Quark Mass and Size: Is There Any Data?

In summary: Sorry I am not string theorist neither :frown: I had some knowledge about it in 1987-1990. But not any more. I have some memory that the calculations of Susskind et Al in 1987-1988 failed to give a size to the string. But I am not sure.In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of size for elementary particles such as quarks and electrons. It is mentioned that, according to the standard model, these particles are point particles with no size. However, there have been searches for substructure that could indicate a non-zero size. The tightest upper bound for the electron radius is 10^-22 meters, while high-energy collider experiments have probed down to
  • #1
cbd1
123
1
I know that we (believe) we have found the mass of the 6 quarks. But, I have not been able to find anywhere if we have any idea of their various sizes. I would gesture that the heavier quarks would be larger. Does anyone know if there is any data on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think we have thought quarks and electrons are about the same size, but it seems to me this is mostly weak theoretical argument..
 
  • #3
Electrons are point particles, I guess you could say they have "zero size".
As far as I know the same is true for quarks, although the concept of size is even less well defined since there is no such thing as a free quark.
 
  • #4
That sounds pretty accurate to me, there are proposed sizes for electrons and quarks but the nature of the quantum world makes such measurements somewhat vague since each particle is a wave of probability.

Couldn't you make a fairly accurate estimate using degenerate matter's maximum density to approximate their minimum size since they are on the edge of failing the pauli exclusion principle? I guess you could really only get the minimum size of neutrons, but when matter is that dense does the physical size of the neutron also get compressed?
 
  • #5
loreak said:
That sounds pretty accurate to me, there are proposed sizes for electrons and quarks but the nature of the quantum world makes such measurements somewhat vague since each particle is a wave of probability.

Couldn't you make a fairly accurate estimate using degenerate matter's maximum density to approximate their minimum size since they are on the edge of failing the pauli exclusion principle? I guess you could really only get the minimum size of neutrons, but when matter is that dense does the physical size of the neutron also get compressed?

No you can't, you are trying to mix classical and quantum mechanics here, finite extended objects are not compatible with QM. What you can measure is the charge density distrubution (aka the Form factor) and as far as we know, the charge density function for electrons is a delta function.
 
  • #6
loreak said:
That sounds pretty accurate to me, there are proposed sizes for electrons and quarks but the nature of the quantum world makes such measurements somewhat vague since each particle is a wave of probability.

All "elementary particles" (quarks, leptons, gauge bosons) are point particles (with "zero size") as far as we can determine experimentally. [Edit to add that the standard model and its usual extensions treat elementary particles as exactly pointlike, in agreement with experiment.] There have been (and will be at the LHC) interesting searches for quark and lepton substructure, which would be the first sign that they are actually composite (non-elementary) objects with non-zero size.

So far, the tightest upper bound on the electron radius that I'm aware of is [tex]r_e < 10^{-22}[/tex] meters, from http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1988/T22/016/. For quarks, high-energy collider experiments have probed down to [tex]r \sim 10^{-18}[/tex] meters (which the LHC will improve), at which distance quarks and leptons still look pointlike. See also this thread.

If you try to make models where elementary particles have non-zero size, you generally enter the Realm of String Theory.
 
  • #7
daschaich said:
If you try to make models where elementary particles have non-zero size, you generally enter the Realm of String Theory.


Or not. I am not sure if we have some calculation for the size of a elementary string in each of the four sectors (RR, RNS etc). I believe that early calculations by Susskind hit some kind of problem.

Besides, are we sure that it is possible to get a "size" for elementary fermions? Yes, protons and neutrons have a size, but it comes from the boson glue, not from the fermions. There is some kind of paradoxic clash between having a size and not having classical limit.
 
  • #8
arivero said:
Or not. I am not sure if we have some calculation for the size of a elementary string in each of the four sectors (RR, RNS etc). I believe that early calculations by Susskind hit some kind of problem.

Besides, are we sure that it is possible to get a "size" for elementary fermions? Yes, protons and neutrons have a size, but it comes from the boson glue, not from the fermions. There is some kind of paradoxic clash between having a size and not having classical limit.

The size of hadrons comes from compositeness, plain and simple. I don't see any need to worry about spin & statistics here.

I am not a string theorist, so please correct my misconceptions. I was merely parroting the popular wisdom that in string theory "the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about [tex]10^{-33}[/tex] cm)", which I just copied-and-pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Basic_idea".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
daschaich said:
The size of hadrons comes from compositeness, plain and simple. I don't see any need to worry about spin & statistics here.

I am not a string theorist, so please correct my misconceptions. I was merely parroting the popular wisdom that in string theory "the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about [tex]10^{-33}[/tex] cm)", which I just copied-and-pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Basic_idea".

define size of a Hadron...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
ansgar said:
define size of a Hadron...
Form factors are observables. They can be linked, without any approximation, to the distributions of charges in the transverse plane when the hadron is on the light-cone. The "no approximation" comes from the galilean subgroup of transverse boosts (please request references if you want). The Sachs formalism, relying on non-relativistic approximation, is in the hadron rest frame. The distributions in the rest frame and on the light cone are not supposed to be the same anyway. There are attempts to make it rigorous in the rest frame, but it's not necessarily very useful.
 
  • #11
daschaich said:
I am not a string theorist, so please correct my misconceptions. I was merely parroting the popular wisdom that in string theory "the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about [tex]10^{-33}[/tex] cm)", which I just copied-and-pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Basic_idea".

Sorry I am not string theorist neither :frown: I had expected the form factor for scattering of a probe string against a "R-NS" fundamental state to be calculated somewhere in the textbooks and then its graph plotted and a size of the order of the square root of the string tension to be shown. Very dialectical, I would hope. Perhaps too trivial for a string theory textbook?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
ansgar said:
define size of a Hadron...

humanino's response is probably best, but if you're after something more qualitative and hand-wavy, think of the volume within which the hadron's (valence) quarks are confined. Quantum mechanics makes this fuzzy.

In my own field of lattice QCD, we tend to use the Compton wavelength to quantify the "size" of mesons, [tex]r_C \sim 1 / m_C[/tex] in units where [tex]c = \hbar = 1[/tex].
 

1. What is a quark?

A quark is a fundamental particle and one of the building blocks of matter. It is a subatomic particle that makes up protons and neutrons, which in turn make up the nucleus of atoms.

2. How big is a quark?

Quarks are incredibly small, with an estimated size of less than 10^-18 meters. This is much smaller than the size of a proton or neutron, which are already much smaller than the size of an atom.

3. What is the mass of a quark?

The mass of a quark is very small, with the lightest quark, the up quark, having a mass of about 2.2 x 10^-27 kilograms. The heaviest quark, the top quark, has a mass of about 1.7 x 10^-25 kilograms.

4. How do scientists study the mass and size of quarks?

Scientists study quarks using high-energy particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. By smashing particles together at high speeds, they can observe the interactions between particles and gather data on the properties of quarks.

5. Is there any data on the mass and size of quarks?

Yes, there is a wealth of data on the mass and size of quarks from experiments conducted at particle accelerators. This data has been used to develop the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes the properties and interactions of quarks and other subatomic particles.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
997
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top