2006-09-07 05:56:54 · 12 answers · asked by goring 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Perhaps its a gravity phenomena?
2006-09-07 05:59:59 · update #1
they acquire spherical shape so as to retain minimum surface area and as surface area of sphear is least hence this spherical shape.
2006-09-07 06:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by joji 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fundamental particles such as the electron are point-like, with no discernible size. Such an entity has no volume so cannot be considered a sphere, cube or anything else with volume.
Protons are not fundamental, but constructed from 3 quarks bound together by the strong nuclear force. Three points moving around in a potential energy well are not a sphere either, although the shape of the energy well may be spherical.
2006-09-07 11:27:37 · answer #2 · answered by SAN 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would you believe that elementary particles are "spherical" in the first place? It can't be measured due to the uncertainty principle - the dimensions are just too small!
The energy argument (sphere has lowest energy) does lend strength to "assuming" the spherical shape of elementary particles.
The visualization of strings does not require any "shape."
Ever heard of a photon being considered a sphere?
2006-09-07 06:15:18 · answer #3 · answered by bubsir 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, there is nothing that indicates that subatomic particles have to be spherical in their actual 'structures'.
Some particles are so tiny, that the fields around them may often be treated as spherical for most practical purposes, but that's not exactly the same thing.
2006-09-07 06:13:08 · answer #4 · answered by Jay T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not truly known that the sub atomic particles are spherical. It is only assumed because that is the shape things in nature tend to be. A sphere is a extremely stable form.
2006-09-07 06:12:24 · answer #5 · answered by Scott S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who said they were spherical ??
Mass, electric field, weak forces etc may not really be a physical object at all but a leakage point from other dimensions where the forces leak into our 3 dimensions.
guess what? those points may not occupy any space since mathematical points don't have dimensions in height, width, and depth.
think about it. It's not the particles that you interact with, but their forces.
2006-09-07 06:00:37 · answer #6 · answered by a1tommyL 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi. We don't know what the physical shape of the massive particles are. (Photons have no mass.)
2006-09-07 06:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the concept of "shape" does not apply to those particles. They are not even localised at one point in space!
2006-09-07 06:59:10 · answer #8 · answered by AntoineBachmann 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I loveee Nina Simone!! Sinnerman is probably my customary song. that's so unusual, I even don't know what it truly is about except for the obtrusive - a guy operating away, yet all the stuff about boiling rivers? I dunno, it basically makes me snigger.
2016-11-25 19:15:40 · answer #9 · answered by start 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it requires less energy at steady state then any other configuration and distributes energy the most efficiently.
2006-09-07 05:59:53 · answer #10 · answered by Good luck chief 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋