Could there be a basic particle?
We call this one of the “dirty questions” in physics. That’s because the answer only makes sense if a whole set of qualifications are applied to the question. In order to support an affirmative answer, the shortest set of postulates is that the basic particle is infinitely small in size, and infinitely light in mass. That brings to mind the mathematical quandary of 0/0 = ? – hardly an answer at all.
In order to make more sense of the question, we are faced with the need to pin down a few axioms. The first is that while there may be a basic particle, we are confronted with the reality that we are forbidden from observing it directly. Within that restriction, we are able to construct a set of conditions that describe what we might encounter as we dive down the rabbit hole.
Upon familiarizing oneself with the details of quantum mechanics, we realize that as the particle becomes smaller, we are required to use what is euphemistically described as a bigger microscope, a brighter light, or a sharper knife to peel away the layers. We know that each of these tools has a more profound effect on the subject we are observing. We all know the bromide: “You disturb the process your observing, by the simple fact of observing it.”
What we do know is that there exists a panoply of basic particles that are far too small to observe, yet we can predict their characteristics and behavior with incredible precision and accuracy; with one gaping exception. We really do not know what makes each of them different and unique!
From the time of Democritus to the end if the 19th century, theories were developed, refined, and rejected. In the 20th century quantum theory peeled another layer of reality only to reveal deeper mysteries. Physicists have taught us that we must not expect extrapolations our physical experience to behave at all scales up and down the cosmological and quantum ladder. To proceed we must cast off assumptions and re-establish a new set of axioms.
Our journey to the basic particle begins with the assumption that the universe consists of some very fundamental things. Why? Because if I was designing the universe, I’d do it by establishing the fewest number of basic rules that are self-enforcing. It just makes the most sense to proceed from that assumption, anything else requires additional effort. So that is the 1st rule: Simple is better!
It is now necessary to infer something beyond a rule or concept, something tangible. The order we assume these characteristics may prove to be fundamental to the notion of the ‘basic particle’ we are attempting to describe, although a good theory requires the order to be irrelevant. For now please accept the premise until it can be demonstrated to be moot. Whichever step we take first, we are adding no less than double the complexity to what we’ve initially established.
There is a thing we call separation, distance, or length if you prefer. It is that thing that makes space take up space. For our purposes we may safely deduce that there are no less than three mutually perpendicular dimensions or directions, because we have observed them, although there might be more, we’ll get to that in due time (#4). So while we have defined the essence of space-time, we have yet to actually instantiate any. Time has been shown to behave in a manner that is quite similar to space, mathematically speaking.
The other half of the model we are creating is the stuff we call mass. Einstein gave us language to understand mass to be equivalent to energy, and thereby we can now understand both classes of particles fermions and bosons. Furthermore, since there are three, or four perpendicular dimensions of space-time, it is safe to assume that there exists a similar number of dimensions of mass. And no, this notion does not make bathroom scales more complex, any more than the three dimensions of space make the closet yardstick an impractical device for adjusting curtains in the morning and at night. There is still no such thing as a preferred frame of reference.
We have now defined some of the basic stuff that would be necessary for there to be a universe. However in order to make the universe useful, it still needs to exist. In this case existence implies that a complete set of characteristics are assembled in one place to make up something that we desire. While is is possible to assemble something less than a complete object or item, the parts remain less than the whole. A point has no length, a line has no area, a plane has no volume, and a volume needs to exist for a while to be recognized. Space-time devoid of mass-energy is incredibly boring and hardly worth investigating further, unless you’re a mathematician.
At this point it should occur to the reader that we have established no less than two and no more than eight fundamental things that a real universe would require to exist at all. Returning to the original question, “Could there be a basic particle?” the answer is that the basic particle would consist of no less than two (and no more than eight) of these fundamental units of stuff that we have declared the universe to consist of. This may not be a satisfying conclusion, it is however supported by logic and observation.
We have now reached a low plateau as we build the model for a particle up, for we have defined what the lowliest particle must possess in order to be, while introducing the possibility of multiple variations that we would appear to have no possible way of distinguishing. Just because mathematicians explore empty space, it does not mean they are not our friends.
Theoretical physicist Murray Gell-Mann won the Nobel prize for his work in this area leading to quark theories. While his work led to predictions that were able to be verified, there is still no rule or rules that establish the ratios among the the fundamental things explored here so far. History shows that as physicists improve their craft, they unravel the deeper layers of nature. Rocks gave way to chemicals, chemicals to atoms, atoms to electrons, protons, and neutrons, the subatomic to quarks and gluons. How many more layers might there be?
The simple theory outlined here is a bottom up approach. How many permutations between the bottom and the eightfold way of Gell-Mann and Ne’eman? The first requirement, simplicity tends to favor symmetry among the dimensions of space-time, and, mass-energy respectively. The question remains then which is simpler?
a) Addition of another dimension or dimensions to space-time and mass energy increasing the degrees of freedom of the system / universe.
b) Addition of coefficients to the existing dimensions that could reveal a preferred frame of reference in space-time-mass-energy, reducing the degrees of freedom?
This author strongly prefers the former, although that would require an even greater number of basic particles of indistinguishable characteristics.
At this point, it is again necessary to point out that the there is an interaction between the observer and the observed. The notion of a single basic particle, one that consists of the smallest assembly of unique characteristics that constitute existence is difficult to dispute, while observing it is equally impossible to envision. What knife can one use to slice into the uncut-able fabric of space? How quickly can one stare at the smallest possible interval of time? Pile enough mass into a small space and it bends the space, while some of the mass changes into energy and visa-versa.
Could there be a basic particle? Yes, but now you know why this is one of those dirty questions.
