The atom-

[why06]

Do you believe there is a point in which nothing can be devided again or do you believe there will always be smaller particles quarts ecetera. Personally i believe the answer is much more simple then we imagine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lucas_900]

I think we will get to a point where we just have energy. As far as we know, electrons are a fundemental particle, so the only way we can get simpler is to turn it into pure energy. Same goes for quarks, another fundamental particle. There is currently no evidence for particles more fundamental than these. It won't be as simple as "splitting" the particle, however - you will need massive amounts of heat and energy I would imagine.

 

[why06]

or an absence of heat and energy so that the sub-atomic particles can no longer hold together. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lucas_900]

Well if the particle is fundamental, meaning not made of anything but its self, it doesn't need to be held together, only groups of them need to be held together, also, a lack of heat would mean that the particles would have less energy and would therefore have less energy to escape the attractive forces between each other.

 

[harmonicaman]

Hmmm...<br /><br />Get small enough and you'll enter another dimension and leave the universe altogether...

 

[lucas_900]

Well surely that dimension would still be in this universe. You don't get transported out of it - there are at least 4 perceived dimensions to us, and each one isn't located in it's own universe.<br />Would that be coming from the "our universe is an atom in another universe and so on...", because, to be fair, there isn't much scientific basis to that, no evidence at least.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Lucas -</b><br /><br />Good point! But exceeding "c" (the speed of light) would put you "Outside the Universe"; so I thought that to get too small would also go beyond the parameters of the universe.<br /><br />(Read about the 11 sub-atomic dimensions and String Theory; Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe")

 

[why06]

, but possibly eventually something will become so small it will take all the energy in the universe to break it apart possibly releasing as much energy as the big bang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lucas_900]

Yeah i've read that book, interesting read, ive also got fabric of the cosmos, his other book, but havn't read it yet. In all honesty I didn't get on with the extra dimensions bit very well because I couldn't visualise it. I'll re-read it again and see if I get on better this time.<br /><br />I'm unsure as to whether that size would be outside the parameters, as, if the BB theory is to be believed then we came from a super dense, unimaginally small point, which would suggest that unless we became smaller than that we probably wouldn't have a problem as it wouldn't be outside the universe's parameters.<br /><br />Also, we can't exceed the speed of light, as far as we know, so we couldn't be put outside of the universe. This is almost like a natural defence to prevent this happening - mayb there is something similar with size - at a point we simply can't get any smaller - the energy requirements are too great, as it is with the speed of light.

 

[vogon13]

Electrons, positrons, and photons remain indivisible.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

What of quarks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lucas_900]

Quarks are the same. They too are a fundemental particles - indivisible. There are 2 families of fundamental particles - Leptons and Quarks, the electron and positron are members of the Lepton family.