#QuantumPhysics #ParticlePhysics #Quarks #Composition #InfiniteSmallness
Have you ever wondered how we know things don’t just get infinitely smaller? The concept of smallness in the realm of quantum physics is truly fascinating and can leave us with many questions. If a quark is the smallest particle we know of, what makes up a quark? Let’s dive into the intriguing world of particle physics and unravel the mysteries of the smallest building blocks of our universe! 🌌
## The Quest for Understanding Smallness
The quest to understand the smallest particles in the universe has been ongoing for centuries. Scientists have made incredible discoveries that have reshaped our understanding of the building blocks of matter. Let’s explore some key concepts that shed light on the fascinating world of quantum physics.
### What Are Quarks?
– Quarks are fundamental particles that are believed to be the building blocks of protons and neutrons, which in turn make up the nucleus of atoms.
– There are six types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom.
– Quarks possess fractional electric charges, making them truly unique particles in the realm of particle physics.
### The Composition of Quarks
It is important to note that quarks exist in a state of confinement, meaning they are never found in isolation. They are always bound together by strong nuclear forces to form larger particles known as hadrons. This phenomenon gives rise to the complexity of particle interactions and the hierarchical structure of matter.
### The Endless Quest for Smaller Particles
As we delve deeper into the realm of particle physics, the question arises: is there truly an end to smallness? The discovery of quarks has opened up a world of infinite possibilities, prompting scientists to explore even smaller particles that may exist beyond the realm of quarks. This endless quest for understanding the smallest constituents of matter drives the curiosity and passion of physicists around the world.
### Variance at the Smallest Level
The composition of the smallest possible particle raises questions about the uniformity of matter at its core. Are all quarks the same in composition, or do they exhibit variance at the smallest level? This profound question delves into the heart of particle interactions and the intricate dance of subatomic particles within the quantum realm.
## Conclusion
In conclusion, the world of particle physics offers a fascinating glimpse into the intricacies of smallness and the building blocks of matter. Quarks, as the smallest known particles, challenge our conventional understanding of reality and open up new avenues for exploration and discovery. The quest to unravel the mysteries of the smallest particles continues to drive scientific inquiry and inspire awe in the beauty of the universe.
With each new discovery, we come one step closer to unlocking the secrets of the quantum realm and understanding the fundamental nature of reality. The journey to explore the infinite smallness of the universe is an exciting adventure that invites us to question, wonder, and marvel at the mysteries that lie within the tiniest particles of our cosmos. 🌠
So, next time you ponder the infinite smallness of the universe, remember that the quest for knowledge is a journey without end, filled with wonder, curiosity, and endless possibilities. As we strive to understand the smallest particles that make up our reality, we embark on a thrilling odyssey that beckons us to explore the mysteries of the quantum world.
Happy exploring! ✨
There are two types of quarks and three generations of each type. We only see the up and down quarks normally, the higher energy versions, like the charma and strange decay, and the top and bottom are even higher energy. So all matter is made up of up and down quarks. 2 ups and a down make a proton, and two down and an up makes a neutron. Electrons are elementary like quarks.
As far as we know quarks aren’t composed of anything. Same as electrons and photons, they are elementary
We think quarks are the smallest because it’s so far the smallest denomination we’ve been able to observe, but we’re still exploring.
Quarks stick together to make other particles, like protons and neutrons, which make atoms, and so on.
Asking if they’re all the same is like asking if each type of legos are the same. Quarks have different types, called flavors, but they all seem to have some common qualities. So, in a way, everything is made of similar stuff, but it’s arranged differently, like how you can make different things with the same lego bricks.
> How do we know things don’t just get infinitely smaller?
We don’t.
Quarks are not the same, there are 12 different types of quark (and anti-quark) in the Standard Model. They are similar, but have different properties.
It’s also important to note that when we get down to these scales ideas about “things” start to get a bit fuzzy. Systems can end up being more of a big messy ball of probabilities than fixed things with fixed properties.
We can’t be sure, but we can predict how quarks as elementary particles should behave, and so far all measurements agree with these predictions. It would be a pretty weird coincidence if quarks were composite particles that just happened to behave in the same way.
All quarks of a specific type (e.g. all up quarks) are identical.
All science, *always*, includes an invisible “…to the best of our knowledge” at the end.
So: things don’t get infinitely smaller than quarks *to the best of our knowledge*.
If someone proves that they *do* keep getting smaller, then the statement will change. Science *loves* being proven wrong! It means we learned something new.
We find new particles by smashing particles into each other and find the trace of the path left behind by the different parts. If quarks are made up of other stuff, that should fall apart too if the energy is high enough (i.e. speed with which we smash the particles into eachother), but we haven’t observed that yet. So either, they are not made up of other parts, or the energy we tried isn’t high enough.
If we could break it down, our current models require more energy than is in the universe to break it down. It already takes an absurd amount of energy we can’t harness to even keep a quark in isolation. The energy density of the universe is so low at this point that it likely will never happen again.
We believe that there is a quark field, and a lepton field, and quarks and leptons are just disturbances in that field. The type of disturbance determines which type of quark/lepton it is.
Modern physics has a concept called the Planck Length, which is 1.616255×10−35 m. One way to think about it is that is essentially a limit of “smallness” beyond which we could never look. To grossly simplify a complicated subject, according to the laws of physics as believed today, just like there is nothing that can exceed the speed of light, there is absolutely no possible way we could ever measure or observe anything at such very small sizes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Planck_length
Don’t things become a bunch of probabilities at the Planck Length (hence the term ‘quantum foam’)? Does this mean that everything in the universe consists of (and exists in) a state of uncertainty?
It’s kinda like we are firing cannon balls into a field of grass trying to find marbles.
We really have no clue what’s happening at that level.
it should be noted that we have actually proven the smallest possible things in energy (1 photon), in electrical charge (1 electron) and in size (the planck length).
it’s notable that a quark is 10^10 larger than a planck length, a proton is10^3 larger than a quark, and an average atom is 10^6 larger than an average proton.
As such it feasible to have 2 or 3 more “levels” of particles before we run out of room, but it is rather unlikely at this point.
To my understanding, if you try to pull a quark apart hard enough, you just end up with two quarks.
Two points seem worth making.
Firstly, if you were to keep going to smaller and smaller particles, you’d eventually hit the Planck length*, below which it’s fundamentally not possible to measure things, and it’s questionable how much sense it starts to make saying that “This thing is made of smaller components” once “smaller” no longer has a useful meaning.
Secondly, once we get down to quark level we seem to be at the point where virtual particles are constantly popping in and out of existence, and it’s getting a little tricky to say precisely what something is made of anyway. For example, when we look at what’s inside a proton, we apparently sometimes find things that only make sense if they’re virtual particles with extremely short lives (for example we sometimes find a charm quark – which has more mass than the proton itself).
Both of those seem to suggest that there are fundamental limits to how far you can keep pushing a neat, ordered heirarchy of “THIS is made up of THESE”. There’s a limit to how far you can go, plus reality seeems rather messier anyway. So even if quarks are made up of smaller things, sooner or later things are going to break down.
There’s a recent [PBS Space Time video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbzZIMQC6vk) on the structure of the proton that’s accessible, interesting and relevant. Well worth a watch.
*We’re still a LONG way from that – the Planck length compared to the size of a quark is on the scale of a grain of sand compared to the Sun – but the point still applies.
I would suggest having a read about preons. To cite wikipedia
>However, scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are “point like” down to distance scales of less than 10−18 m (or 1⁄1000 of a proton diameter). The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV/c, which is 50,000 times larger than the (model dependent) rest mass of an up-quark, and 400,000 times larger than the rest mass of an electron
This could be fixed by extremely fine-tuned binding energy but is not very elegant. Additionally, we did not observe any resonances corresponding to existing states of quarks. This can also be solved by an extremely high binding energy, but that would also require extreme fine tuning