Subatomic particles: Comparative sizes

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rrw4rusty
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparative sizes of subatomic particles, emphasizing the misconception of atoms as compact objects. Key insights include that if an atom were the size of the solar system, a string would be the size of a tree, and an atom is 99.9999% empty space. The user seeks consensus on these comparisons and clarification on the size of quarks, noting that string theory posits that all particles are based on strings, with each quark corresponding to a string's vibration. Resources such as the Particle Data Group and HyperPhysics are recommended for further exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic atomic structure and subatomic particles
  • Familiarity with string theory concepts
  • Knowledge of particle physics terminology, including quarks and leptons
  • Ability to interpret scientific resources and data tables
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of string theory on particle physics
  • Explore the Particle Data Group for detailed particle mass information
  • Investigate the HyperPhysics resource for a comprehensive overview of elementary particles
  • Study the concept of empty space in atomic structure and its significance in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, educators, students in particle physics, and anyone interested in understanding the scale and structure of subatomic particles.

rrw4rusty
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Now that my book is finished, I’ve been toying with an idea for an animation I’m thinking of doing. One of the things I want to show is the real comparative sizes of subatomic particles (including strings) and how much empty space there is at the atomic and subatomic levels. People don’t have a good understanding of this – in fact, most representations have given people the wrong idea. I do not want numbers. Numbers are great but they do not give a layperson any kind of feel for size especially with atoms wrongly being represented as compact objects in textbooks and elsewhere. So, I’ve been researching this angle and what I’ve come up with so far is:

• If an atom were the size of our solar system, a string would be the size of a tree (perhaps this depends on which theory? If so I want the smallest and the average).
• If an atom were a mile in diameter it’s nucleus would be the size of a marble. Actually, I found several comparisons that all seem a little different. Like…
• Imagine the atom as the size of a professional baseball stadium (in 3D). The size of the nucleus would be about the size of a baseball in proportion. Ants would be far too big to represent as the electrons.
• That an atom is 99.9999% empty space.

I’d like any consensus on the above that I can get.

What I don’t yet have is how the size of a quark fits into all this. I understand that this one is not so easy but I need something. Anyone?

I assume that in most string theories (if not all) that ALL particles are based on strings and that a string's vibration determines what type of quark or Leptons or other particle (gluons) you get (is this correct?). So it sounds like one string per quark or Lepton, therefore 3 strings per hadron.

As always, any help is greatly appreciated!
Rusty
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rusty,

This will help:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/contents_tables.html"

The official source.

I also found this from 2005, HyperPhysics, Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbasees/hframe.html"

Using the index feature you can find masses, etc for all elementary particles, this may be simpler, easier to use than the Particle Data Group.

Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rhody said:
Rusty,

This will help:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/contents_tables.html"

The official source.

I also found this from 2005, HyperPhysics, Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbasees/hframe.html"

Using the index feature you can find masses, etc for all elementary particles, this may be simpler, easier to use than the Particle Data Group.

Good luck.


Awesome links! Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K