English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-22 18:56:14 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Physics

10 answers

This depends on what you mean by smallest.

If you want to know which particle has the smallest mass, then the photon is one of several particles that have 0 mass.

If you want to know the 3-dimensional particle with the smallest dimensions, things get tricky. Quarks are the smallest accepted particle, although, even here we have to hedge a bit. The lightest quark is the "up" quark. The "top" quark is over 83,000 times as massive as the "up" quark. So even under quarks, we have at least a mass hierarchy. The "up" quark is also the smallest observed particle to date.

If you are willing to sacrifice dimensions, then Strings from Superstring theory are going to be your best bet. But even here we have to be a bit careful. Technically, only the 1-dimensional objects in String Theory are Strings. The original version of the theory only had these 1-d objects, hence the name String Theory. The modern versions of the theory have n-dimensional objects named branes. A 1-brane is a String. A 3-brane would be our 3-D world. Punning little creatures that they are, scientists call the general idea "p-brane.", and yes, there is a 0-brane, also called sometimes a "no-brane".

A No-Brane would have no dimensions, and this would be the smallest theoretical particle to date.

2006-07-22 19:29:04 · answer #1 · answered by Michael M 2 · 3 1

I'm guessing its a quark. They are fundamental particles that make up hadrons. As of this moment, i believe these are the smallest particles we have proof of, although there are theories pointing to smaller ones.

2006-07-23 02:02:34 · answer #2 · answered by polloloco.rb67 4 · 0 0

In all probability, we are going to find that infinity defines the Micro and Macro of the Universe(s)

Try the "Unattainium" Particle LOL

2006-07-23 02:06:38 · answer #3 · answered by TommyTrouble 4 · 0 0

Quarks are the smallest 'generic' particle type accepted by all physicists. Superstrings are the smallest to M-theorists and the like.

2006-07-23 02:01:30 · answer #4 · answered by Charles G 4 · 0 0

God, Devil and physicists.
The wise God carefully collected the constants of Nature
to build our beautiful Earth.
At one time, physicists wanted to build the picture of Genesis
originating from the basic constants of Nature.
And what are they doing now?
In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists to enlarge the target.
Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping to understand
their inner structure. And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs its real constants of nature. But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs.
He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
======================
Best wishes.
Socratus.

2006-07-23 03:21:42 · answer #5 · answered by socratus 2 · 0 0

According to new theories its the super string
but people say quarks(this is not about the string theory)

2006-07-23 02:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by josyula 2 · 0 0

Crushgal is correct--there is speculation that quarks have a substructure, but no experiements have yet supported this theory.

2006-07-23 02:04:30 · answer #7 · answered by Pepper 4 · 0 0

It's an amoeba

2006-07-23 01:59:48 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin_Widing 2 · 0 0

Isn't it a quark?

2006-07-23 02:00:47 · answer #9 · answered by Crushgal 3 · 0 0

Photons... doh :>

2006-07-23 02:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by Chie 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers