"Within each density there are seven sub-densities"

[Ali Quadir]

Actually from what I've read on the subject (and because I cannot resist a debate ),

Yield to temptation... It may not pass your way again !!

we cannot conclude that there is no smallest particle because we have not yet been able to devise a means of seeing anything smaller than certain scales.

This is most certainly true, and even if we see smaller than those scales there is always a scale below it that we cannot see. My position is inherently unprovable. I was speaking from Nassim Haramein's perspective where the universe is a fractal. At a certain point it just starts to repeat itself. It has no edges.

Also to argue for your side of the equation a little more (Which is a lousy way to win a discussion ) there's the problem of the planck constant, a theoretical minimal size, below which space itself is undividable. And there's a noise factor. Apparently below a certain size around 10^-16 I believe. At any rate just at our current maximal resolution. The universe begins to act really chaotic and you just kinda lose grips with causality.

Still, I think Nassim is right and there is no smallest particle. These are just artefacts of our physics. Also note that to measure the very small we need extraordinary amounts of energy which one could argue upsets the normal behavior of nature at that level. Since that energy at some point is likely going to be converted to matter. If we measure that generated matter we're not actually measuring the small.

A Sense of Scale
The strings of string theory are unimaginably small. And when we say "unimaginably," we mean it: Your average string, if it exists, is about 10-33 centimeters long. That's a point followed by 32 zeros and then a 1. It's a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. (Physicists stick to metric.) Or think of it this way: if an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a string would be the size of a tree. Yup, real small.

That is itty bitty Incidentally the elegant universe you linked to is a brilliant documentary on the subject. I see that it's present on google videos. If anyone is interested in the subject and hasn't seen it, this one is recommended

I might also present Zeno's paradox for your consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes) In short Zeno suggests that motion is impossible because to move anywhere requires us to reach the mid-way point of that destination first. But if there is no smallest particle (or unit of space) then there would be an infinity of half-way points to reach first. Yet it is a paradox to say so because regardless of this, we reach our destinations when we wish to travel somewhere. SO I might say that since we can go places, a smallest unit must exist.

Well actually I do have an answer on that one. Zeno's paradox is only a paradox because his perception of movement is wrong. These infinite amount of half way points you speak about are each achieved in an infinitesimal time. Lifting the total travel time back into our normal realm and resolving the paradox. Basically zeno introduced an artificial infinity. The same goes for any other type of activity that can be seen as infinitely dividable. And then suggested it was an impossible hurdle, which it clearly is not. I think Zeno's paradox is an artefact of his model. Just like the infinitely small is obscured by artefacts in our scientific model. But like I said, my position is inherently unprovable. I can't prove any of it, and it's not based on modern scientific insight (Unless Nassim counts ).

To summarize, I don't have a real answer to your suggestion that there might indeed be a smallest particle, I spoke from the fractal Point of view. But that's a point of view and points of view don't serve as actual proof. But zeno's paradox fortunately was added in by you for me to save a little bit of my honor Thank you !

Sorry to derail the thread so heavily with these ramblings. I've had my morning coffee and my brain is jumping around in my skull.

Like I said, yield to temptation Especially in these subjects. Philosophy rocks! In spite of lousy job chances.

Did Lavazza drink Lavazza?