- #1
Keiran OConnor
- 20
- 0
Hi can I ask a question please, is a photon the smallest particle known ? If it is then how do we know there isn't something smaller as the light would blind us from a smaller particle ?.
This is wrong. As I have already explained in this thread, all elementary particles are considered point-like in the Standard Model.Helen Greene said:Electron is the smallest particle in the universe if you are talking about size.
Yes. The idea of 'extent' of a particle that can be considered as traveling at c is very questionable. In many ways, for instance, you could consider a photon as extending over all space until it actually interacts with some localised particle of structure. This is why Wave Theory is often a far batter way of studying EM radiation.Orodruin said:This is wrong. As I have already explained in this thread, all elementary particles are considered point-like in the Standard Model.
Avoid it for all particles. None of them behave like you would expect it from e. g. pool balls.sophiecentaur said:Avoid the 'little bullet' model of a photon!
If you want to play Top Trumps with fundamental particles then why not Google "Fundamental Particle Sizes"?Keiran OConnor said:So the smallest particle is unknown then ?
Keiran OConnor said:How can you know if it's not observable ?
davenn said:the experiments and observations have been done with particle accelerators
have you heard of the LHC ? Large Hadron collider and other accelerators like it ?
try some googling as was suggested to you Dave
From your posts, I have to conclude that you just don't know enough about basic Physics to understand what is involved. It is 'Hard Stuff' and there is no shame in not knowing about things at this level. The present theory (which is what you are asking about) treats these particles as having no extent (zero size). Experimental evidence supports this. Your suggestion that we haven't invented a measurement small enough is outside the gamut of present knowledge but there is more to "no extent" than just not having small enough divisions on a ruler to measure them with. It is a meaningless concept.Keiran OConnor said:The CERN collider thingy majig in Switzerland yeah I've heard of this, don't know the exact workings of it though just the basics. They fire subatomic particles at each other through tubes that are under the ground.
My questions simple what's the smallest particle ? Only answer I got was that all particles are at zero measurements ? Maybe we haven't invented a measurement small enough ?
Keiran OConnor said:The CERN collider thingy majig in Switzerland yeah I've heard of this, don't know the exact workings of it though just the basics. They fire subatomic particles at each other through tubes that are under the ground.
My questions simple what's the smallest particle ? Only answer I got was that all particles are at zero measurements ? Maybe we haven't invented a measurement small enough ?
This is trueKeiran OConnor said:Maybe I am not understanding
But you still seem to want there to be a simple enough answer but on your terms. There just isn't one.Keiran OConnor said:My questions simple what's the smallest particle ? Only answer I got was that all particles are at zero measurements ? Maybe we haven't invented a measurement small enough ?
has an answer of "no" with regards to physical size. Because we don't know the photon is the smallest. It is the same PHYSICAL SIZE as the others in theory, and in measurement.is a photon the smallest particle known
That is not a valid way to describe light. The Amplitude does not involve a Distance.Dr_Zinj said:I'm wondering if the OP is thinking of photons in respect to two parallel plates excluding light vibrating normal to the plate surfaces with an peak to peak amplitude greater than the distance between the two plates; or even a fiber optic excluding all photons with an amplitude greater than the diameter of the fiber? That could be construed as saying a photon is too big to fit, or small enough to fit inside, even though we're not really talking about a solid object with physical dimensions.
MY even more naive understanding is that String Theory is generally purely theoretical and not yet at a point where it makes any sense. If someone can take the string theory starting point (and it seems little more than that right now) and come up with a meaningful theory that can unify gravity with the other forces, then it would be pretty nice.Gort said:Perhaps I could frame the question a bit differently. From my (naive) understanding, String Theory postulates that "elementary" particles are comprised of one-dimensional strings, vibrating in 11 (or more) dimensions. If that one dimension is spatial, strings are of the order of the Planck length, or 10^-35 m. Might that be considered the "size" of particles (at least according to the string model)?
Though you may not be back to read this, I'd like to weigh in. I don't think people were being mean, but they were getting testy/impatient. People get testy/impatient when they feel like they aren't being listened to.Keiran OConnor said:Wait I lied, I actually sent this post as a private message because I thought you very smart guys would think I was thick, ( clearly was right). The person I messaged wouldn't give me a answer just told me to write it in a post on here, last post I swear :) bye.
votingmachine said:String Theory is generally purely theoretical
The Standard Model has made a large number of testable predictions which have been verified. String theory has not. Even starting to compare their experimental status is doing the Standard Model an injustice. Please keep the thread on topic and B level.Gort said:I think that theoretical models are what we're talking about. The Standard Model says point (zero dimensional) particles. The string model says the Planck length. Experiments have not reached the level where either extent can be measured.
Part of it is always the question form. In this case, if I might break them out as a flow chart, the OP is:Keiran OConnor said:Surly there is a different way to interact with people than this prickly knee jerk reaction way, why would I be not listening ?? Maybe I am not understanding ?? This will be my last post on here as I clearly lack the knowledge to proceed in conversation about the subject.
A photon is the smallest possible unit of light and electromagnetic radiation. It is considered a particle because it behaves like one, but it also exhibits wave-like properties.
A photon is much smaller than other particles, such as electrons and protons. It is considered a fundamental particle, meaning it has no substructure and cannot be broken down into smaller parts.
A photon is created when an electron in an atom jumps to a lower energy level, releasing energy in the form of light. Photons can also be created through other processes, such as nuclear reactions and particle collisions.
The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, or inversely proportional to its wavelength. This is described by the equation E=hf, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency.
Photons have a wide range of applications in technology, including in communication (fiber optics), imaging (X-rays and MRI), and energy production (solar panels). They are also used in everyday items such as remote controls and LED lights.