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. In fact, as soon as I read this I felt kind of silly for having such a thought at all. It doesn't really make much sense to speak of "engraving" an atom because an atom is, after all, a collection of smaller particles itself. So even if you did this, say, by firing subatomic particles into it, you aren't really "engraving" the atom; all you're doing is knocking its smaller constituents out of their nuclear bonds. Nothing is really being engraved because nothing is actually being carved or cut.This got me thinking about whether or not it could be done with those particles comprising the atom. Well, no, because protons and neutrons are, themselves, composed of quarks so I again came to the conclusion that nothing was actually being "cut" in any meaningful way. All that was happening was that some particles were being separated from some other particles.And so we come to quarks. Now, as best as I understand, quarks are believed to be fundamental quanta of matter. Or at least fundamental particulate quanta of matter. They may, on an even smaller scale, be coiled up superstrings, but to the best of my knowledge they are not believed to be comprised of any smaller, more fundamental particles.In any case, it's not particularly relevant whether they are or not, as my question regards the most elementary particles, whatever they are. All we really need to be concerned with is that it is the nature of those particles which contain no smaller constituent particles that I'm asking about.So, returning to my original question, when dealing with a truly elementary particle with no smaller parts, would it be possible, even if only in principle, to "engrave" it as I originally thought was meant by the "Writing Words on an Atom" page? 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?Hmm, sorry for prattling for so long. I could probably have made my point in half the length but it's characteristic of me to over-articulate everything I say. Well, kudos to all who are still reading.Admins, please feel free to move as you see fit. More questions may follow depending on the answers I get, and there may be more discussion of black holes, so you might want to put it in cosmology, I guess. It's more particle physics than cosmology, though, so it's up to you. It's all the same to me.

Hey Tony,It's an interesting question, and you do a good job articulating. But speaking of "cutting" ... your question really is obscured by your ... "wordy" style.I would suggest starting around "So, returning to my original question" and going from there. I think if you get to the question much faster, rather than focusing on your thought process, your post becomes a lot shorter. I don't think doing that would make your post hard to understand either.At least, that's my take on it, and I'm the one plowing through PNT at the moment. P.S. I it when people give their threads a nice title. Don't touch that baby!

Thanks, Ben.Heh, I do have a problem with over-articulation, though, don't I? If there's one thing I'm really bad at, it's writing short, concise messages. I assume that you meant to leave the first part (including the quote). Hopefully that's what you meant. I left the first sentence after the quote and added a few words to lead it straight into the suggested paragraph. I also took out the last two paragraphs. They weren't really necessary any more. Hopefully that'll do the job. Heh, thanks. I just try to make the title fit the topic.I'll post the amended message below for comparison to the original. Here's hoping it's ok.

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?This message has been edited by AdminBen, Sunday, 2005/05/15 01:05 PM

Just a bump, and a little more info while I'm at it. I thought I'd better clarify exactly what I altered, in case there was any confusion.Firstly, I left the first sentence after the quote... Then I rewrote the remainder of that paragraph, and the next three paragraphs, in the summarized form... ...and lead this directly into the first sentence of the suggested paragraph, which, for continuity, I rephrased slightly from... ...to... I then separated the remainder of that paragraph into a new paragraph, and, again to make it flow a little better, changed... ...to... And, as previously mentioned, I also took the liberty of removing the two redundant paragraphs at the end... ...and... I'm pretty sure that's it. Hopefully that clears up what I did. Once again, the revised version is posted as message 4, for admin review and comparison to the original. Please feel free to indicate any further changes you'd like made.

The changes look good. I'm going to move this to "Big Bang and Cosmology" (since my personal hunch is that your question of the EFFECTS of this indivisibility / inability to 'carve' will be the most fruitful part of the discussion). I can move it to "Coffee House" if that's not what you want; just post a note in one of the "Suggestion and Comments" forums' threads.