Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sub-sub-sub atmonic particles

  1. Jan 1, 2005 #1
    Matter is made up of atoms. Basic. :smile: Atoms are made up of nuetrons and protrons with orbiting electrons. Also basic. :smile: Protrons and nuetrons are made up of orbiting quarks (not sure about the electrons for they have wave-like properties and I have not found anything saying they are made up of quarks.) Not so basic any more. :confused:

    So far an atom is mostly made up of protrons and nuetrons. Since they are made up of orbitng quarks (UP and DOWN type) they are mostly free space. this means the quarks weigh alot for there size (atoms are also mostly free space.)

    A pattern also forms here. Everything is made up of smaller particles starting at the atomic level. So maybe quarks are also made up of smaller particles. These sub-sub-sub (super-sub) atomic particles could also be made up of sub-sub-sub-sub atomic particles. This could continue indefinnetly. If this was true the maybe at the sub-sub-sub-sub *10^100 level, particles of this level could shrink the distance between them by 1/10 of origianal. This could cause an effect that X number of levels up could shrink the distance between patcles of each level by 1/10 then matter that soud be on our size level actualy exsist in the space inside a nuetron. :eek:
    Nothing says this is imposible!
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 1, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    So far,so good,the classical picture is okay.

    Not exactly.Quarks don't orbit anything...The classical picture doesn't hold inside a nucleon.Electrons are fundamental particles.They don't seem to have internal structure.All particles have wave-like behavior:electrons,nucleons,photons,mesons,neutrinos,etc.

    We don't know how big subatomic particles are.We don't know the exact internal structure of nucleons.We know there are 3 quarks inside and gluons mediate interactions between quarks."Free space" is something unclear.

    This is the part where your imagination runs wild.There's unclear whether there are particles which make up the ones considered fundamental at this very moment.So anyone may imagine whatever he/she wants.You included.

  4. Jan 2, 2005 #3

    Well, this is not entirely correct. I have written about this in my journal (entry 3 : on gluons and pions :https://www.physicsforums.com/journal.php?s=&action=view&journalid=13790&perpage=10&page=3 [Broken] ) so it would be stupid to rewrite all that inhere. Quarks are positioned on a tringle or Y-shape in baryons, depending on the interquarkdista,ces at hand and therefore, depending on the energyscale...these properties are proven in the dual abelian higgs model.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Jan 2, 2005 #4
    Yes, i did let my imaginenation run wild, but so far alot of discovories took some imagination to think up and then people used science to prove. When people first started to say the world was round, many others said they were really runing wild with there imagination.

    As far as the quarks are concerned, orbitting was really just a guess but they have to have some way of giving a protron a 'edge'. Also they are not (unless i misread) 1/3 the size of a protron or electron, which means there is 'free space', and if there is not free space something must take it up the space or else we have a problem.

    This was ment to be a 'what if' idea to get others to think on it.
  6. Jan 2, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Welcome to PF. This site is not the appropriate place to let your imagination run wild -- personal or unsubstantiated theories are not welcome here, per site guidelines. We prefer to keep our discussion here on real physics. Please try to keep your imagination in check here.

    - Warren
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook