Are Particles Theoretically Tangible?

[JairCrawford]

I want to preface this question by saying that this is not being asked for any apologetic reason or from any pseudo-scientific perspective. This is pure curiosity in the science driving this question.

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around anything when it comes to quantum physics so do bear with me in that regard. I’ve been reading that particles sometimes behave as waves. I’ve also heard some scientists suggest that all particles are are merely manifestations of interactions of various fields.

I don’t understand much about the numbers and the science of any of the above, but it did make me wonder… if we could go down, could we even theoretically ‘touch’ a quark? Is it even something that could be touched? Would it be considered material or would it manifest more like a ball of energy (genuine question, not trying to be pseudo here. If that’s a totally wrong premise, let me know.)?

Or is this speculation a moot point because we can’t actually shrink ourselves to test it? lol

[HappySkeptic]

Ask Ant Man?

The properties we associate with matter are bulk properties. Gold is shiny, can be felt, etc.

At the quantum level, there are just interactions, ensembles in superposition, and the probability for measured properties. By the time we measure anything from the quantum level, an interaction has occurred where the quantum level information has been multiplied and reified into something macroscopic.

So, no, thinking of "touching" a quark doesn't have much meaning.

[JairCrawford]

Ask Ant Man?

The properties we associate with matter are bulk properties. Gold is shiny, can be felt, etc.

At the quantum level, there are just interactions, ensembles in superposition, and the probability for measured properties. By the time we measure anything from the quantum level, an interaction has occurred where the quantum level information has been multiplied and reified into something macroscopic.

So, no, thinking of "touching" a quark doesn't have much meaning.

See I’m hearing what you’re saying, but I’m having a hard time conceptualising it. I guess I have a hard time breaking away from imagining the smallest parts as physical “building blocks”, conceptually. I have a hard time imagining everything being made of something that’s not tangible. But I guess if quarks were tangible, we’d eventually be asking what makes them, and so on and so forth.

[polymath257]

Touch happens because out touch detectors send a signal to our brains. They are pressure activated, which ultimately means they are triggered by the repulsion of electrons between whatever you touch and the skin.

So, touch depends on the electromagnetic properties of whatever you touch.

So, a charged particle could be considered to be 'tangible' in the sense you ask for, but it would not be a 'solid' sphere. It would be more like a ball with vague edges that gradually thickens is you go in. This would be what an electron would 'feel like' if you could shrink that far (and you can't).

But a neutrino, which is electrically neutral (no charge) would feel like literally nothing. In fact, about 70 billion neutrinos go through every square centimeter of your skin every second with no effects.

Or you could talk about photons, which are literally particles of light. You might have a 'warm' feeling if the photon is not very energetic, to a fast burn if it is.

Also, there are other forces than electromagnetism. So, quarks also interact via the strong nuclear force. if you had 'touch' for the strong force (you don't), a quark would feel much 'harder' than the electrons above, but still with indefinite edges.

This said, the whole sense of touch is a macroscopic thing. It really doesn't make sense to even discuss it. The term 'tangible' is misleading at this level.

[JairCrawford]

Touch happens because out touch detectors send a signal to our brains. They are pressure activated, which ultimately means they are triggered by the repulsion of electrons between whatever you touch and the skin.

So, touch depends on the electromagnetic properties of whatever you touch.

So, a charged particle could be considered to be 'tangible' in the sense you ask for, but it would not be a 'solid' sphere. It would be more like a ball with vague edges that gradually thickens is you go in. This would be what an electron would 'feel like' if you could shrink that far (and you can't).

But a neutrino, which is electrically neutral (no charge) would feel like literally nothing. In fact, about 70 billion neutrinos go through every square centimeter of your skin every second with no effects.

Or you could talk about photons, which are literally particles of light. You might have a 'warm' feeling if the photon is not very energetic, to a fast burn if it is.

Also, there are other forces than electromagnetism. So, quarks also interact via the strong nuclear force. if you had 'touch' for the strong force (you don't), a quark would feel much 'harder' than the electrons above, but still with indefinite edges.

This said, the whole sense of touch is a macroscopic thing. It really doesn't make sense to even discuss it. The term 'tangible' is misleading at this level.

Tangibility is really more of a theoretical question, since we can’t actually shrink ourselves at all to find out, let alone to quantum levels.

I think essentially what I’m trying to grasp is… at the quantum level are particles that are responsible for matter, in and of themselves material in nature? Is, say, a proton an actual physical object? Or is it better understood as three quarks all more energy-like and fuzzy spinning around so fast that once you zoom out, we get the illusion of a material nature? (Again… not trying to delve into any pseudoscience here. Just trying to wrap my head around this.)

[Jehanne]

Last I read is that an isolated quark has never been observed.

[JairCrawford]

Last I read is that an isolated quark has never been observed.

From what I remember, protons and neutrons are made of different combinations of three quarks. But an electron, is basically the size of one quark.

[Paleophyte]

Tangibility is really more of a theoretical question, since we can’t actually shrink ourselves at all to find out, let alone to quantum levels.

I think essentially what I’m trying to grasp is… at the quantum level are particles that are responsible for matter, in and of themselves material in nature? Is, say, a proton an actual physical object? Or is it better understood as three quarks all more energy-like and fuzzy spinning around so fast that once you zoom out, we get the illusion of a material nature? (Again… not trying to delve into any pseudoscience here. Just trying to wrap my head around this.)

The answer to that is "Yes". It's a matter of perspective. Think of it this way, is a chair a single solid object? Or a collection of wood fibers? Or a grouping of organic molecules? If you're sitting on it it's one thing, if you're doing biochemical analysis it's another. It's both at the same time, we just have different ways of looking at it.

That's what makes the quantum realm so counterintuitive, We live on a scale where waves are waves and particles are particles and never the twain shall meet. At our scale air pressure is constant across our bodies because the enormous number of atoms pushing on us averages out all variability. Look through even a modest optical microscope though and you can start to see that variability. Small objects get nudged about by Brownian motion as molecules smack into them at different rates, Not something that we typically sense but you can see it with any old high school microscope. Go even smaller and the rules get even less like what we're used to. Harder to comprehend by brains trained to obey walk lights and treat vehicles as discreet particles. Go small enough and particles are also waves and fields. You can look at them and describe them in any of those terms and they'll act that way too. But our common sense gets in the way of thinking that way.

[Jehanne]

Last I read is that an isolated quark has never been observed.

From what I remember, protons and neutrons are made of different combinations of three quarks. But an electron, is basically the size of one quark.

An electron (at least a bound one) is a wave as well as a particle; it is problematic to speak of its size. Ditto for quarks, which, from my understanding, have most of their mass in the nuclear fields that bind them together. Such is the realm of QCD, the complex theories that describe the nuclei of atoms.

A great book on all of this is Modern Physics by Professor Kenneth Krane, a sophomore level undergraduate physics textbook; many other similar texts are also available.

[polymath257]

Touch happens because out touch detectors send a signal to our brains. They are pressure activated, which ultimately means they are triggered by the repulsion of electrons between whatever you touch and the skin.

So, touch depends on the electromagnetic properties of whatever you touch.

So, a charged particle could be considered to be 'tangible' in the sense you ask for, but it would not be a 'solid' sphere. It would be more like a ball with vague edges that gradually thickens is you go in. This would be what an electron would 'feel like' if you could shrink that far (and you can't).

But a neutrino, which is electrically neutral (no charge) would feel like literally nothing. In fact, about 70 billion neutrinos go through every square centimeter of your skin every second with no effects.

Or you could talk about photons, which are literally particles of light. You might have a 'warm' feeling if the photon is not very energetic, to a fast burn if it is.

Also, there are other forces than electromagnetism. So, quarks also interact via the strong nuclear force. if you had 'touch' for the strong force (you don't), a quark would feel much 'harder' than the electrons above, but still with indefinite edges.

This said, the whole sense of touch is a macroscopic thing. It really doesn't make sense to even discuss it. The term 'tangible' is misleading at this level.

Tangibility is really more of a theoretical question, since we can’t actually shrink ourselves at all to find out, let alone to quantum levels.

I think essentially what I’m trying to grasp is… at the quantum level are particles that are responsible for matter, in and of themselves material in nature? Is, say, a proton an actual physical object? Or is it better understood as three quarks all more energy-like and fuzzy spinning around so fast that once you zoom out, we get the illusion of a material nature? (Again… not trying to delve into any pseudoscience here. Just trying to wrap my head around this.)

But what does 'tangilibity' even mean? It means it 'can be touched'. By what mechanism will you be touching the particle? For that matter, we can't 'touch' very small 'particles' in our atmosphere that are actually quite large on an atomic scale.

Similarly, what does the term 'material' mean? What does it mean to be a 'physical object'?

Think of it like this. What, precisely, makes air a 'material'? Why is it 'physical'? Because air most certainly *is* physical. I wouldn't call air an 'object', though. What is it that makes a dust speck 'tangible' when we cannot actually touch it?

My viewpoint is that electrons and quarks are 'physical' because physics studies them. So are photons and neutrinos, etc. And, for that matter, 'energy-like and fuzzy spinning around' would be physical and material.

Ultimately, I don't find designations like 'tangible' or 'material' to be useful at this level. They confuse and are beside the point.

---

Last I read is that an isolated quark has never been observed.

That is correct. They always occur in combinations: 3 for baryons and 2 for mesons. For example, a proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark. A neutron consists of two down and one up. A pion can be *either* an up and an anti-up OR a down and an anti-down. This is another quantum mechanical twist: the very composition is in a superposition.