- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
So we're all on the same page here, "size" doesn't really exist in the way we think of it on a quantum level. There is *no* experimentally verified radius for the electron or any of the quarks. As best we can tell, they are point particles, occupying no physical space. Neutrons and protons have "size", i.e. seem to occupy physical space, because they are quarks held together by the strong force, and so their "size" is simply the range at which the strong force interactions between the quarks dominate. So, the smallest subatomic particle doesn't exist, as subatomic particles don't really have a size.
Does it take much knowledge of science to know how to make a nuclear, or something similar, bomb?
by AlexanderTheGreat on April 25th, 2011
| 2 people like this
What happened to string theory?
by yhtomit91 on January 3rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is the Ironman arc reactor technology possible?
by AhimsaDas on March 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
why do they say you can not change a radioactive half life when that is EXACTLY what we do in nuclear reactors and bombs?
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 10th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What conditions can change the half life of a certain radioactive element?
by Rakhitha91 on January 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading What is the smallest subatomic particle?
Comments
Nice answer - max pts. This is what I've read -- that quarks and electrons are empirically point-like. Untested string theories, however, put a lower limit on particle size on the order of the Planck length, don't they?
by xprofessor on April 22nd, 2008
I think the Uncertainty Principle puts a lower limit of the Planck length on anything. But that is so far below the limit of what we can detect so far that it is not relevant at the moment, not a long time in the future.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on November 17th, 2009