Smallest proven particle
Barn Barn
Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
Moataz H. Emam
If you mean smallest in size, then that's "easy". According to the
latest experiments the universe is filled with point like particles, no
size seen. Examples are the electrons, quarks, photons, W and Z bosons
and others. Of course, they might turn out to have finite sizes. They
might contain other particles, or they might even be strings. But as far
as we can probe, they are zero size.
Barn Barn wrote:
>
> Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
--
Moataz H. Emam
URL: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~emam/
The Department of Physics
1129, Lederle Graduate Research Tower C,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 01003
e-mail : em...@physics.umass.edu
Tel. : (413) 545 0559
============================================
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever."
Anonymous
FrediFizzx
news:3A416009...@physics.umass.edu...
>
> If you mean smallest in size, then that's "easy". According to the
> latest experiments the universe is filled with point like particles, no
> size seen. Examples are the electrons, quarks, photons, W and Z bosons
> and others. Of course, they might turn out to have finite sizes. They
> might contain other particles, or they might even be strings. But as far
> as we can probe, they are zero size.
>
> Barn Barn wrote:
> >
> > Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
>
> --
> Moataz H. Emam
Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant? I
would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions. Isn't an electron in a
hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom? Well, as far as its charge
radius is concerned? What properties of an electron do you use to make a
size measurement of it? I would suspect that some particles, such as an
electron can effectly be whatever size the predicament they are envolved in
dictates. But don't ask me how I would measure this, because their size is
not really relevant.
Regards,
FrediFizzx
Charles Francis
FrediFizzx <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com>
>Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant? I
>would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions. Isn't an electron in a
>hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom? Well, as far as its charge
>radius is concerned? What properties of an electron do you use to make a
>size measurement of it? I would suspect that some particles, such as an
>electron can effectly be whatever size the predicament they are envolved in
>dictates. But don't ask me how I would measure this, because their size is
>not really relevant.
>
condition, of qft. If you were to measure the position of an electron in
an atom, it would be at a point. The "size" you refer to, as the size of
an atom is just the set of points at which the electron might be found.
--
Regards
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
FrediFizzx
news:uU4SDWAy...@clef.demon.co.uk...
is *not* everywhere in its shell (set of points at which it might be found)
simultaneously?
Regards,
FrediFizzx
Charles Francis
<FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com>
>"Charles Francis" <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:uU4SDWAy...@clef.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <91scss$693$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, thus spake
>> FrediFizzx <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com>
>> >Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant?
>I
>> >would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions. Isn't an electron
>in a
>> >hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom? Well, as far as its charge
>> >radius is concerned? What properties of an electron do you use to make a
>> >size measurement of it? I would suspect that some particles, such as an
>> >electron can effectly be whatever size the predicament they are envolved
>in
>> >dictates. But don't ask me how I would measure this, because their size
>is
>> >not really relevant.
>> >
>> Its fair to say zero size, as described by the commutator, or locality
>> condition, of qft. If you were to measure the position of an electron in
>> an atom, it would be at a point. The "size" you refer to, as the size of
>> an atom is just the set of points at which the electron might be found.
>>
>I just have one question. Is it a proven fact that the electron in a atom
>is *not* everywhere in its shell (set of points at which it might be found)
>simultaneously?
We are entering the field of interpretation, and there are serious
doubts about what proof means. You cannot provide formal mathematical
proof of interpretation. What I think is proven is that you cannot make
statements like "the electron is everywhere in its shell". because that
statements invokes concepts which do not hold in the quantum domain.
Before you can make this statement you would have to redefine the
concepts in the context of some unproven interpretation. You can make
statements like "in a measurement of position the electron is only ever
found to be at a point". If you want to make statements about the
condition of the electron when no measurement is done then you are
entering a controversial field. There is no generally accepted proof of
any hypothesis.
FrediFizzx
Charles,
I like the way you think about this. I get your point. Forget the proven
part. But what is your interpretation as to what is going on with the
electron in an atom? I think that if the wavefunction is not collapsed (or
altered) then the size of the electron is effectively the size of the atom.
I guess the point I am trying to get across is that if the electron has no
dimensions then its size is irrelevant. It does not behave like a 3d object
would but is behaving more like a no d object would while interacting with
the nucleus. I am trying to paint a difficult picture here. As soon as you
have at least three (or does it take 4?) point particles interacting with
each other then you can have a 3d object such as an atom (which has three in
the nucleus and plus one for the electron in the case of the hydrogen atom).
I suppose this could also exist in a plane (2d). I know that it is more
complex than this but I am trying to simplify it. Do the three quarks in a
hydrogen nucleus describe a 3d object? Or is it a 2d object? Does the
hydrogen nucleus/atom only become 3d with the addition of the electron?
Regards,
FrediFizzx
Charles Francis
<FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com>
I think the electron and the quarks are point-like objects, or as you
may prefer no d objects. When you have at least two no d objects in a
bound state, they form a 3d object (two points may be a line, but we do
not know the direction of the line). I'm disinclined to say the size of
the electron is the size of the atom, because it requires the whole atom
to form a bound state.
Jim Carr
} > Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
}
} If you mean smallest in size, then that's "easy". According to the
} latest experiments the universe is filled with point like particles, no
} size seen. Examples are the electrons, quarks, photons, W and Z bosons
} and others. Of course, they might turn out to have finite sizes. They
} might contain other particles, or they might even be strings. But as far
} as we can probe, they are zero size.
In article <91scss$693$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
"FrediFizzx" <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com> writes:
>
>Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant?
It is that their size is consitent with zero, just as he wrote.
To paraphrase, as far as we can probe at present, no effect of
electron or quark finite size can be seen.
>I would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions.
Why would it have no dimensions?
>Isn't an electron in a
>hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom?
No.
>Well, as far as its charge radius is concerned?
The charge radius of the H atom is not the charge radius of
the electron. (In fact, the definition of the charge radius
of a neutral object is always interesting to look at, but in
this case the two oppositely-charged distributions are of
such different size that it makes some sense.
>What properties of an electron do you use to make a
>size measurement of it?
Normally it is the charge density of the electron, as an
independent particle, that is measured.
>I would suspect that some particles, such as an
>electron can effectly be whatever size the predicament they are envolved in
>dictates.
Makes no sense to me.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.
FrediFizzx
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:92r2kb$svf$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> "Moataz H. Emam" <em...@physics.umass.edu> wrote
> in message news:3A416009...@physics.umass.edu...
> }
> } Barn Barn wrote:
> } > Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
> }
> } If you mean smallest in size, then that's "easy". According to the
> } latest experiments the universe is filled with point like particles, no
> } size seen. Examples are the electrons, quarks, photons, W and Z bosons
> } and others. Of course, they might turn out to have finite sizes. They
> } might contain other particles, or they might even be strings. But as far
> } as we can probe, they are zero size.
>
> In article <91scss$693$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
> "FrediFizzx" <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant?
>
> It is that their size is consitent with zero, just as he wrote.
> To paraphrase, as far as we can probe at present, no effect of
> electron or quark finite size can be seen.
>
> >I would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions.
>
> Why would it have no dimensions?
>
No? Now, if something is a point particle and has no dimensions, then I
think it may mean besides being zero size it may also connote that its size
may be irrelevant.
> >Isn't an electron in a
> >hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom?
>
> No.
What I wrote to Charles but I don't think he really answered it was: "I
think that if the wavefunction [of the electron in the atom] is not
collapsed (or altered) then the size of the electron is effectively the size
of the atom." IOW, it has to go back to the interpretation thing he was
talking about because without measurement we really don't know what is going
on.
>
> >Well, as far as its charge radius is concerned?
>
> The charge radius of the H atom is not the charge radius of
> the electron. (In fact, the definition of the charge radius
> of a neutral object is always interesting to look at, but in
> this case the two oppositely-charged distributions are of
> such different size that it makes some sense.
>
> >What properties of an electron do you use to make a
> >size measurement of it?
>
> Normally it is the charge density of the electron, as an
> independent particle, that is measured.
>
> >I would suspect that some particles, such as an
> >electron can effectly be whatever size the predicament they are envolved
in
> >dictates.
>
> Makes no sense to me.
>
See above. I guess the point I am trying to make is what is going on when
things aren't measured.
Regards,
Fredifizzx
P.S. Did you see my post about the possible discovery of paired-proton
decays?
ort da sport
muxco...@hotmail.com (Barn Barn) wrote:
>
> Could someone please tell me what the smallest proven particle is?
>
your word "proven" scares them.
the standard model is complete now, study it.
ort
--
pardon my small letters, i am severely disabled
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
®rt da sport http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/index.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Quantum Ripples
take into account space resonance theory, an electron, from the moment of
its birth, sends out a quantum wave to interact with all the other electrons
out there and at the same time a quantum in-wave from all the other
electrons out there enters the centre of the electron, is rotated one half
and proceeds as the new outwave, one with the added knowledge it gets from
the inwaves. IF this is true, most electrons out there already of very
very large space resonances, in fact i would hypothesis that an average
electron's outwave is already in contact with atleast 50% of all the other
electrons out there. That being said, the size of an electron is the size
of its space resonance (5 billion light years in diameter)
While electromagnetic phton exchanges only take place at the point like
centre of an electron, due to the space resonances, an electron can
absorbe a photon from an electron a billion light years away before the
other electron emmits it, or vice versa. Instantanious action. (isnt
instant action a given nowadays in quantum physics?
franz heymann
Quantum Ripples <pco...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Ht576.264341$_5.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of an electron is that if
you
> take into account space resonance theory, an electron, from the moment of
> its birth, sends out a quantum wave to interact with all the other
electrons
> out there and at the same time a quantum in-wave from all the other
> electrons out there enters the centre of the electron, is rotated one half
> and proceeds as the new outwave, one with the added knowledge it gets from
> the inwaves. IF this is true, most electrons out there already of very
> very large space resonances, in fact i would hypothesis that an average
> electron's outwave is already in contact with atleast 50% of all the other
> electrons out there. That being said, the size of an electron is the
size
> of its space resonance (5 billion light years in diameter)
> While electromagnetic phton exchanges only take place at the point like
> centre of an electron, due to the space resonances, an electron can
> absorbe a photon from an electron a billion light years away before the
> other electron emmits it, or vice versa. Instantanious action. (isnt
> instant action a given nowadays in quantum physics?
The "size" of a particle can be investigated by seeing how it diffracts
other particles, including photons. All such diffraction experiments have
shown that the size of an electron is immeasurably small.
You are confusing the QM wave associated with the electron and the charge
distribution in the electron itself.
Franz Heymann
Charles Francis
Quantum Ripples <pco...@home.com>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of an electron is that if you
>take into account space resonance theory, an electron, from the moment of
>its birth, sends out a quantum wave to interact with all the other electrons
>out there and at the same time a quantum in-wave from all the other
>electrons out there enters the centre of the electron, is rotated one half
>and proceeds as the new outwave, one with the added knowledge it gets from
>the inwaves. IF this is true, most electrons out there already of very
>very large space resonances, in fact i would hypothesis that an average
>electron's outwave is already in contact with atleast 50% of all the other
>electrons out there.
That sounds like a crank theory - there are serious difficulties in
interpreting quantum mechanics, and ideas of this sort have been tested
in a speculative manner, but in my view they don't work at all well.
> Instantanious action. (isnt
>instant action a given nowadays in quantum physics?
>
No. Relativistic quantum field theories have a locality principle at
their heart. No observable effect may propagate faster than light, and
it is implicit from that that a localised entity can only interact in
its own locality. Although the collapse of the wave function is
instantaneous, there is not universal agreement about it and in my view,
and probably the majority of orthodox physicists, it is not a physical
effect. In my view the best interpretations describe it as a change in
information.
Jim Carr
| } latest experiments the universe is filled with point like particles, no
|
| In article <91scss$693$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
| "FrediFizzx" <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com> writes:
| >Is it that they have zero size or is it that their size is not relevant?
|
| It is that their size is consitent with zero, just as he wrote.
| To paraphrase, as far as we can probe at present, no effect of
| electron or quark finite size can be seen.
|
| >I would suspect the latter if they have no dimensions.
|
| Why would it have no dimensions?
In article <92rkud$tns$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
"FrediFizzx" <FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com> writes:
>
>It cannot be a point particle or have zero size if it has any dimensions.
>No?
In my view, when you say you have measured the dimensions of something
and find the value to be consistent with "0 m", it has dimensions. If
not, what were you measuring?
| >Isn't an electron in a
| >hydrogen atom basically the size of the atom?
|
| No.
>What I wrote to Charles but I don't think he really answered it was: "I
>think that if the wavefunction [of the electron in the atom] is not
>collapsed (or altered) then the size of the electron is effectively the size
>of the atom."
Also wrong. There is a difference between the size of the electron
and where it is. Are you bigger if someone says you are in a room?