says that elementary particles are pointlike. So far all experiments conform to this.

To a lot of people saying something is "pointlike" is quite ambiguous. I can make a point in a piece of paper and it would appear pointlike, but it's 3 dimensional. When you say pointlike do you mean dimensionless? Or just an immeasurably small 3 dimensional object?
Bill_K said:
You are apparently confusing zero size with zero number of dimensions.

An object is defined by its dimensions isn't it? If I take a 3 dimensional object and remove all 3 of its dimensions, the object no longer exists.

Like I said I'm simply a spectator here on the forums so please don't think I'm challenging what you're saying, I'm simply trying to understand your impression of a 0 dimensional object.
 
  • #57
iDimension said:
To a lot of people saying something is "pointlike" is quite ambiguous. I can make a point in a piece of paper and it would appear pointlike, but it's 3 dimensional. When you say pointlike do you mean dimensionless? Or just an immeasurably small 3 dimensional object?
Pointlike means a three-dimensional object which current theory predicts to be a mathematical point (zero size, but still three-dimensional!). Current experimental evidence is consistent with this, meaning that if the particle does have a nonzero size, that size would have to be smaller than anything we have been able to detect.

The resolving power of an experiment (a collision, say) improves as you increase the energy. The best knowledge we have comes from the LHC, with energies in the TeV range, corresponding to a resolving power of the order 10-17 cm. And we have not yet seen any indication, so any nonzero size would have to be smaller than that.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Bill_K said:
Pointlike means a three-dimensional object which current theory predicts to be a mathematical point (zero size, but still three-dimensional!). Current experimental evidence is consistent with this, meaning that if the particle does have a nonzero size, that size would have to be smaller than anything we have been able to detect.

The resolving power of an experiment (a collision, say) improves as you increase the energy. The best knowledge we have comes from the LHC, with energies in the TeV range, corresponding to a resolving power of the order 10-17 cm. And we have not yet seen any indication, so any nonzero size would have to be smaller than that.

I think you and Drakkith both missed the point. Quantum physicists always say and warn us that size in quantum world and on quantum level do not have much meaning-nobody explained, why?
It seems to me more and more that definition of physical size and physical dimensions on sub-atomic level and on quantum level is not physical size on macroscopic level.
So, the man question is: do all the sub-atomic particles have physical size and physical dimensions at all?

It seems to me when it comes purely physical size and physical dimensions we can talk about only for macroscopic world/classic physics/general and special theory of relativity, while physical size and physical dimensions do not exist at all on quantum level (quantum physics/mechanics)?

Do physicists mean that when they repeatedly say physical size and physical dimensions do not mean much or they do not mean anything at all on sub-atomic and quantum level?

What do scientists exactly mean when they say physical size and physical dimensions do not mean much or they both do not mean anything at all on sub-atomic and quantum level?
Big thanks to all.

Besides like I said gravity and all other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force), and all forms of energy, as well the energy itself do not have physical size and do not have physical dimensions at all, since they are not physical objects, they do not take up space, they do not have volumes, we can only see their effects and influences on space/environment.

Black hole's event horizon is not the size of gravity, it is the result, the effect and the influence of extreme gravitational force, but gravity/gravitational force itself does not have any kind of physical size/dimensions.

Like I said before, event horizon of the black hole and the black hole itself both have size and volume (radius and diameter), but both event horizon of the black hole and the black hole itself are both effects, results and influences and "products" of (extreme) gravity, but not the gravity/gravitational force/energy itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Until we can measure things down to the Planck scale, this argument is meaningless. That is unlikely to change given the energy required to probe that length scale.
 
  • #60
Chronos said:
Until we can measure things down to the Planck scale, this argument is meaningless. That is unlikely to change given the energy required to probe that length scale.

I truly hope this will one day be possible!?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Infinite Universe from Dimensionless SIngularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad How does the Singularity produce all the diverse matter in the universe?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Graduate Form of energy at time of big bang
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Undergrad Big Bang Singularity: Was It As "Infinitely Dense" As We Think?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Undergrad Question on the horizon problem
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Some questions regarding the initial singularity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Do we still live in a Big Bang Singularity?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
High School Which Hawking paper? (no singularity at the beginning of the universe)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School The big bang singularity and black hole singularity
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Big Bang : Singularity or Singularities?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K