The most fundamental "particle"

In summary, the conversation discussed the concept of particles with no properties, such as virtual particles. It was mentioned that virtual particles are often described as popping in and out of existence with no properties at all. However, it was clarified that this is a misconception and virtual particles do have properties, such as energy and momentum. It was also mentioned that relying solely on pop science sources can lead to misunderstandings and it is important to be cautious when making conclusions.
  • #1
Mohd Abdullah
99
3
Hi,

Are there any fundamental "particles" that has no charge (e.g. color charge, electric charge, etc.), mass, volume and spin?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You mean no properties at all? If there were such a thing it would not interact with our universe by any known physics, so we wouldn't know about it.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #3
But aren't virtual particles can be described as having no properties at all?
 
  • #4
Mohd Abdullah said:
But aren't virtual particles can be described as having no properties at all?

Really? What makes them "virtual" then?

Zz.
 
  • #5
Mohd Abdullah said:
Hi,

Are there any fundamental "particles" that has no charge (e.g. color charge, electric charge, etc.), mass, volume and spin?

See George Berkeley and "esse est percipi".
 
  • #6
ZapperZ said:
Really? What makes them "virtual" then?

Zz.

I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.
 
  • #7
Mohd Abdullah said:
I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.
And what is the sense in which you think that virtual particles are "something" ? Do you mean something physical?
 
  • #8
Mohd Abdullah said:
I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

Where do get an idea like this? Did you just make things up?

Zz.
 
  • #9
Uhmmm
Mohd Abdullah said:
I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

No, not at all. Virtual particles have properties similar to their real counterparts. Similar because they only exist briefly and the uncertainty principle allows some fuzziness in their properties.
 
  • #10
Cutter Ketch said:
UhmmmNo, not at all. Virtual particles have properties similar to their real counterparts. Similar because they only exist briefly and the uncertainty principle allows some fuzziness in their properties.
You got this from some pop-sci presentation didn't you? (and THEY made it up). There are TONS of threads on this forum about virtual particles. They are a mathematical fiction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
 
Last edited:
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
Where do get an idea like this? Did you just make things up?

Zz.

Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources, they say virtual particles do pop out from nothing then disappear into nothing after awhile. Sorry if I'm making mistake there.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
You got this from some pop-sci presentation didn't you? (and THEY made it up). There are TONS of threads on this forum about virtual particles. They are a mathematical fiction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

If the virtual particles are happen to be just a math fiction, so they're absolutely nothing in the real world. Am I correct?

Is it possible there are "particles" with no properties at all in the context of quantum physics?
 
  • #13
Mohd Abdullah said:
Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources ...
That's not necessarily a bad thing to do because they are so accessible but do NOT make the mistake of thinking that you are learning any actual science from them.

Mohd Abdullah said:
If the virtual particles are happen to be just a math fiction, so they're absolutely nothing in the real world. Am I correct?
Did you read the link I provided?
Is it possible there are "particles" with no properties at all in the context of quantum physics?
How would we ever know? Since they have no properties, what is it that you think could be measured that would show their existence? You might as well argue that there really are 18 foot high pink unicorns and the fact that no one has ever seen one, or ever WILL see one, does not negate their existence.
 
  • #14
phinds said:
That's not necessarily a bad thing to do because they are so accessible but do NOT make the mistake of thinking that you are learning any actual science from them.

Did you read the link I provided?
How would we ever know? Since they have no properties, what is it that you think could be measured that would show their existence? You might as well argue that there really are 18 foot high pink unicorns and the fact that no one has ever seen one, or ever WILL see one, does not negate their existence.

I just found and read the link you'd shared. So, there is no difference between the virtual particles, "something" with no properties at all and absolute nothing. Thanks for clearing it up.
 
  • #15
Mohd Abdullah said:
Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources, they say virtual particles do pop out from nothing then disappear into nothing after awhile. Sorry if I'm making mistake there.

You need to be very careful with your sequence of logic. Having particles popping in and out of existence does NOT imply that they have zero properties or characteristics! At the very least, these particles carry energy and momentum. Virtual photons are the "force carrier" (to use a pop-science term) for electromagnetic interactions! So how could they have no properties at all?

Think about this, and think about the "leap" of conclusion that you're making.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Mohd Abdullah

What is the most fundamental particle?

The most fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is believed to be the building block of all matter in the universe. It is the smallest known particle and is responsible for the formation of atoms and molecules.

What is the significance of the most fundamental particle?

The most fundamental particle is significant because it helps us understand the basic structure of matter and the laws of physics. It also plays a crucial role in the creation of the universe and the evolution of galaxies.

How many types of fundamental particles are there?

There are currently 17 known fundamental particles, which are divided into two categories: fermions and bosons. Fermions include particles such as electrons and quarks, while bosons include particles such as photons and gluons.

Can fundamental particles be observed directly?

No, fundamental particles cannot be observed directly because they are so small and move at incredibly high speeds. Instead, scientists use particle accelerators and detectors to study their behavior and characteristics.

Do all fundamental particles have mass?

No, not all fundamental particles have mass. Photons, for example, are massless particles. Other particles, such as quarks and electrons, have very small masses compared to larger particles like protons and neutrons.

Similar threads

I How prone is a photon to interacting with uncharged structureless particles?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
B Conservation of charge in a nuclear reaction
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
270
B What is source of fundamental particle charge?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
18
Views
2K
B Do charged particles always have spin?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I What kind of energy is released in a nuclear fusion reaction?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
I W boson and weak decay
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
23
Views
367
I Thomson Scattering when low-intensity light meets an orbital electron
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
B A doubt on the fundamental unit of charge
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Particles more fundamental than fields
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Fundamental fields and vacuum energy
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top