This might be moved to speculation:

Like we still don't know the extent of the universe, can there be something like a smallest particle? Everything has to be made of something smaller, right?

Is it that the smallest particle defined will be the maximum one can magnify things in that period of time? Is it sort of a continuum that everything has to be made of smaller particles?

Everything has to be made of something smaller, right?

 

Why?

Why not?

thats not a satisfactory reason.

Why?

Why not?

 

Funnily enough you just answered the question Swansont was refering to: If something might be true or might as well just not be true then it certainly doesn't have to be true.

Funnily enough you just answered the question Swansont was refering to: If something might be true or might as well just not be true then it certainly doesn't have to be true.

 

Which is why I asked the question. Even the smallest particle, should have dimensions. The dimensions should imply that the particle is made up of something else. This might continue until we find it negligible.

We have particles that are described as structureless point particles.

What if you don't know exactly where your particle is, then can you still say you know how big it is?

We have particles that are described as structureless point particles.

 

Aren't point particles a geometric representation of particles whose dimensions aren't important at the instant when other properties are under study?

 

What if you don't know exactly where your particle is, then can you still say you know how big it is?

 

If I didn't know, of course, I couldn't say anything about the particles. I wouldn't know because I wouldn't have the appropriate equipment. What if I did? Has physics really defined a smallest point particle?

Has physics really defined a smallest point particle?

NO! just as it has not yet defined the biggest.

We have particles that are described as structureless point particles.

Aren't point particles a geometric representation of particles whose dimensions aren't important at the instant when other properties are under study?

Yes and no. For elementary particles that are nearly always considered point particles - there is no evidence to suggest that they do (or, afaik, don't) have spatial dimensions.

 

What if you don't know exactly where your particle is, then can you still say you know how big it is?

If I didn't know, of course, I couldn't say anything about the particles. I wouldn't know because I wouldn't have the appropriate equipment. What if I did?

I think you missed Mr Skeptic's point there, you cannot know exactly where your particle is.