Is Masslessness Possible for Pointlike Particles in Our 3D Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Daveman20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of massless pointlike particles within the context of our three-dimensional universe. Participants argue that while particles can be modeled as pointlike, this representation is not entirely accurate, as it does not account for the complexities of mass and dimensionality. The conversation highlights the limitations of visualizing particles in two dimensions and emphasizes that mass must be inherent to any entity that imparts mass to other objects. Ultimately, the notion of massless pointlike particles is deemed a useful but flawed model.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of particle physics concepts, particularly mass and dimensionality.
  • Familiarity with the implications of pointlike models in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of the differences between two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations.
  • Basic grasp of atomic structure and the nature of particles.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of massless particles in quantum field theory.
  • Explore the concept of dimensionality in physics, focusing on string theory.
  • Learn about the limitations of point particle models in quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate the relationship between mass and energy as described by Einstein's theory of relativity.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of mass and dimensionality in particle physics.

Daveman20
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
So a particle is pointlike, meaning it could verywell be massless, but anything and everything we experience is 3d, so are there any examples of something that is 2d that is also in this 3d universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


how then could anything have mass if everything is made up of particles? You say we can't experience anything that isn't 3d, yet ask for an example of something that has only 2. Anything without depth has only 2 dimensions. A still image of anything with depth will seem like there was distance from the primary observers vantage point to the furthest away from him in it, but there is no space between postsecondary frame of references, meaning only the primary observer could have seen actual spatiality. if an atom extends so far in actual dimensions, can't we say unlike lines, its scope cannot be comprised of infinite points? For example, if a marble represented all the particles that an atom is comprised of, since something that gives everything mass must have mass itself, and the distance between your thumb and index represented the distance of a line segment that math says has infinite points in between, then why can your fingers only squeeze it so hard? Is it because massless pointlike particles are imaginary?
 
Last edited:


No, a particle is NOT "pointlike". That is just a useful model for very small objects.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad If electrons can be pointlike particles, why can't black holes?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School The Problem with Point Particles
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
High School 4th spatial dimension thought experiment
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Classical particle in a 2D box
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School The 3D Universe: A Speck in the 4D Universe
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Alternative topology of our 3D space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
What are the different types of knives and swords in a 4D Euclidean universe?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School Why is the Higgs boson considered a boson?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad What would a hypothetical quark-quark collision yield?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Can electro-weak unification be tested at CERN?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K