B Notion of a zero dimensional point particle?

Nickyv2423
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
When we say a fundamental particle is 0 dimensional, is that literal or figurative?
Is it physically possible that a particle has it's properties (like charge, mass) spread out in a finite volume, but can be "shrunk" to increasingly small volumes when we measure it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nickyv2423 said:
When we say a fundamental particle is 0 dimensional, is that literal or figurative?
It is a mathematical model. Strictly speaking it means that the classical extent of the particle in space has no clear meaning in QM.
The "size" of a particle depends on the interaction and is given by a quantity called the cross-section.
The location of the particle in space is given by a probability distribution which tells you the chance of detecting the particle within a particular volume within a particular time period.

Is it physically possible that a particle has it's properties (like charge, mass) spread out in a finite volume, but can be "shrunk" to increasingly small volumes when we measure it?
The statistics of the particle may, in principle, be arbitrarily tightly located - yes.
For example: if the position is described by a Gaussian distribution, then the standard deviation of that distribution may be arbitrarily small.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba and dextercioby
My way of looking at it is that the particle has no intrinsic spatial properties. Spatial properties like location (and even size), for instance, are meaningful only in another entity's context (such as an observer).
 
  • Like
Likes Simon Bridge
mikeyork said:
My way of looking at it is that the particle has no intrinsic spatial properties. Spatial properties like location (and even size), for instance, are meaningful only in another entity's context (such as an observer).
... or in the context of an interaction, or a confining potential, either of which could qualify as an observer.
 
MonteCristo said:
There is absolutely no way in which the particle can exist in a zero dimensional plane
Well, that's true but not for the reason you think.

Your "zero dimensional plane" is an oxymoron - a plane consists of two dimensions.
But that's not what the OP is talking about.

MonteCristo said:
as it needs an actual base of existence in a dimension,
Can a two-dimensional plane inhabit three-dimensional space? Sure. The plane that divides my pretty neighbour's property from mine.
Can a one-dimensional line inhabit three-dimensional space? Sure. The line of sight between my land-scope and my neighbour's kitchen window. Anything that intersects that line intersects my sight line.
Can a zero-dimensional point inhabit a three-dimensional plane? Sure. The focus of the eyepiece that I'm using to ensure my neighbour is safe from creeps.
 
  • Haha
Likes Torbert and sysprog
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top