Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there the smallest particle that can be guaranteed to be unable to be broken down into smaller particles?

share|cite|improve this question
I guess electrons and neutrinos can't be broken into smaller parts but I have no proof. – Mohammad Al-Turkistany Apr 14 '11 at 17:53
Do you mean "are the elementary particles of the standard model really elementary, or are they composed of smaller particles? – anna v Apr 14 '11 at 17:57

In particle physics, you have to be specific about what you mean by breaking down a particle: A neutron in an atom can decay into a proton, an electron, and an electron-antineutrino. But this does not mean that a neutron is made of a proton, an electron and an electron-antineutrino. What the neutron is made of are three quarks (one up and two down).

If by unable to break down into smaller particles you mean that a particle has no internal structure, then our current understanding is that electrons, muons, taus, their corresponding neutrinos, all the quarks, as well as the photon, the gluon, the Z- and the W-boson, together with all the anti-particles, are all elementary particles. ,

Can this be guaranteed? No. Nothing really can be guaranteed in physics. Ever finer measurements mean that we are ever more sure about the elementary nature of, e.g., the electron. We can conclude that at the length-scales currently accessible for probing, the electron has no internal structure. This does not rule out that a structure might be found at tinier scales. This is what happened with protons and neutrons, where scattering experiments gave results that were inconsistent with assuming a point-particle with no internal structure.

Note that, although the aforementioned particles are counted as elementary particles, they can decay: See Muon Decay

share|cite|improve this answer

A particle can only decay into particles with smaller (rest) masses than itself. So the lowest-mass particle can't decay.

Since there are zero-mass particles, that argument by itself doesn't suffice to show that there are any massive particles that can't decay, but we can strengthen the argument a bit to show that there are. Because charge is conserved, the decay products of a charged particle must include at least one charged particle. So the lowest-mass charged particle can't decay. That's why electrons are stable.

The same argument applies to any conserved quantity, not just electric charge. In (some? all?) supersymmetric theories, there is a conserved quantity called R-parity. The lightest particle with nontrivial R-parity must be stable. That means that such theories always have an additional stable particle, besides the ones we know about. That particle is often called the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). In these theories, particles like this should have been produced in the early Universe. Since the LSP can't decay, it should still be around today. The LSP is one of the most popular candidates to be the dark matter in the Universe.

share|cite|improve this answer

I would like to add to the previous answers that compositeness of the elementary particles of the standard model is an ongoing research question, not favored by theoriticians.

CMS has a preprint out where they are searching for compositeness in dijet angular distributions.

The measured dijet angular distributions can be used to set limits on quark compositeness represented by a four-fermion contact interaction term in addition to the QCD Lagrangian.

They have set limits.

share|cite|improve this answer

That depends on what you call a particle.

And what you mean by breaking down, exactly, In the context of this definition of particle, of course.

And, most importantly, what you mean by guarantee.

It you have that, it's either trivial - just looking up current state of physics.

Or it can not be answered in a meaningful way.
It makes no sense to begin with to give guarantees on what scientist may still discover in infinite time.

(I see no obvious definition of "guarantee" that causes the trivial case to work out)

share|cite|improve this answer

There will never be the last tiny particle. The particle is only as tiny as we can break it otherwise if we have instruments to break it further, there will never be a tiniest particle it is only as tiny as our limitation of instrument of breaking it more.

share|cite|improve this answer
I dont think that you can say this. String theory for example considers strings as smallest internal structure. Nobody knows, if there is a smallest possible length scale in the universe, so in principle there can be a smallest possible particle. What I actually want to say, i think to say "there will never be" is not good, since we don't have enough knowledge about this. – Noldig Feb 3 '13 at 21:06

protected by Qmechanic Feb 3 '13 at 20:42

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.