Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Are quarks the smallest particles because of their weight and size?
Small relates to size, right? So what else could it be?Are quarks the smallest particles because of their weight and size?
If your question boils down to: "Is the thing with the lowest mass the least massive?" then the answer is "Yes".Are quarks the smallest particles because of their weight and size?
Actually there is… do you have the volume of every element? Stanford used to but they deleted it.If your question boils down to: "Is the thing with the lowest mass the least massive?" then the answer is "Yes".
If your question boils down to: "Is the thing with the smallest volume the one with the least size?", the answer is also "Yes".
Anything else we can help you with?
Depends on what you mean.Actually there is… do you have the volume of every element?
Apparently quarks are comprised of smaller particles called preons...so I’m guessing quarks are the most dense particles known.
Atomic radii are widely available for every element, e.g. on this version of the Periodic Table: https://ptable.com/#PropertiesActually there is… do you have the volume of every element? Stanford used to but they deleted it.
I really appreciate your use of volume.
so I’m guessing quarks are the most dense particles known.
I’m wondering more along the lines of say you have two particles that are the same size and different weight. Which one would be the smallest?Small relates to size, right? So what else could it be?
You've just said they are the same size. How can one be "smallest"?I’m wondering more along the lines of say you have two particles that are the same size and different weight. Which one would be the smallest?
"Size" and "density" don't seem to be relevant at the subatomic level.I’m wondering more along the lines of say you have two particles that are the same size and different weight.
Or perhaps nobody has devised a good way to measure that."Size" and "density" don't seem to be relevant at the subatomic level.
So which is smaller? A photon or the Higgs boson?Elemental particles do not have a size, they are point particles. Since point particles do not have a size they do not have a volume so they have no density.
Elemental particle do have mass so if you are interested just look up the mass of elemental particles. The mass of a down quark is more than the mass of an electron which has a higher mass than a neutrino... yadda..
A photon is an EM wave so you could say it's 'size' is related to the wavelength. So there is some 'size' to a photon. Bosons are point particles so they do not have a measurable size, therefore a photon is bigger. The obvious problem is that we are applying classical definitions to quantum objects so these descriptions are not exactly right.So which is smaller? A photon or the Higgs boson?
No. The Higgs boson is not the smallest particle with mass as was just discussed in previous posts.shouldn’t it be the Higgs because it is the smallest particle with mass?
No. The Higgs boson is not the smallest particle with mass as was just discussed in previous posts.Smallest stationary particle maybe?
I thought a photon was a bosonA photon is an EM wave so you could say it's 'size' is related to the wavelength. So there is some 'size' to a photon. Bosons are point particles so they do not have a measurable size, therefore a photon is bigger. The obvious problem is that we are applying classical definitions to quantum objects so these descriptions are not exactly right.
No. The Higgs boson is not the smallest particle with mass as was just discussed in previous posts.
No. The Higgs boson is not the smallest particle with mass as was just discussed in previous posts.
A boson is any particle that has integer spin. Photons have spin 1, so they are bosons.I thought a photon was a boson
Thanks for the clarification/correction.A boson is any particle that has integer spin. Photons have spin 1, so they are bosons.
All particles have wave-like properties, as described by quantum physics. So, saying "a photon is an EM wave" is not quite right, in one sense, but completely correct in another.
So a captured photon in a hydrogen particle would have a distance of one as an ejected one could have been within the 1.01 to 1 distanceA boson is any particle that has integer spin. Photons have spin 1, so they are bosons.
All particles have wave-like properties, as described by quantum physics. So, saying "a photon is an EM wave" is not quite right, in one sense, but completely correct in another.