The Uncertainty of Size in Subatomic Particles

  • Thread starter Thread starter kwestion
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of size in subatomic particles, highlighting the shift from viewing particles as discrete entities to understanding them as wave-packets with uncertain boundaries. While some sources suggest that subatomic particles have sizes defined by specific measurements, this raises questions about the validity of such definitions without assuming clear boundaries. The idea of measuring size through probability density areas, such as atomic orbitals, is presented as a more meaningful approach. However, the conflict arises when considering elementary particles like electrons, which are often described as point-like with no width, yet also exhibit uncertain boundaries. This complexity illustrates the challenges in defining size in the subatomic realm.
kwestion
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
What is, and is not meant, by size when it comes to the subatomic world?

The FAQ's of this forum, and a wikipedia article I read recently seem to agree that "the very notion of a discrete 'particle' has been ultimately replaced by the concept of something like wave-packet of an uncertain boundary".

I think I like that statement, but I still read from time to time that subatomic particle P has size less than 10^-M meters, for example. How would one conclude that without assuming a certain boundary? In what ways do these size statements have meaning and in what ways do they not have meaning subatomically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that a good measure for the size of a particle is the size of an area where the probability density of subparticles (that construct the original particle) is high enough. Example are atomic orbitals: they are defined as the volume that has 95% chance to contain electron (although complete definition should also say that the volume drops 5% of the space with minimal probability density).
 
Okay, that sounds reasonable for compound particles.
If I have an elementary subparticle, say, a standalone electron. I think I'm supposed to be able to accept a zero, point-like width on one hand, and also accept an uncertain boundary on the other hand. A point seems to be an absolutely certain boundary, so I don't understand the apparent conflict in the language.
 
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K