The smallest constituent particles of matter. The smallest lizard in the world

What do we know about particles smaller than an atom? And what is the smallest particle in the universe?

The world around us... Who among us has not admired its enchanting beauty? His bottomless night sky, strewn with billions of twinkling mysterious stars and the warmth of his affectionate sunlight. Emerald fields and forests, stormy rivers and boundless sea expanses. Sparkling peaks of majestic mountains and luscious alpine meadows. Morning dew and nightingale trill at dawn. A fragrant rose and a quiet murmur of a stream. A blazing sunset and the gentle rustle of a birch grove...

Is it possible to think of anything more beautiful than the world around us?! More powerful and impressive? And, at the same time, more fragile and tender? All this is the world where we breathe, love, rejoice, rejoice, suffer and mourn... All this is our world. The world in which we live, which we feel, which we see and which we at least somehow understand.

However, it is much more diverse and complex than it might seem at first glance. We know that luscious meadows would not have appeared without the fantastic riot of an endless dance of flexible green blades of grass, lush trees dressed in emerald robes without a great many leaves on their branches, and golden beaches without numerous sparkling grains of sand crunching under bare feet in the rays of the gentle summer sun. The big always consists of the small. Small - from even more small. And this sequence, probably, has no limit.

Therefore, blades of grass and grains of sand, in turn, consist of molecules that are formed from atoms. Atoms, as you know, are composed of elementary particles - electrons, protons and neutrons. But they, as it is believed, are not the final authority. Modern science claims that protons and neutrons, for example, consist of hypothetical energy clusters - quarks. There is an assumption that there is an even smaller particle - the preon, which is still invisible, unknown, but supposed.

The world of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, etc. called microworld. He is the basis macrocosm- the world of man and the magnitudes commensurate with it on our planet and mega world- the world of stars, galaxies, the Universe and Cosmos. All these worlds are interconnected and do not exist one without the other.

We have already met the mega world in the report on our first expedition. "Breath of the Universe. Journey first" and we already have an idea about distant galaxies and the Universe. On that perilous journey, we discovered the world of dark matter and dark energy, explored the depths of black holes, reached the tops of glittering quasars, and miraculously avoided the Big Bang and no less Big Crunch. The universe appeared before us in all its beauty and grandeur. During our journey, we realized that stars and galaxies did not appear on their own, but were painstakingly, over billions of years, formed from particles and atoms.

It is particles and atoms that make up the whole world around us. It is they, in their countless and diverse combinations, that can appear before us either in the form of a beautiful Dutch rose, or in the form of a severe heap of Tibetan rocks. Everything we see consists of these mysterious representatives of the mysterious microworld. Why "mysterious" and why "mysterious"? Because humanity, unfortunately, still knows very little about this world and about its representatives.

It is impossible to imagine the modern science of the microcosm without mentioning the electron, proton or neutron. In any reference material on physics or chemistry, we will find their mass to the ninth decimal place, their electric charge, lifetime, and so on. For example, in accordance with these reference books, an electron has a mass of 9.10938291 (40) x 10 -31 kg, an electric charge - minus 1.602176565 (35) x 10 -19 C, a lifetime - infinity or at least 4.6 x 10 26 years old (Wikipedia).

The accuracy of determining the parameters of the electron is impressive, and pride in the scientific achievements of civilization fills our hearts! True, at the same time some doubts creep in, which, with all the desire, cannot be completely driven away. Determining the mass of an electron equal to one billion - billion - billionth of a kilogram, and even weighing it to the ninth decimal place, is, I believe, not an easy task, just like measuring the lifetime of an electron at 4,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000 years.

Moreover, no one has ever seen this very electron. The most modern microscopes make it possible to see only an electron cloud around the nucleus of an atom, within which, as scientists believe, an electron moves with great speed (Fig. 1). We do not yet know for sure neither the size of the electron, nor its shape, nor the speed of its rotation. In reality, we know very little about the electron, as well as about the proton and the neutron. We can only speculate and guess. Unfortunately, for today it while all our possibilities.

Rice. 1. Photograph of electron clouds taken by physicists of the Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology in September 2009

But an electron or a proton is the smallest elementary particles that make up an atom of any substance. And if our technical means studies of the microworld do not yet allow us to see particles and atoms, maybe we will start with something O more and more known? For example, from a molecule! It is made up of atoms. A molecule is a larger and more understandable object, which, quite possibly, is more deeply studied.

Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you again. Molecules are understandable to us only on paper in the form of abstract formulas and drawings of their supposed structure. We still cannot get a clear image of a molecule with pronounced bonds between atoms.

In August 2009, using the technology of atomic force microscopy, European researchers for the first time managed to obtain an image of the structure of a fairly large molecule of pentacene (C 22 H 14). The most modern technology has made it possible to see only five rings that determine the structure of this hydrocarbon, as well as spots of individual carbon and hydrogen atoms (Fig. 2). And that's all we can do for now...

Rice. 2. Structural representation of the pentacene molecule (top)

and her photo (below)

On the one hand, the photographs obtained allow us to assert that the path chosen by chemists, describing the composition and structure of molecules, is no longer in doubt, but, on the other hand, we can only guess that

How, after all, does the combination of atoms occur in a molecule, and elementary particles - in an atom? Why are these atomic and molecular bonds stable? How are they formed, what forces support them? What does an electron, proton or neutron look like? What is their structure? What is an atomic nucleus? How do proton and neutron coexist in the same space and why do they reject an electron from it?

There are a lot of questions of this kind. Answers too. True, many answers are based only on assumptions that give rise to new questions.

My very first attempts to penetrate the mysteries of the microworld came across a rather superficial presentation by modern science of many fundamental knowledge about the structure of microworld objects, about the principles of their functioning, about the systems of their interconnections and relationships. It turned out that humanity still does not clearly understand how the nucleus of an atom and its constituent particles - electrons, protons and neutrons - are arranged. We have only general ideas about what actually happens in the process of fission of the atomic nucleus, what events can occur during the long course of this process.

The study of nuclear reactions was limited to observing the processes and ascertaining certain cause-and-effect relationships, derived experimentally. Researchers have learned to determine only behavior certain particles under one or another impact. That's all! Without understanding their structure, without revealing the mechanisms of interaction! Only behavior! Based on this behavior, the dependences of certain parameters were determined and, for greater importance, these experimental data were clothed in multi-level mathematical formulas. That's the whole theory!

Unfortunately, this was enough to bravely set about building nuclear power plants, various accelerators, colliders and the creation of nuclear bombs. Having received primary knowledge about nuclear processes, mankind immediately joined in an unprecedented race for the possession of powerful energy subject to it.

By leaps and bounds, the number of countries with nuclear capabilities in service has grown. Nuclear missiles in huge numbers looked menacingly towards unfriendly neighbors. Nuclear power plants began to appear, continuously generating cheap electrical energy. Enormous funds were spent on nuclear development of more and more new designs. Science, trying to look inside the atomic nucleus, intensively erected super-modern particle accelerators.

However, the matter did not reach the structure of the atom and its nucleus. The fascination with the search for more and more new particles and the pursuit of Nobel regalia relegated to the background a deep study of the structure of the atomic nucleus and its constituent particles.

But superficial knowledge about nuclear processes immediately showed itself negatively during the operation of nuclear reactors and provoked the emergence of spontaneous nuclear chain reactions in a number of situations.

This list provides dates and locations for the occurrence of spontaneous nuclear reactions:

08/21/1945. USA, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

May 21, 1946. USA, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

03/15/1953. USSR, Chelyabinsk-65, Mayak Production Association.

04/21/1953. USSR, Chelyabinsk-65, Mayak Production Association.

06/16/1958. USA, Oak Ridge, Y-12 Radiochemical Plant.

10/15/1958. Yugoslavia, B. Kidrich Institute.

December 30, 1958 USA, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

01/03/1963. USSR, Tomsk-7, Siberian Chemical Combine.

07/23/1964. USA, Woodryver, Radiochemical plant.

December 30, 1965 Belgium, Mol.

03/05/1968. USSR, Chelyabinsk-70, VNIITF.

December 10, 1968 USSR, Chelyabinsk-65, Mayak Production Association.

May 26, 1971 USSR, Moscow, Institute of Atomic Energy.

December 13, 1978. USSR, Tomsk-7, Siberian Chemical Combine.

09/23/1983. Argentina, Reactor RA-2.

May 15, 1997 Russia, Novosibirsk, plant of chemical concentrates.

06/17/1997. Russia, Sarov, VNIIEF.

09/30/1999 Japan, Tokaimura, Plant for the production of nuclear fuel.

To this list must be added numerous accidents with air and underwater carriers of nuclear weapons, incidents at nuclear fuel cycle enterprises, emergencies at nuclear power plants, emergencies during the testing of nuclear and thermonuclear bombs. The tragedy of Chernobyl and Fukushima will forever remain in our memory. Behind these catastrophes and emergencies there are thousands of dead people. And it makes you think very seriously.

Just the thought of working nuclear power plants that can instantly turn the whole world into a continuous radioactive zone is horrifying. Unfortunately, these concerns are well founded. First of all, the fact that the creators of nuclear reactors in their work used not fundamental knowledge, but a statement of certain mathematical dependencies and behavior of particles, on the basis of which a dangerous nuclear structure was built. For scientists, until now, nuclear reactions are a kind of "black box" that works, subject to the fulfillment of certain actions and requirements.

However, if something begins to happen in this “box” and this “something” is not described by the instructions and goes beyond the scope of the knowledge gained, then we, apart from our own heroism and non-intellectual labor, cannot oppose anything to the nuclear element that has broken out. Masses of people are forced to simply humbly wait for the impending danger, prepare for terrible and incomprehensible consequences, moving to a safe, in their opinion, distance. Nuclear specialists in most cases just shrug their shoulders, praying and waiting for help from higher powers.

Japanese nuclear scientists, armed with the most modern technology, still cannot curb the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, which has long been de-energized. They can only state that on October 18, 2013, the level of radiation in groundwater exceeded the norm by more than 2,500 times. A day later, the level of radioactive substances in the water increased by almost 12,000 times! Why?! Japanese specialists cannot yet answer this question or stop these processes.

The risk of creating an atomic bomb was somehow justified. The tense military-political situation on the planet demanded unprecedented measures of defense and attack from the opposing countries. Submitting to the situation, atomic researchers took risks, not delving into the subtleties of the structure and functioning of elementary particles and atomic nuclei.

However, in peacetime, the construction of nuclear power plants and colliders of all types had to begin only on condition, what science has completely figured out the structure of the atomic nucleus, and the electron, and the neutron, and the proton, and their relationships. Moreover, nuclear reactions at nuclear power plants must be strictly controlled. But you can really and effectively manage only what you know thoroughly. Especially if it concerns the most powerful type of energy today, which is not at all easy to curb. This, of course, does not happen. Not only during the construction of nuclear power plants.

Currently, there are 6 different colliders in Russia, China, the USA and Europe - powerful accelerators of oncoming particle flows, which accelerate them to great speed, giving the particles high kinetic energy, in order to then push them into each other. The purpose of the collision is to study the products of particle collisions in the hope that in the process of their decay it will be possible to see something new and still unknown.

It is clear that researchers are very interested to see what will come of all this. The speed of particle collisions and the level of funding for scientific research are increasing, but knowledge about the structure of what collides has remained the same for many, many years. There are still no substantiated predictions about the results of the planned studies, and there cannot be. Not by chance. We are well aware that it is possible to predict scientifically only on the condition of accurate and verified knowledge of at least the details of the predicted process. Such knowledge about elementary particles modern science not yet. In this case, it can be assumed that the main principle of existing research methods is the position: "Let's try to do it - let's see what happens." Unfortunately.

Therefore, it is quite natural that today issues related to the danger of ongoing experiments are being discussed more and more often. It's not even about the possibility of microscopic black holes appearing in the course of experiments, which, growing, can devour our planet. I do not really believe in such a possibility, at least at the current level and stage of my intellectual development.

But there is a more serious and more real danger. For example, at the Large Hadron Collider, streams of protons or lead ions collide in various configurations. It would seem, what kind of threat can come from a microscopic particle, and even underground, in a tunnel clad in a powerful metal and concrete protection? A particle weighing 1.672 621 777 (74) x 10 -27 kg and a solid multi-ton tunnel of more than 26 kilometers in the thickness of heavy soil are clearly incomparable categories.

However, the threat exists. When conducting experiments, it is quite likely that there will be an uncontrolled release of a huge amount of energy, which will appear not only as a result of a break in intranuclear forces, but also as a result of the energy located inside protons or lead ions. A nuclear explosion of a modern ballistic missile, based on the release of the intranuclear energy of an atom, will seem no worse than a New Year's cracker compared to that powerful energy, which can be released during the destruction of elementary particles. We can suddenly let the fabulous genie out of the bottle. But not that complaisant good-natured and jack-of-all-trades who only obeys and obeys, but an uncontrollable, all-powerful and ruthless monster who knows no mercy and mercy. And it will not be fabulous, but quite real.

But the worst thing is that, as in a nuclear bomb, a chain reaction can begin in a collider, releasing more and more portions of energy and destroying all other elementary particles. At the same time, it does not matter at all what they will consist of - the metal structures of the tunnel, concrete walls or rocks. Energy will be released everywhere, tearing apart everything that is connected not only with our civilization, but with the entire planet. In an instant, only pitiful shapeless shreds can remain from our sweet blue beauty, flying across the great and vast expanses of the Universe.

This, of course, is a terrible, but quite real scenario, and many Europeans today understand this very well and actively oppose dangerous unpredictable experiments, demanding the security of the planet and civilization. Each time these speeches are more and more organized and increase the internal concern about the current situation.

I am not against experiments, because I understand very well that the path to new knowledge is always thorny and difficult. Without experimentation, it is almost impossible to overcome it. However, I am deeply convinced that each experiment should be carried out only if it is safe for people and the surrounding world. Today we have no such security. No, because there is no knowledge about those particles with which we are already experimenting today.

The situation turned out to be much more alarming than I had imagined before. Seriously worried, I plunged headlong into the world of knowledge about the microworld. I confess that this did not give me much pleasure, since in the developed theories of the microworld it was difficult to catch a clear relationship between natural phenomena and the conclusions on which some scientists based themselves, using the theoretical positions of quantum physics, quantum mechanics and the theory of elementary particles as a research apparatus.

Imagine my amazement when I suddenly discovered that knowledge about the microcosm is based more on assumptions that do not have clear logical justifications. Having saturated mathematical models with certain conventions in the form of Planck's constant with a constant exceeding thirty zeros after the decimal point, various prohibitions and postulates, theorists, however, describe in sufficient detail and accurately a whether practical situations that answer the question: "What happens if ...?". But, main question: "Why is this happening?", unfortunately, remained unanswered.

It seemed to me that to know the boundless Universe and its so distant galaxies, spread over a fantastically vast distance, is a much more difficult matter than to find the path of knowledge to what, in fact, "lies under our feet." Building on the foundation of its average and higher education, I sincerely believed that our civilization no longer has any questions about the structure of the atom and its nucleus, or about elementary particles and their structure, or about the forces that hold the electron in orbit and maintain a stable connection of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom.

Until that moment, I had not had to study the basics of quantum physics, but I was confident and naively assumed that this new physics is what will really lead us out of the darkness of misunderstanding of the microworld.

But, to my deep chagrin, I was mistaken. Modern quantum physics, the physics of the atomic nucleus and elementary particles, and indeed the entire physics of the microcosm, in my opinion, are not just in a deplorable state. They are stuck in an intellectual impasse for a long time, which cannot allow them to develop and improve, moving along the path of cognition of the atom and elementary particles.

Researchers of the microcosm, rigidly limited by the established steadfastness of the opinions of the great theoreticians of the 19th and 20th centuries, have not dared to return to their roots for more than a hundred years and again begin the difficult path of research into the depths of our surrounding world. My critical view of the current situation around the study of the microworld is far from being the only one. Many progressive researchers and theorists have repeatedly expressed their point of view on the problems that arise in the course of understanding the foundations of the theory of the atomic nucleus and elementary particles, quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

An analysis of modern theoretical quantum physics allows us to draw a quite definite conclusion that the essence of the theory lies in the mathematical representation of certain averaged values ​​of particles and atoms, based on the indicators of some mechanistic statistics. The main thing in the theory is not the study of elementary particles, their structure, their connections and interactions during the manifestation of certain natural phenomena, but simplified probabilistic mathematical models based on the dependences obtained during the experiments.

Unfortunately, here, as well as in the development of the theory of relativity, the derived mathematical dependences were put in the first place, which overshadowed the nature of phenomena, their interconnection and causes of occurrence.

The study of the structure of elementary particles was limited to the assumption of the presence of three hypothetical quarks in protons and neutrons, the varieties of which, as this theoretical assumption developed, changed from two, then three, four, six, twelve ... Science simply adjusted to the results of experiments, forced to invent new elements, the existence of which has not yet been proven. Here we can also hear about preons and gravitons that have not yet been found. One can be sure that the number of hypothetical particles will continue to grow, as the science of the microworld goes deeper and deeper into a dead end.

The lack of understanding of the physical processes occurring inside elementary particles and nuclei of atoms, the mechanism of interaction between systems and elements of the microcosm brought hypothetical elements - carriers of interaction - such as gauge and vector bosons, gluons, virtual photons, to the arena of modern science. It was they who headed the list of entities responsible for the processes of interaction of some particles with others. And it does not matter that even their indirect signs have not been found. It is important that they can somehow be held responsible for the fact that the nucleus of an atom does not fall apart into its components, that the Moon does not fall to the Earth, that the electrons still rotate in their orbit, and the planet's magnetic field still protects us from cosmic influence .

From all this it became sad, because the more I delved into the theory of the microcosm, the more my understanding of the dead-end development of the most important component of the theory of the structure of the world grew. The position of today's science of the microcosm is not accidental, but natural. The fact is that the foundations of quantum physics were laid by laureates Nobel Prizes Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli and Paul Dirac in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Physicists at that time had only the results of some initial experiments aimed at studying atoms and elementary particles. However, it must be admitted that these studies were also carried out on imperfect equipment corresponding to that time, and the experimental database was just beginning to fill up.

Therefore, it is not surprising that classical physics could not always answer the numerous questions that arose in the course of the study of the microworld. Therefore, at the beginning of the twentieth century in the scientific world they started talking about the crisis of physics and the need for revolutionary changes in the system of microworld research. This provision definitely pushed progressive theoretical scientists to search for new ways and new methods of cognition of the microworld.

The problem, we must pay tribute, was not in the outdated provisions of classical physics, but in an underdeveloped technical base, which at that time, which is quite understandable, could not provide the necessary research results and give food for deeper theoretical developments. The gap had to be filled. And it was filled. A new theory - quantum physics, based primarily on probabilistic mathematical concepts. There was nothing wrong with this, except that, in doing so, they forgot philosophy and broke away from the real world.

Classical ideas about the atom, electron, proton, neutron, etc. were replaced by their probabilistic models, which corresponded to a certain level of development of science and even made it possible to solve very complex applied engineering problems. The absence of the necessary technical base and some successes in the theoretical and experimental representation of the elements and systems of the microcosm created the conditions for a certain cooling of the scientific world towards a deep study of the structure of elementary particles, atoms and their nuclei. Especially since the crisis in the physics of the microcosm seemed to have been extinguished, the revolution had taken place. The scientific community enthusiastically rushed to the study of quantum physics, not bothering to understand the basics of elementary and fundamental particles.

Naturally, such a situation in the modern science of the microworld could not but excite me, and I immediately began to prepare for a new expedition, for a new journey. Journey into the microcosm. We have already made a similar journey. It was the first trip to the world of galaxies, stars and quasars, to the world of dark matter and dark energy, to the world where our Universe is born and lives a full life. In his report "Breath of the Universe. Journey first» We tried to understand the structure of the Universe and the processes that take place in it.

Realizing that the second journey would also not be easy and would require billions of trillions of times to reduce the scale of space in which I would have to study the world around me, I began to prepare to penetrate not only into the structure of an atom or molecule, but also into the depths of the electron and proton, neutron and photon, and in volumes millions of times smaller than the volumes of these particles. This required special training, new knowledge and advanced equipment.

The upcoming journey assumed a start from the very beginning of the creation of our world, and it was this beginning that was the most dangerous and with the most unpredictable outcome. But it depended on our expedition whether we would find a way out of the current situation in the science of the microworld or whether we would remain balancing on the shaky rope bridge of modern nuclear energy, every second exposing the life and existence of civilization on the planet to mortal danger.

The thing is that in order to get to know the initial results of our research, it was necessary to get to the black hole of the Universe and, neglecting the sense of self-preservation, rush into the flaming hell of the universal tunnel. Only there, in conditions of ultra-high temperatures and fantastic pressure, carefully moving in rapidly rotating streams material particles, we could see how the annihilation of particles and antiparticles takes place and how the great and mighty ancestor of all things, Ether, is reborn, to understand all the ongoing processes, including the formation of particles, atoms and molecules.

Believe me, there are not so many daredevils on Earth who can decide on this. Moreover, the result is not guaranteed by anyone and no one is ready to take responsibility for the successful outcome of this journey. During the existence of civilization, no one has even visited the black hole of the galaxy, but here - UNIVERSE! Everything here is grown-up, grandiose and cosmic scale. There are no jokes here. Here, in an instant, they can turn the human body into a microscopic red-hot energy clot or scatter it across the endless cold expanses of space without the right to restore and reunite. This is the Universe! Huge and majestic, cold and red-hot, boundless and mysterious…

Therefore, inviting everyone to join our expedition, I have to warn you that if someone has doubts, it is not too late to refuse. Any reason is accepted. We are fully aware of the magnitude of the danger, but we are ready to courageously confront it at all costs! We are preparing to dive into the depths of the Universe.

It is clear that to protect ourselves and stay alive, plunging into a hot universal tunnel filled with powerful explosions and nuclear reactions, is far from an easy task, and our equipment must correspond to the conditions in which we will have to work. Therefore, it is imperative to prepare the best equipment and carefully think over the equipment for all participants in this dangerous expedition.

First of all, on the second trip we will take what allowed us to overcome a very difficult path through the expanses of the Universe when we were working on a report on our expedition. "Breath of the Universe. Journey first. Of course, this laws of the world. Without their application, our first trip could hardly have ended successfully. It was the laws that made it possible to find the right path among the heaps of incomprehensible phenomena and the dubious conclusions of researchers in their explanation.

If you remember, law of balance of opposites, predetermining that in the world any manifestation of reality, any system has its own opposite essence and is or strives to be in balance with it, allowed us to understand and accept the presence in the world around us, in addition to ordinary energy, also dark energy, and also in addition to ordinary matter - dark matter. The law of the balance of opposites made it possible to assume that the world not only consists of ether, but also the ether consists of its two types - positive and negative.

The law of universal interconnection, implying a stable, repeating connection between all objects, processes and systems in the Universe, regardless of their scale, and law of hierarchy, ordering the levels of any system in the Universe from the lowest to the highest, made it possible to build a logical "ladder of beings" from the ether, particles, atoms, substances, stars and galaxies to the Universe. And, then, find ways to transform an incredibly huge number of galaxies, stars, planets and other material objects, first into particles, and then into streams of hot ether.

We found confirmation of these views in action. law of development, which determines the evolutionary movement in all spheres of the world around us. Through the analysis of the action of these laws, we came to a description of the form and understanding of the structure of the Universe, we learned the evolution of galaxies, we saw the mechanisms of formation of particles and atoms, stars and planets. It became completely clear to us how the big is formed from the small, and the small is formed from the big.

Only understanding law of continuity of motion, which interprets the objective necessity of the process of constant movement in space for all objects and systems without exception, allowed us to become aware of the rotation of the core of the Universe and galaxies around the universal tunnel.

The laws of the structure of the world were a kind of map of our journey, which helped us move along the route and overcome its most difficult sections and obstacles encountered on the way to understanding the world. Therefore, the laws of the structure of the world will also be the most important attribute of our equipment on this journey into the depths of the Universe.

Second important condition success in penetrating the depths of the universe will certainly be experimental results scientists, which they held for more than a hundred years, and the whole stock of knowledge and information about phenomena microworld accumulated by modern science. During the first trip, we were convinced that many natural phenomena can be interpreted in different ways and draw completely opposite conclusions.

Wrong conclusions, supported by cumbersome mathematical formulas, as a rule, lead science into a dead end and do not provide the necessary development. They lay the foundation for further erroneous thinking, which, in turn, form the theoretical provisions of the developed erroneous theories. It's not about formulas. Formulas can be absolutely correct. But the decisions of researchers about how and on what path to move forward may not be entirely correct.

The situation can be compared with the desire to get from Paris to the Charles de Gaulle airport on two roads. The first is the shortest, which can be spent no more than half an hour using only a car, and the second is exactly the opposite, around the world by car, ship, special equipment, boats, dog sleds through France, the Atlantic, South America, Antarctica, the Pacific Ocean, Arctic and finally through the north-east of France directly to the airport. Both roads will lead us from one point to the same place. But for how long and with what effort? Yes, and to be accurate and reach the destination in the process of a long and difficult journey is very, very problematic. Therefore, not only the process of movement is important, but also the choice of the right path.

In our journey, just like in the first expedition, we will try to take a slightly different look at the conclusions about the microcosm that have already been made and accepted by the entire scientific world. First of all, in relation to the knowledge gained as a result of studying elementary particles, nuclear reactions and existing interactions. It is quite possible that as a result of our immersion in the depths of the Universe, the electron will appear before us not as a structureless particle, but as some more complex object of the microworld, and the atomic nucleus will reveal its diverse structure, living its unusual and active life.

Let's not forget to take logic with us. It allowed us to find our way through the most difficult places of our last journey. Logics was a kind of compass showing the direction the right way on a journey across the universe. It is clear that even now we cannot do without it.

However, one logic will obviously not be enough. In this expedition, we can not do without intuition. Intuition will allow us to find what we cannot even guess about yet, and where no one has looked for anything before us. It is intuition that is our wonderful assistant, whose voice we will carefully listen to. Intuition will make us move, regardless of rain and cold, snow and frost, without firm hope and clear information, but, it is she who will allow us to achieve our goal in spite of all the rules and guidelines that all mankind has become accustomed to from school.

Finally, we can't go anywhere without our unbridled imagination. Imagination- this is the tool of knowledge we need, which will allow us to see without the most modern microscopes what is much smaller than the smallest particles already discovered or only assumed by researchers. Imagination will show us all the processes that take place in a black hole and in a universal tunnel, provide mechanisms for the emergence of gravitational forces during the formation of particles and atoms, guide us through the galleries of the atom's nucleus and make it possible to make a fascinating flight on a light rotating electron around a solid but clumsy company of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus.

Unfortunately, on this journey into the depths of the Universe, we will not be able to take anything else - there is very little space and we have to limit ourselves even to the most necessary things. But that can't stop us! We understand the purpose! The depths of the universe are waiting for us!

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M. KAGANOV.

According to a long tradition, the journal "Science and Life" talks about the latest achievements modern science, oh latest discoveries in physics, biology and medicine. But in order to understand how important and interesting they are, it is necessary to have at least a general idea of ​​the basics of science. modern physics is developing rapidly, and people of the older generation, those who studied at school and at the institute 30-40 years ago, are unfamiliar with many of its provisions: they simply did not exist then. And our young readers have not yet had time to learn about them: popular science literature has practically ceased to be published. That is why we asked M. I. Kaganov, a long-time author of the journal, to tell us about atoms and elementary particles and about the laws that govern them, about what matter is. Moisei Isaakovich Kaganov - theoretical physicist, author and co-author of several hundred papers on quantum theory solid state, the theory of metals and magnetism. He was a leading member of the Institute for Physical Problems named after V.I. P. L. Kapitsa and professor at Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, a member of the editorial boards of the journals "Nature" and "Quantum". Author of many popular science articles and books. Now lives in Boston (USA).

Science and life // Illustrations

The Greek philosopher Democritus was the first to use the word "atom". According to his teachings, atoms are indivisible, indestructible and in constant motion. They are infinitely diverse, they have depressions and bulges, with which they interlock, forming all material bodies.

Table 1. The most important characteristics of electrons, protons and neutrons.

deuterium atom.

The English physicist Ernst Rutherford is rightfully considered the founder of nuclear physics, the theory of radioactivity and the theory of the structure of the atom.

Pictured: the surface of a tungsten crystal magnified 10 million times; each bright dot is its individual atom.

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Working on the creation of the theory of radiation, Max Planck in 1900 came to the conclusion that the atoms of a heated substance should emit light in portions, quanta, having the dimension of action (J.s) and energy proportional to the radiation frequency: E \u003d hn.

In 1923, Louis de Broglie transferred Einstein's idea of ​​the dual nature of light - wave-particle duality - to matter: the motion of a particle corresponds to the propagation of an infinite wave.

Diffraction experiments convincingly confirmed de Broglie's theory, which stated that the movement of any particle is accompanied by a wave, the length and speed of which depend on the mass and energy of the particle.

Science and life // Illustrations

An experienced billiard player always knows how the balls will roll after a hit, and easily drives them into the pocket. With atomic particles it is much more difficult. It is impossible to indicate the trajectory of a flying electron: it is not only a particle, but also a wave, infinite in space.

At night, when there are no clouds in the sky, the moon is not visible and the lights do not interfere, the sky is filled with brightly shining stars. It is not necessary to look for familiar constellations or try to find planets close to Earth. Just watch! Try to imagine a huge space that is filled with worlds and stretches for billions of billions of light years. Only because of the distance the worlds seem to be points, and many of them are so far away that they are not distinguishable separately and merge into a nebula. It seems that we are at the center of the universe. Now we know that this is not the case. The rejection of geocentrism is a great merit of science. It took a lot of effort to realize that the little Earth is moving in a random, seemingly unallocated section of boundless (literally!) space.

But life originated on Earth. It developed so successfully that it managed to produce a person capable of comprehending the world around him, searching for and finding the laws that govern nature. The achievements of mankind in the knowledge of the laws of nature are so impressive that one involuntarily feels proud of belonging to this pinch of reason, lost on the periphery of an ordinary Galaxy.

Given the diversity of everything that surrounds us, the existence of general laws is amazing. No less striking is that everything is built from particles of only three types - electrons, protons and neutrons.

Complex mathematical theories, which are not easy to understand. But the contours of the scientific picture of the World can be comprehended without resorting to a rigorous theory. Naturally, this requires desire. But not only: even a preliminary acquaintance will have to spend some work. One must try to comprehend new facts, unfamiliar phenomena, which at first glance do not agree with existing experience.

The achievements of science often lead to the idea that "nothing is sacred" for it: what was true yesterday is discarded today. With knowledge, an understanding arises of how reverently science treats every grain of accumulated experience, with what caution it moves forward, especially in those cases when it is necessary to abandon rooted ideas.

The purpose of this story is to introduce the fundamental features of the structure of inorganic substances. Despite their endless variety, their structure is relatively simple. Especially when compared with any, even the simplest living organism. But there is one thing in common: all living organisms, like inorganic substances are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons.

It is impossible to embrace the immensity: in order to, at least in general terms, acquaint with the structure of living organisms, a special story is needed.

The variety of things, objects - everything that we use, that surrounds us, is boundless. Not only in their purpose and structure, but also in the materials used to create them - substances, as they say, when there is no need to emphasize their function.

Substances, materials look solid, and touch confirms what the eyes see. It would seem that there are no exceptions. Flowing water and solid metal, so different from each other, are similar in one thing: both metal and water are solid. True, salt or sugar can be dissolved in water. They find their place in the water. Yes, and in a solid body, for example, in wooden board, you can drive a nail. With considerable effort, it is possible to achieve that the place that was occupied by a tree will be occupied by an iron nail.

We know very well that a small piece can be broken off from a solid body, practically any material can be crushed. Sometimes it is difficult, sometimes it happens spontaneously, without our participation. Imagine yourself on the beach, on the sand. We understand that a grain of sand is far from the smallest particle of the substance that makes up sand. If you try, you can reduce the grains of sand, for example, by passing through the rollers - through two cylinders of very solid metal. Once between the rollers, the grain of sand is crushed into smaller pieces. In fact, this is how flour is made from grain in mills.

Now that the atom has firmly entered our worldview, it is very difficult to imagine that people did not know whether the crushing process is limited or whether a substance can be crushed to infinity.

It is not known when people first asked themselves this question. It was first recorded in the writings of ancient Greek philosophers. Some of them believed that, no matter how fractional a substance is, it allows division into even smaller parts - there is no limit. Others have suggested that there are tiny indivisible particles that make up everything. To emphasize that these particles are the limit of crushing, they called them atoms (in ancient Greek the word "atom" means indivisible).

It is necessary to name those who first put forward the idea of ​​the existence of atoms. This is Democritus (born about 460 or 470 BC). new era, died in extreme old age) and Epicurus (341-270 BC). So, atomic science is almost 2500 years old. The idea of ​​atoms was by no means immediately accepted by everyone. Even 150 years ago, there were few people confident in the existence of atoms, even among scientists.

This is because atoms are very small. They cannot be seen not only with the naked eye, but also, for example, with a microscope magnifying 1000 times. Let's think: what is the size of the smallest particles that can be seen? At different people different vision, but, probably, everyone will agree that it is impossible to see a particle smaller than 0.1 millimeter. Therefore, if you use a microscope, you can, albeit with difficulty, see particles about 0.0001 millimeters in size, or 10 -7 meters. Comparing the sizes of atoms and interatomic distances (10 -10 meters) with the length, accepted by us as the limit of the ability to see, we will understand why any substance seems to us to be solid.

2500 years is a long time. No matter what happens in the world, there have always been people who tried to answer the question of how the world around them works. At some times, the problems of the organization of the world worried more, at some times - less. The birth of science in its modern sense occurred relatively recently. Scientists have learned to experiment - to ask nature questions and understand its answers, to create theories that describe the results of experiments. The theories required rigorous mathematical methods to draw valid conclusions. Science has come a long way. On this path, which for physics began about 400 years ago with the works of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an infinite amount of information was obtained about the structure of matter and the properties of bodies of different nature, an infinite number of various phenomena were discovered and understood.

Mankind has learned not only to passively understand nature, but also to use it for its own purposes.

We will not consider the history of the development of atomic concepts over 2500 years and the history of physics over the past 400 years. Our task is to tell as briefly and clearly as possible about what and how everything is built from - the objects around us, bodies and ourselves.

As already mentioned, all matter is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. I have known about this since my school years, but it never ceases to amaze me that everything is built from only three types of particles! But the world is so diverse! In addition, the means that nature uses to carry out construction are also quite uniform.

Consistent description of how substances are built different type is a complex science. She uses serious mathematics. It must be emphasized that there is no other, simple theory. But the physical principles underlying the understanding of the structure and properties of substances, although they are non-trivial and difficult to imagine, can still be comprehended. With our story, we will try to help everyone who is interested in the structure of the world in which we live.

It would seem that the most natural way to understand how some complex device (toy or mechanism) is arranged - to disassemble, decompose into its component parts. You just have to be very careful, remembering that it will be much more difficult to fold. "To break - not to build" - says folk wisdom. And one more thing: what the device consists of, we, perhaps, will understand, but how it works is unlikely. It is sometimes necessary to unscrew one screw, and that's it - the device has stopped working. It is necessary not so much to disassemble, but to understand.

Since we are not talking about the actual decomposition of all the objects, things, organisms around us, but about the imaginary, that is, about mental, and not about real experience, then you don’t have to worry: you don’t have to collect. Also, let's not skimp on the effort. We will not think about whether it is difficult or easy to decompose the device into its component parts. Wait a second. And how do we know that we have reached the limit? Maybe with more effort we can go further? We admit to ourselves: we do not know if we have reached the limit. We have to use the generally accepted opinion, realizing that this is not a very reliable argument. But if you remember that this is only a generally accepted opinion, and not the ultimate truth, then the danger is small.

It is now generally accepted that elementary particles serve as the details from which everything is built. And while not all. Having looked in the appropriate reference book, we will be convinced: there are more than three hundred elementary particles. The abundance of elementary particles made us think about the possibility of the existence of subelementary particles - the particles that make up the elementary particles themselves. This is how the idea of ​​quarks was born. They have the amazing property that they do not seem to exist in a free state. There are quite a lot of quarks - six, and each has its own antiparticle. Perhaps the journey into the depths of matter is not over.

For our story, the abundance of elementary particles and the existence of subelementary particles is not essential. Electrons, protons and neutrons are directly involved in the construction of substances - everything is built only from them.

Before discussing the properties of real particles, let's think about how we would like to see the details from which everything is built. When it comes to what we would like to see, of course, we must take into account the diversity of views. Let's pick out a few features that seem mandatory.

First, elementary particles must have the ability to unite into various structures.

Secondly, I would like to think that elementary particles are indestructible. Knowing what a long history the world has, it is difficult to imagine that the particles of which it is composed are mortal.

Thirdly, I would like the details themselves not to be too much. Looking at the building blocks, we see how different buildings can be created from the same elements.

Getting acquainted with electrons, protons and neutrons, we will see that their properties do not contradict our wishes, and the desire for simplicity undoubtedly corresponds to the fact that only three types of elementary particles take part in the structure of all substances.

Let us present the most important characteristics of electrons, protons and neutrons. They are collected in table 1.

The magnitude of the charge is given in coulombs, the mass is given in kilograms (SI units); the words "spin" and "statistics" will be explained below.

Let us pay attention to the difference in the mass of particles: protons and neutrons are almost 2000 times heavier than electrons. Consequently, the mass of any body is almost entirely determined by the mass of protons and neutrons.

The neutron, as its name implies, is neutral - its charge is zero. A proton and an electron have the same magnitude but opposite in sign charges. The electron is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged.

Among the characteristics of particles, there is no seemingly important characteristic - their size. Describing the structure of atoms and molecules, electrons, protons and neutrons can be considered material points. The size of the proton and neutron will have to be remembered only when describing atomic nuclei. Even compared to the size of atoms, protons and neutrons are monstrously small (on the order of 10 -16 meters).

Essentially, this short section is reduced to the presentation of electrons, protons, and neutrons as the building blocks of all bodies in nature. We could simply limit ourselves to Table 1, but we have to understand how from electrons, protons and neutrons construction is taking place, which causes the particles to combine into more complex structures and what these structures are.

There are many atoms. It turned out to be necessary and possible to arrange them in a special way. Ordering makes it possible to emphasize the difference and similarity of atoms. The reasonable arrangement of atoms is the merit of D. I. Mendeleev (1834-1907), who formulated the periodic law that bears his name. If we temporarily ignore the existence of periods, then the principle of the arrangement of elements is extremely simple: they are arranged sequentially according to the weight of atoms. The lightest is the hydrogen atom. The last natural (not artificially created) atom is the uranium atom, which is more than 200 times heavier than it.

Understanding the structure of atoms explained the presence of periodicity in the properties of elements.

At the very beginning of the 20th century, E. Rutherford (1871-1937) convincingly showed that almost the entire mass of an atom is concentrated in its nucleus - a small (even compared to an atom) region of space: the radius of the nucleus is approximately 100 thousand times smaller than the size of an atom. When Rutherford made his experiments, the neutron had not yet been discovered. With the discovery of the neutron, it was understood that nuclei consist of protons and neutrons, and it is natural to imagine an atom as a nucleus surrounded by electrons, the number of which is equal to the number of protons in the nucleus - after all, the atom as a whole is neutral. Like protons and neutrons construction material nuclei are collectively known as nucleons (from Latin nucleus- core). This is the name we will use.

The number of nucleons in a nucleus is usually denoted by the letter A. It's clear that A = N + Z, where N is the number of neutrons in the nucleus, and Z- the number of protons, equal to the number of electrons in the atom. Number A is called atomic mass, and Z- atomic number. Atoms with the same atomic number are called isotopes: in the periodic table they are in the same cell (in Greek isos - equal , topos - place). The fact is that Chemical properties isotopes are almost identical. If you carefully consider the periodic table, you can see that, strictly speaking, the arrangement of the elements does not correspond to atomic mass, but to atomic number. If there are about 100 elements, then there are more than 2000 isotopes. True, many of them are unstable, that is, radioactive (from the Latin radio- radiate activus- active), they decay, emitting various radiations.

Rutherford's experiments not only led to the discovery of atomic nuclei, but also showed that the same electrostatic forces act in the atom, which repel like-charged bodies from each other and attract oppositely charged bodies (for example, electroscope balls) to each other.

The atom is stable. Therefore, the electrons in an atom move around the nucleus: the centrifugal force compensates for the force of attraction. Understanding this led to the creation of a planetary model of the atom, in which the nucleus is the Sun, and the electrons are the planets (from the point of view of classical physics, the planetary model is inconsistent, but more on that below).

There are a number of ways to estimate the size of an atom. Different estimates lead to similar results: the sizes of atoms, of course, are different, but approximately equal to several tenths of a nanometer (1 nm = 10 -9 m).

Consider first the system of electrons in an atom.

V solar system planets are attracted to the sun by gravity. An electrostatic force acts in an atom. It is often called Coulomb after Charles Augustin Coulomb (1736-1806), who established that the force of interaction between two charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The fact that two charges Q 1 and Q 2 are attracted or repelled with a force equal to F C = Q 1 Q 2 /r 2 , where r- the distance between the charges, is called "Coulomb's Law". Index " WITH" assigned to force F by the first letter of Coulomb's last name (in French Coulomb). Among the most diverse statements, there are few that are just as rightly called a law as Coulomb's law: after all, the scope of its applicability is practically unlimited. Charged bodies, whatever their size, as well as atomic and even subatomic charged particles - they all attract or repel in accordance with Coulomb's law.

Humans are introduced to gravity at an early age. As he falls, he learns to respect the force of gravity towards the Earth. Acquaintance with accelerated motion usually begins with the study of the free fall of bodies - the movement of a body under the influence of gravity.

Between two bodies of mass M 1 and M 2 force is acting F N=- GM 1 M 2 /r 2 . Here r- distance between bodies, G- gravitational constant equal to 6.67259.10 -11 m 3 kg -1 s -2 , the index "N" is given in honor of Newton (1643 - 1727). This expression is called the law of universal gravitation, emphasizing its universal character. Power F N determines the movement of galaxies, celestial bodies and the fall of objects to the Earth. The law of universal gravitation is valid for any distance between bodies. We will not mention the changes in the picture of gravity that Einstein's general theory of relativity (1879-1955) made.

Both the Coulomb electrostatic force and the Newtonian force of universal gravitation are the same (as 1/ r 2) decrease with increasing distance between the bodies. This allows you to compare the action of both forces at any distance between the bodies. If the force of the Coulomb repulsion of two protons is compared in magnitude with the force of their gravitational attraction, then it turns out that F N / F C= 10 -36 (Q 1 =Q 2 = e p; M 1 = =M 2 =m p). Therefore, gravity does not play any significant role in the structure of the atom: it is too small compared to the electrostatic force.

It is not difficult to detect electric charges and measure the interaction between them. If the electrical force is so great, then why is it not important when, say, they fall, jump, throw a ball? Because in most cases we are dealing with neutral (uncharged) bodies. There are always a lot of charged particles in space (electrons, ions different sign). Under the influence of a huge (on an atomic scale) attractive electric force created by a charged body, charged particles rush to its source, stick to the body and neutralize its charge.

It is very difficult to talk about atomic and even smaller, subatomic, particles, mainly because their properties have no analogues in our world. Everyday life no. One might think that the particles that make up such small atoms can be conveniently represented in the form material points. But everything turned out to be much more complicated.

A particle and a wave... It would seem that even comparing is meaningless, they are so different.

Probably, when you think about a wave, you first of all imagine a wave of the sea surface. Waves come ashore from the open sea, the wavelengths - the distances between two successive crests - can be different. It is easy to observe waves having a length of the order of several meters. During agitation, obviously, the mass of water fluctuates. The wave covers a considerable area.

The wave is periodic in time and space. Wavelength ( λ ) is a measure of spatial periodicity. The periodicity of wave motion in time is visible in the frequency of arrival of wave crests to the shore, and it can be detected, for example, by the up and down oscillation of the float. Let us denote the period of wave movement - the time during which one wave passes - by the letter T. The reciprocal of the period is called the frequency ν = 1/T. The simplest waves (harmonic) have a certain frequency that does not change with time. Any complex wave motion can be represented as a set of simple waves (see "Science and Life" No. 11, 2001). Strictly speaking, a simple wave occupies an infinite space and exists indefinitely. A particle, as we imagine it, and a wave are completely different.

Since the time of Newton, there has been a debate about the nature of light. What is light - a collection of particles (corpuscles, from the Latin corpusculum- body) or waves? Theories have long competed. The wave theory won: the corpuscular theory could not explain the experimental facts (interference and diffraction of light). The wave theory easily coped with the rectilinear propagation of a light beam. An important role was played by the fact that the wavelength of light waves, according to everyday concepts, is very small: the wavelength range of visible light is from 380 to 760 nanometers. Shorter electromagnetic waves- ultraviolet, x-ray and gamma rays, and longer ones - infrared, millimeter, centimeter and all other radio waves.

TO late XIX century, the victory of the wave theory of light over the corpuscular one seemed final and irrevocable. However, the 20th century made serious adjustments. It seemed to be light or waves or particles. It turned out - both waves and particles. For particles of light, for its quanta, as they say, a special word was invented - "photon". The word "quantum" comes from the Latin word quantum- how much, and "photon" - from the Greek word photos- light. Words denoting the name of the particles, in most cases, have the ending he. Surprisingly, in some experiments light behaves like waves, while in others it behaves like a stream of particles. Gradually, it was possible to build a theory that predicts how, in what experiment, light will behave. At present, this theory is accepted by everyone, the different behavior of light is no longer surprising.

The first steps are always especially difficult. I had to go against the established opinion in science, to express statements that seemed to be heresy. Real scientists sincerely believe in the theory they use to describe the observed phenomena. It is very difficult to abandon the accepted theory. The first steps were taken by Max Planck (1858-1947) and Albert Einstein (1879-1955).

According to Planck-Einstein, it is in separate portions, quanta, that light is emitted and absorbed by matter. The energy carried by a photon is proportional to its frequency: E = h v. Proportionality factor h The Planck constant was named after the German physicist who introduced it to the theory of radiation in 1900. And already in the first third of the 20th century it became clear that Planck's constant is one of the most important world constants. Naturally, it was carefully measured: h= 6.6260755.10 -34 J.s.

A quantum of light - is it a lot or a little? The frequency of visible light is about 10 14 s -1 . Recall that the frequency and wavelength of light are related by the relation ν = c/λ, where With= 299792458.10 10 m/s (exactly) - the speed of light in vacuum. quantum energy hν, as it is easy to see, is about 10 -18 J. Due to this energy, a mass of 10 -13 grams can be raised to a height of 1 centimeter. On a human scale, monstrously small. But this is the mass of 10 14 electrons. In the microcosm, the scale is completely different! Of course, a person cannot feel a mass of 10 -13 grams, but the human eye is so sensitive that it can see individual light quanta - this was confirmed by a series of subtle experiments. Under normal conditions, a person does not distinguish the "grain" of light, perceiving it as a continuous stream.

Knowing that light has both a corpuscular and a wave nature, it is easier to imagine that "real" particles also have wave properties. For the first time such a heretical thought was expressed by Louis de Broglie (1892-1987). He did not try to find out what the nature of the wave whose characteristics he predicted was. According to his theory, a particle of mass m, flying at a speed v, corresponds to a wave with wavelength l = hmv and frequency ν = E/h, where E = mv 2 /2 - particle energy.

Further development of atomic physics led to an understanding of the nature of waves that describe the motion of atomic and subatomic particles. A science arose that was called "quantum mechanics" (in the early years it was often called wave mechanics).

Quantum mechanics is applicable to the motion of microscopic particles. When considering the motion of ordinary bodies (for example, any details of mechanisms), there is no point in taking into account quantum corrections (corrections due to the wave properties of matter).

One of the manifestations of the wave motion of particles is their absence of a trajectory. For the existence of a trajectory, it is necessary that at each moment of time the particle has a certain coordinate and a certain speed. But this is precisely what is forbidden by quantum mechanics: a particle cannot have at the same time a certain value of the coordinate X, and a certain speed value v. Their uncertainties Dx and dv are related by the uncertainty relation discovered by Werner Heisenberg (1901-1974): D X D v ~ h/m, where m is the mass of the particle, and h- Planck's constant. Planck's constant is often referred to as the universal "action" quantum. Without specifying the term action, pay attention to the epithet universal. He emphasizes that the uncertainty relation is always true. Knowing the conditions of motion and the mass of the particle, it is possible to estimate when it is necessary to take into account the quantum laws of motion (in other words, when the wave properties of particles and their consequence, the uncertainty relations, cannot be neglected), and when it is quite possible to use the classical laws of motion. We emphasize that if it is possible, then it is necessary, since classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics.

Note that Planck's constant is divided by the mass (they are included in combinations h/m). The larger the mass, the smaller the role of quantum laws.

To feel when to neglect quantum properties certainly possible, we will try to estimate the magnitude of the uncertainties D X and D v. If D X and D v are negligible compared to their average (classical) values, the formulas of classical mechanics perfectly describe the motion, if not small, it is necessary to use quantum mechanics. It makes no sense to take into account quantum uncertainty even when other causes (within the framework of classical mechanics) lead to greater uncertainty than the Heisenberg relation.

Let's consider one example. Keeping in mind that we want to show the ability to use classical mechanics, consider a "particle" whose mass is 1 gram and the size is 0.1 millimeters. On a human scale, this is a grain, a light, small particle. But it is 10 24 times heavier than a proton and a million times larger than an atom!

Let "our" grain move in a vessel filled with hydrogen. If the grain flies fast enough, it seems to us that it is moving in a straight line with a certain speed. This impression is erroneous: due to the impacts of hydrogen molecules on a grain, its speed changes slightly with each impact. Let's estimate how much.

Let the temperature of hydrogen be 300 K (we always measure the temperature by absolute scale, on the Kelvin scale; 300 K = 27 o C). Multiplying the temperature in kelvins by the Boltzmann constant k B , = 1,381.10 -16 J/K, we will express it in energy units. The change in grain speed can be calculated using the law of conservation of momentum. With each collision of a grain with a hydrogen molecule, its speed changes by approximately 10 -18 cm / s. The change is completely random and in a random direction. Therefore, it is natural to consider the value of 10 -18 cm/s as a measure of the classical uncertainty of the grain velocity (D v) cl for this case. So (D v) cl \u003d 10 -18 cm / s. It is apparently very difficult to determine the location of a grain with an accuracy greater than 0.1 of its size. Let's accept (D X) cl \u003d 10 -3 cm. Finally, (D X) cl (D v) cl \u003d 10 -3.10 -18 \u003d 10 -21. It seems to be a very small amount. In any case, the uncertainties of velocity and position are so small that one can consider the average motion of a grain. But compared to the quantum uncertainty dictated by the Heisenberg relation (D X D v= 10 -27), the classical inhomogeneity is enormous - in this case it exceeds it by a million times.

Conclusion: when considering the movement of a grain, it is not necessary to take into account its wave properties, that is, the existence of a quantum uncertainty of coordinates and speed. When it comes to the movement of atomic and subatomic particles, the situation changes dramatically.

To the question What is the smallest particle in the universe? Quark, Neutrino, Higgs Boson or Planck Black Hole? given by the author Caucasian the best answer is Fundamental particles all have size zero (radius is zero). By weight. There are particles with zero mass (photon, gluon, graviton). Of the massive ones, neutrinos have the smallest mass (less than 0.28 eV / s ^ 2, more precisely, they have not yet been measured). Frequency, time - are not characteristics of particles. You can talk about the times of life, but this is a different conversation.

Answer from stitch[guru]
Mosk Zerobubus.

Answer from Mikhail Levin[guru]
in fact, there is practically no concept of "size" in the microworld. Well, for the nucleus one can still talk about some analogue of the size, for example, through the probability of electrons getting into it from the beam, but not for smaller ones.

Answer from to christen[guru]
"size" of an elementary particle - a characteristic of a particle, reflecting the spatial distribution of its mass or electric charge; usually they talk about the so-called. root-mean-square radius of the electric charge distribution (which simultaneously characterizes the mass distribution)
Gauge bosons and leptons, within the accuracy of the performed measurements, do not reveal finite "sizes". This means that their "sizes"< 10^-16 см
In contrast to true elementary particles, hadron "dimensions" are finite. Their characteristic root-mean-square radius is determined by the radius of confinement (or confinement of quarks) and is equal in order of magnitude to 10-13 cm. In this case, of course, it varies from hadron to hadron.

Answer from Kirill Odding[guru]
One of the great physicists said (not Niels Bohr for an hour?) "If you manage to explain quantum mechanics in visual terms, go and get your Nobel Prize."

Answer from SerШkod Sergey Polikanov[guru]
What is the smallest elementary particle in the universe?
Elementary particles creating a gravitational effect.
Even less?
Elementary particles that set in motion those that create a gravitational effect
but they also participate in it.
There are even smaller elementary particles.
Their parameters do not even fit into the calculations, because the structures and their physical parameters are unknown.

Answer from Misha Nikitin[active]
QUARK

Answer from Matipati kipirofinovich[active]
PLANKO'S BLACK HOLE

Answer from Bro qwerty[newbie]
Quarks are the smallest particles in the world. For the universe there is no concept of size, it is limitless. If you invent a machine to reduce a person, then it will be possible to decrease infinitely less, less, less ... Yes, Quark is the smallest "Particle" But there is something smaller than a particle. Space. Not. It has. size.

Answer from Anton Kurochka[active]
Proton Neutron 1*10^-15 1 femtometer
Quark-U Quark-D Electron 1*10^-18 1 attometer
Quark-S 4*10^-19 400 zeptometers
Quark-C 1*10^-19 100 zeptometers
Quark-B 3*10^-20 30 zeptometers
High energy neutrino 1.5*10^-20 15 zeptometers
Preon 1*10^-21 1 zeptometer
Quark-T 1*10^-22 100 yoctometers
MeV Neutrino 2*10^-23 20 yoctometers
Neutrino 1*10^-24 1 yoctometer -(very small size!!!) -
Plonk particle 1.6*10^-35 0.000 000 000 016 yoctometer
Quantum foam Quantum string 1*10^-35 0.000 000 000 01 yoctometer
This is a table of particle sizes. And here you can see that the smallest particle is the Planck particle, but since it is too small, the Neutrino is the smallest particle. But for the universe, only the Planck length is smaller

What is the smallest known particle? They are today considered the smallest particles in the universe. The smallest particle in the universe is the Planck particle black hole(Planck Black Hole), which so far exists only in theory. Planck's black hole - the smallest of all black holes (due to the discreteness of the mass spectrum) - is a kind of boundary object. But, in the Universe, its smallest particle was also discovered, which is now being carefully studied.

The highest point in Russia is located in the Caucasus. Then mesons became the smallest particles, then bosons. This particle belongs to the category of black holes because its gravitational radius is greater than or equal to the wavelength. Of all the existing black holes, the Planckian is the smallest.

And they are formed, as is commonly believed, as a result of nuclear reactions. Despite such a hypothetical existence of this smallest particle in the Universe, its practical discovery in the future is quite possible. It was to detect it that an installation was created that only the laziest inhabitant on Earth had not heard of - the Large Hadron Collider. The Higgs boson is currently the smallest particle of those whose existence has been practically proven.

And if particles didn't have mass, the universe couldn't exist. Not a single substance could be formed in it. Despite the practical proven existence of this particle, the Higgs boson, practical applications for it have not yet been invented. Our world is huge and something interesting, something unusual and fascinating happens in it every day. Stay with us and learn about the most interesting facts from all over the world, about unusual people or things, about the creations of nature or man.

An elementary particle is a particle without an internal structure, that is, not containing other particles [approx. one]. Elementary particles are fundamental objects of quantum field theory. They can be classified by spin: fermions have half-integer spin, while bosons have integer spin. The Standard Model of elementary particle physics is a theory that describes the properties and interactions of elementary particles.

They are classified according to their participation in the strong interaction. Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting constituent particles. See also parton (particle). These include the pion, kaon, J/ψ meson, and many other types of mesons. Nuclear reactions and radioactive decay can transform one nuclide into another.

An atom consists of a small, heavy, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a relatively large, light cloud of electrons. There are also short-lived exotic atoms in which the role of the nucleus (positively charged particle) is played by a positron (positronium) or a positive muon (muonium).

Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to somehow register them, and they exist only in theory. And although experiments have been proposed today to detect black holes, the possibility of their implementation runs into a significant problem. On the contrary, small things can go unnoticed, although this does not make them less important. The Haraguan sphero (Sphaerodactylus ariasae) is the smallest reptile in the world. Its length is only 16-18 mm, and its weight is 0.2 grams.

The smallest things in the world

The smallest single-stranded DNA virus is the porcine circovirus. Over the past century, science has taken a huge step towards understanding the vastness of the universe and its microscopic building materials.

At one time, the atom was considered the smallest particle. Then scientists discovered the proton, neutron and electron. We now know that by pushing particles together (as in the Large Hadron Collider, for example), they can be broken up into even more particles, such as quarks, leptons, and even antimatter. The problem is only in determining what is less. So some particles have no mass, some have negative mass. The solution to this question is the same as dividing by zero, that is, impossible.

Do you think there is something in this?, namely: The smallest particle is the Higgs bason.

And although such strings have no physical parameters, the human tendency to justify everything leads us to the conclusion that these are the smallest objects in the Universe. Astronomy and telescopes → Question and answer of an astronomer and astrophysicist → Do you think there is something in this?, namely…

The smallest virus

The fact is that for the synthesis of such particles it is necessary to achieve an energy of 1026 electron volts in the accelerator, which is technically impossible. The mass of such particles is about 0.00001 grams, and the radius is 1/1034 meters. The wavelength of such a black hole is comparable to the size of its gravitational radius.

Where is the earth in the universe? What was in the universe before the big bang? What happened before the formation of the universe? How old is the universe? As it turned out, this was not the only ammunition in the collection of a 13-year-old boy.” The structure of such particles is critically minimal - they have almost no mass, and no atomic charge at all, since the nucleus is too small. There are numbers that are so incredibly, incredibly large that it would take the entire universe to even write them down.

The smallest objects visible to the naked eye

Google was born in 1920 as a way to get kids interested in big numbers. It's a number, according to Milton, that has a 1 first and then as many zeros as you can write before you get tired. If we talk about the biggest significant number, there is a reasonable argument that this really means that you need to find the largest number with a value that actually exists in the world.

Thus, the mass of the Sun in tons will be less than in pounds. The highest number with any real world application - or, in this case real application in the worlds is - probably - one of the latest estimates of the number of universes in the multiverse. This number is so large that the human brain will literally be unable to perceive all these different universes, since the brain is only capable of roughly configurations.

Here is a collection of the smallest things in the world, ranging from tiny toys, miniature animals and people to a hypothetical subatomic particle. Atoms are the smallest particles into which matter can be divided by chemical reactions. The world's smallest teapot was created by renowned ceramist Wu Ruishen and weighs only 1.4 grams. In 2004, Rumaisa Rahman became the smallest newborn child.

This world is strange: some loves strive to create something monumental and gigantic in order to become famous all over the world and go down in history, while others create minimalist copies of ordinary things and amaze the world with them no less. This review contains the smallest items that exist in the world and at the same time are no less functional than their full-sized counterparts.

1. SwissMiniGun gun

The SwissMiniGun is no bigger than a regular wrench, but it is capable of firing tiny bullets that shoot out of the barrel at speeds in excess of 430 km/h. That's more than enough to kill a man at close range.

2. Car Peel 50

Weighing just 69 kg, the Peel 50 is the smallest car ever to be approved for road use. This three-wheeled "pepelats" could reach a speed of 16 km / h.

3. Kalou School

UNESCO recognized the Iranian Kalou school as the smallest in the world. It has only 3 students and a former soldier, Abdul-Muhammed Sherani, who is now a teacher.

4. Teapot weighing 1.4 grams

It was created by ceramics master Wu Ruishen. Although this teapot weighs only 1.4 grams and fits on the tip of your finger, you can brew tea in it.

5. Sark Prison

Sark Prison was built in the Channel Islands in 1856. There was room for only 2 prisoners, who, moreover, were in very cramped conditions.

6. Tumbleweed

This house was called "Perakati-field" (Tumbleweed). It was built by Jay Schafer of San Francisco. Although the house is smaller than some people's closets (its area is only 9 square meters), it has workplace, bedroom and bath with shower and toilet.

7. Mills End Park

Mills End Park in Portland is the smallest park in the world. Its diameter is only ... 60 centimeters. At the same time, the park has a swimming pool for butterflies, a miniature Ferris wheel and tiny statues.

8. Edward Niño Hernandez

The growth of Edward Niño Hernandez from Colombia is only 68 centimeters. The Guinness Book of Records recognized him as the smallest person in the world.

9. Police station in a telephone booth

In fact, it is no more than a telephone booth. But it was actually a functioning police station in Carabella, Florida.

10. Sculptures by Willard Wigan

British sculptor Willard Wigan, who suffered from dyslexia and poor school performance, found solace in creating miniature works of art. His sculptures are barely visible to the naked eye.

11. Bacterium Mycoplasma Genitalium

12. Porcine circovirus

Although there is still debate about what can be considered "alive" and what is not, most biologists do not classify a virus as a living organism due to the fact that it cannot reproduce or has no metabolism. A virus, however, can be much smaller than any living organism, including bacteria. The smallest is a single-stranded DNA virus called porcine circovirus. Its size is only 17 nanometers.

13. Amoeba

The size of the small object visible to the naked eye is about 1 mm. This means that under certain conditions, a person can see an amoeba, a ciliate shoe, and even a human egg.

14. Quarks, leptons and antimatter...

During the last century, scientists have made great strides in understanding the vastness of space and the microscopic "building blocks" of which it is composed. When it came to figuring out what is the smallest observable particle in the universe, people faced certain difficulties. At some point they thought it was an atom. Then the scientists discovered the proton, the neutron, and the electron.

But it didn't end there. Today, everyone knows that when you push these particles into each other in places like the Large Hadron Collider, they can be broken into even smaller particles, such as quarks, leptons, and even antimatter. The problem is that it is impossible to determine what is the smallest, since the size at the quantum level becomes irrelevant, as well as all the usual rules of physics do not apply (some particles have no mass, and others even have negative mass).

15. Vibrating strings of subatomic particles

Given what was said above about the fact that the concept of size does not matter at the quantum level, we can recall string theory. This is a slightly controversial theory, suggesting that all subatomic particles are made up of vibrating strings that interact to create things like mass and energy. Thus, since these strings do not technically have a physical size, it can be argued that they are in some sense the "smallest" objects in the universe.