The resilience of matter's fundamental components

Ok, time for another of my customary dumb layman's questions.During a recent web stroll I came across a page titled "Writing Words on an Atom." At first, I really wasn't sure what to make of the title. The only thing I could come up with was that it must mean somehow "engraving" words on an atom. But once I started reading I realized pretty quickly that I was on the wrong track. So, obviously, my initial reaction was wrong. This got me wondering, though, if such a thing is even possible. Not with atoms, but with the fundamental quanta of matter. That is, when dealing with a truly elementary particle with no smaller parts, would it be possible, even if only in principle, to "engrave" it, in any real sense?To be clear, I am not so much concerned with whether or not we could actually articulate words on it, as whether or not it is physically possible to cut, groove, dent, bend, squash, stretch, crack, etc a particle which is made of nothing more fundamental. Is our everyday intuition that matter can be manipulated this way simply wrong?In our everyday experience, things can be broken, ripped, compressed, split, and so on. However, at the microscopic level, none of this actually happens. When you cut an apple in half, for example, you aren't really cutting anything. All you're doing is separating all the particles on one side from all the particles on the other side. You don't actually cut through any matter; in essence, you cut between it. That is, you don't end up with a heap of sliced quarks on either side when you're finished. And yes, I understand that no blade is sharp enough to do that anyway, but I'm going somewhere with this.Now, this is all pretty straight-forward but my question (one of them) regards the nature of matter's most fundamental particles, and whether or not they can be manipulated in the way macroscopic objects can. Or are they, in some sense, invulnerable? In other words, would it be possible, say, by colliding them in an accelerator, to "damage" quarks in some way? Could they be cracked or dented or broken in half or anything else despite having no composite structure? Or are they indeed physically impregnable?If they are totally impervious to physical manipulation of any kind then this would seem to impose a practical limit on certain events, would it not? For example, I've heard that it is possible, in principle, for a black hole to collapse indefinitely. But if there is a point beyond which matter will be moved no further, a point where all of the intervening space is gone and the singularity is literally a volume of "absolute" mass (i.e. containing no empty space within its fundamental structure), then is it not an impassable limit for any imploding matter? If matter's most basic components absolutely will not be compressed then once the space between them is gone they have nowhere left to go, do they? So would this not halt any collapse?I understand that atoms, themselves, were so named because the Greek root means "that which cannot be divided" (as was believed of atoms, at the time). So, regardless of what the fundamental components of matter actually are, whether we now know them or there is something even further down making up quarks, electrons, and so forth, is it true that the most basic "parts" of matter are, in fact, not malleable the way that matter appears to be on the macroscopic scale? Would it be correct to say that, at the most basic level, you can't actually do anything to matter, beyond manipulating the relative positions of its fundamental "pieces"?Or am I all turned around here? Can matter's fundamental quanta indeed be manipulated this way? Could we collide quarks and split them open? Would the matter in a singularity continue to collapse after all of the empty space had been filled; would it simply proceed to compress the quarks, relentlessly, into oblivion?

Ah! Thanks, Ben. No, Big Bang and Cosmology is fine. As I said, it really doesn't bother me where it goes. As long as it's where you think it belongs. If you're happy I'm happy.Thanks for helping me clean up my post, too.

Yes, that's what I suspected.Once again, I'm not concerned specifically with engraving, just whether or not you can do anything to matter short of simply moving it. "Splitting an atom," for example, doesn't actually split anything, as such. All it really does is separate some particles from some other particles. So what sense can it make to speak of "splitting" (or cracking, breaking, denting, compressing, etc) particles which have no smaller components to manipulate?This is how I came to the conclusion that the only thing you could really do to them is move them around. You can't alter their actual form in any way because...well...they have no form. They have no internal structure that you can manipulate to affect their overall shape, size, etc. In essence, they are the basis of form. Is this correct? Yes, I knew this would become an issue. I'm speaking of fundamental particles as if they are golf balls, but always in the back of my head is the knowledge that things just don't "work" the same way at that level. This does confuse things, no doubt, but I'll press on, all the same.If, then, we've established that fundamental particles cannot be manipulated in any way, save for being moved around, then does this impose a limit on the collapse of black holes? Or is there perhaps some quantum-mechanical loophole that allows a singularity to deplete all empty space within its structure and still continue to collapse?

Yes, I understand that the article I cited is not talking about engraving anything. That was just my initial assumption, which I quickly realized was wrong.But it made me wonder if it could be done. And again, not just "engraving" a particle, but doing essentially anything to a particle. It seems to me that if a given particle is truly a fundamental quantum of matter then it should be impossible to break it, bend it, squash it, stretch it, and so on. I am thinking that the ability to do so would imply that it has some kind of internal (or rather, more fundamental) structure which is being manipulated. I don't see how any of this could be done to a particle with no smaller "pieces."This, of course, leads into my other questions. As above, one of my main curiosities is whether or not this means that the collapse of a black hole is fundamentally limited by how much empty space it contains. In essence, is the totality of its collapse limited by the "density" of its quarks? Does that make sense?

Hmm...anyone?For those of you just joining us, here is the highly abridged version.At this point the question is, essentially, if matter's fundamental quanta cannot be manipulated (split, chipped, squashed, stretched, etc) is there a practical limit to how far a black hole can collapse?That is, does the singularity reach a state of "absolute mass" when its most fundamental particles are compressed to the point where no empty space remains between them? Does this state represent an impenetrable limit to how far the mass can collapse?

Yes, this makes things quite difficult. I have a ton of questions along these lines that are bouncing around in my head at the moment and I'm not really sure how to phrase any of them, or even organize them into coherent thoughts.Ok. Let's see.I realize that once a mass has collapsed to a certain size the concept of distance itself becomes kind of fuzzy. But what if it reaches the state of "maximum compression" before it's small enough for things like quantum indeterminacy and the Planck limit to be of any consequence? Is this possible? Wouldn't it be, essentially, a question of mass?That is, could a great enough mass collapse to a stage where all of the empty space within its infrastructure was gone, yet its overall size was still on the macroscopic scale? I don't mean necessarily large, incidentally; just large enough that the mass is not, as a whole, subject to quantum effects. In a nutshell, it would be a body of matter (containing no empty space) whose size is sufficiently large that, overall, it should obey the familiar "everyday" laws of physics. Is this possible, even in principle?I'm thinking that, if quarks have a definite size, would it not simply be a matter of having enough in one place? This, of course, may be a practical impossibility but I'm only speaking hypothetically. For all I know, this may be one of those scenarios that requires more matter than exists in the universe but, in principle, could it happen? Given a massive enough body of matter, could it reach a state of being completely void of empty space, yet still macroscopic in its overall size?If so then would this object be up against the barrier that I mentioned? Would it be trapped in a state of being unable to collapse any further, due to the lack of available space for its quanta to retreat to as its overall size decreases?I realize that I'm thinking about this in a very "intuitive" way, which isn't the way to think when dealing with anything on the quantum scale, but I am in no way well-versed in this so I'm not sure how else to proceed.I know that quarks aren't actually little balls of matter the way I'm portraying them in my example; I'm just trying to get my head around the nature of mass in such a highly condensed state. Essentially, I'm trying to understand what happens when you take gravitational collapse to its greatest extreme.Now, my understanding may be flawed to begin with, but my basic train of thought is this: The volume of the mass, at the atomic scale, begins as almost entirely empty space. Then, during gravitational collapse, the particles comprising the matter press ever closer together, filling more and more of that space. As its overall size decreases, all of the space is eventually occupied by the body's constituent particles.As in my hypothetical above, if a body contained enough matter for its innards to reach this state while its overall size remained above the level at which quantum processes dominate, what exactly would its properties be? Would its collapse be halted? And if not then what would this mean for the matter comprising the body? If such a mass did continue to collapse then what exactly is "happening" to the matter within? I know what is happening to it (I think) when it has more space to which to retreat, but what of this scenario?Can we even know the answer to this, or is the model I'm suggesting just a meaningless thought experiment?

I did. The whole thing. Whew!Thanks for the link, but man...I'm feeling a little overwhelmed here! I'm no physicist, by any stretch of the imagination. I do believe I understood some of what was discussed but I'm afraid that much of it went over my head. Thank you, though. It was fascinating, none the less. Yes, I recall that. Does this mean, then, that it is not actually possible for quarks to be pressed together to a degree where no empty space is left between them? That a state of "absolute compression," where the quarks comprising a material body are packed tightly together, is actually a state that is physically impossible for them to assume, under any amount of gravitational pressure?Do I understand this correctly? If so then doesn't this just push the question back a level? Namely, what happens when the quarks within a collapsing body reach their lowest (i.e. occupying the smallest volume) stable state?Whether or not they can be pressed all the way together is kind of irrelevant to the overall question. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that they have a state of least volume beyond which they cannot go. Regardless of what that state is, my question is what happens once they get there?From what I've heard, black holes would seem to pass right through this barrier. But if so then what is actually happening to the matter inside them? Is this only possible because, once it reaches microscopic size, the singularity itself becomes subject to quantum effects?If this is the case then what about my hypothetical scenario, in my above reply to Sylas, in which a body is at its greatest state of compression, yet is still macroscopic in overall size and therefore not hindered by the spatial and temporal "fuzziness" of the quantum realm?Something else I remember gleaning from that lecture regarded mass itself. I don't recall the details so I may have this wrong, but the upshot of it (I think) was that an overall body can have mass even if its fundamental components have no mass of their own.Now, I don't know if I'm recalling that correctly, but if I am...how in the universe does that work? I can understand particles with a vanishingly tiny, yet non-zero mass, accumulating to give an overall body substantial mass. How, though, can a body composed of massless components, overall, have mass? How could even infinite massless particles add up to anything but zero total mass?I'm sure this was explained in the lecture, but it seems that I didn't grab enough of it to understand what was being said here. I actually listened to that portion a few times but I just couldn't figure it out.

Ah, point-like particles. This is another thing I've always had trouble wrapping my head around. I find the concept fascinating but I've never been able to really understand it.How, for example, can a point-like particle be said to "exist" if it has a total lack of dimension? In what sense is anything really "there" if it has no size? Are these things which we call "particles" actually nothing more than locations in spacetime?To clarify my meaning, when I think of a "point" I don't imagine it to be an actual, corporeal entity denoting a location in spacetime; I imagine it to be the location itself. Or to put it another way, I am of the understanding that "points" in spacetime do not actually exist in any tangible way; they are essentially an abstraction that we use to represent locations. Does this mean that, in some sense, matter is ultimately composed of nothing more than locations in spacetime?My other dilemma is how any quantity of zero-sized particles can comprise anything with non-zero size. No matter how many times you add zero to itself it will only ever be zero. How, then, can a body with a positive volume be composed of nothing but empty space and particles with no size?I knew that the vast majority of matter was empty space, but if its most basic components have no size at all then does it not follow that matter is actually 100% empty space? What, then, gives a material body its "substance"? Is it ultimately nothing but a web of forces spanning points (locations?) in spacetime?

Ah, yes! Energy is mass is energy.Something I've never been completely clear about, though, is what energy actually is in this context. Why, for example, does a photon have no mass? Does it not have energy? What exactly do "massive" particles have that it doesn't? This is one of the things that confuses me; particles that would seem to have energy yet no mass. Of course, I'm not sure how "energy" is defined at this level, so this is likely part of my problem.

Hi Brad. Thanks for the link.Yes, well this is something that kind of jolts my mind a bit. Of course, mind jolts are a pretty common occurrence when dealing with these subjects.The difficulty I have, in this case, is understanding how anything with a material substance can be composed of particles with no size. To my intuitive senses, "no size" equates to "non-existent." However, having said that, I then wonder about those locations themselves. Do they exist? As concepts, certainly. But pick any arbitrary location in spacetime and what is it that is being said to "exist"?I expect that the problem is that we think of locations in relative terms. If we were to find ourselves floating in a black, empty void with no contrasting "landmarks," however, I imagine the concept of "location" would become somewhat meaningless. In such a scenario, the only sense of location you could speak of would be relative to you.Ah, but relativity's off-topic here. We're talking about quantum theory, relativity's mortal enemy.

Hi sidelined.Sorry for taking so long to get back to this but I've been reading around a bit to see what I could find. Mmm...kind of.I understand that massive particles must travel slower than light and massless particles at the speed of light, but I'm not sure how that relates to their energy. If mass and energy are equivalent then is it possible for a particle to have one but not the other? Could it be that a photon, for example, possesses energy despite being massless?Hmm...I'm going to do a little amateur hypothesising here so pull me up if I go wrong anywhere.Massive particles have variable velocities, but it affects their mass with it approaching infinity as their velocity approaches the speed of light, correct? Massless particles, though, have a constant velocity and a constant mass (zero). So, if mass and energy are equivalent, is a particle's velocity itself an expression of its energy?Also, a couple of statements that leapt out at me... I'm still not sure what this means physically, though. I am very much a layman and not familiar with the underlying mathematical theory, so I really need some kind of physical model/approximation that I can visualize. If it's possible, could you (or anyone else reading) perhaps give me an example of this. It doesn't have to be anything complex. In fact, the more basic the better. Something illustrating a single particle's energy, for example, would be perfect.I believe I am still thinking, as you said, too much in terms of the common usage. When I hear the word "energy" I think of electrical energy, kinetic energy, etc. But this still isn't the essence of energy, any more than concepts like solid matter or liquid matter are the essence of matter, is it? To understand what matter is you need to get down to its fundamentals, so that's kind of what I'm trying to do with energy. Of course, this may be the wrong approach when it comes to energy, but I don't know how else to go about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "...energy that is localized with the framework of matter." Could you elaborate on this a little? You mention its rest mass so I am guessing that your statement refers strictly to only the energy that is inherent in matter. That is, to the exclusion of any effect the matter's velocity may have on its overall mass/energy. Is this correct?Sorry to hit you with all these questions. I'm just trying to get a handle on some things.

Not me. My threads aren't exactly renowned for their overwhelming popularity, so the more the merrier. Not quite. I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not this actually does happen, just whether or not it theoretically can happen. And if so, would it prevent any further collapse or would it continue unabated?I'm also curious about its general properties. Would a substance in this state be, in some sense, an "absolute" mass/density? If this is the greatest possible density then would it differ in any significant way from neutronic matter, which I believe is currently the densest substance known to exist?These aren't specifically for you to answer, GDR (though feel free, if you wish). I'm just throwing some thoughts around. Ultimately, there may turn out to be no answers anyway. It's quite possible that such a state simply can't be achieved by matter, and if so, it would render many of my questions effectively meaningless. Although, I suppose it would still leave open the question of why such a state is impossible.

I must admit, I've always had a really hard time with this. I don't understand in what sense a body with no volume can be said to "exist."Just to be sure of what you're saying, does the math actually show a singularity to be of zero size, or just something vanishingly small? That is, does it actually work out to zero and no more? Not a micron, not a nanometer, not even the size of Planck length itself...but zero? Absolutely and totally zero? From what I understand of this, I imagine that you really are saying zero, but I'm just making sure.In any case, an unimaginably small volume I have no problem with, but no volume at all ties my brain in knots. I've never been able to grasp the reality of it, as "no size" would seem, for all intents and purposes, to mean "not there." If you are indeed saying absolutely zero, and I suspect that you are, is there any way to grasp this beyond showing it mathematically (which I am not familiar with anyway)?

Thanks, sidelined. I'll take a look at that, too.

Damn! That's what I was afraid of. Well, in the meantime I'll just keep reading and see what else I can learn. It's not like I'm in any danger of exhausting my avenues of ignorance in these subjects.Thanks, Ned.