home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!csa1.lbl.gov!sichase
- From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
- Date: 3 Jan 1993 20:19 PST
- Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
- Lines: 26
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <3JAN199320195700@csa1.lbl.gov>
- References: <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
-
- In article <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
- >Why are elementary particles small?
-
- Because, neglecting String Theory, they are all pointlike so far as we know.
- All structures with nonzero size are bound states of more fundamental
- particles, e.g., the proton is composed of quarks and gluons.
-
- >If there were an elementary particle the size of a baseball,
- >what color would it be? What would happen if you touched it?
-
- It depends entirely upon how it interacts electromagnetically. Also, it
- would probably be unstable, quickly decaying into lighter particles.
- Noting precludes the existence of a baseball-sized partis, but there is
- no evidence for them either. If it were composite, it would be very difficult
- to construct an interaction strong enough to keep the constituents closely
- bound at the radius of a baseball which we would not have noticed yet.
- But if it were fundamental and very massive, then there is no reason
- why we would have discovered it yet - so who knows?
-
- -Scott
- --------------------
- Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
- SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
- been a single cell so long ago myself that I
- have no memory at all of that stage of my
- life." - Lewis Thomas
-