Consider this /sci/

Don't you think we would know if there were larger particles in existance? And not a physicist here, but iirc physicists were saying with the last big discovery that they felt they were close to uncovering the smallest.

>>8715735
duh existence.

>>8715735
IDK, IIRC correctly they discovered large quasar clusters just recently and they're now considered the largest known structures in the universe (and historically we kept on discovering larger and larger structures, opposite is also true)

I don't think motion would be at all possible if there was the smallest particle in the universe

>>8715727
You want a real massive "particle"? A neutron star is basically a humongous solid atom. The hypothetical quark star is even better, being effectively a single particle.

>>8715768
Yeah, thats kinda what I thought about. And the galaxies could just be the endgame phase of a dying compact particle (its basically a rotating disc, it could've been a compact round particle in the past)

>>8715775
Which is dissolving that way because of rotation

>>8715775
Not really, galaxies were always made of gasses aggregating into clumping matter. That kind of concentration of matter just becomes black holes. The quark star would be the absolute limit of how big you can go before that point.

Now if you want to go all the way back to the big bang, you could make a case for a real megaparticle. But the definition probably fails entirely at that point.

You might also group things as a whole based on quantum interaction, but although it can happen in the lab (boise-einstein condensates) real systems are far too noisy to manage it.

>>8715782
I could never really understand the concept of black holes (I'm not a physicist). How is that kind of matter density possible without enormous pressure from outside? Wouldn't any aggregating of mass just reverse into dissolving at some point (without adequate pressure)? Wouldn't all those particles start repulsing one another at some point?

>>8715804
It isn't, a giant star needs to explode and create a suitably concentrated mass. It isn't required afterwards because of the gravity alone. Black holes do slowly evaporate, but the universe will be long dead before any of them manage to poof out of existence.

>>8715962
Thanks for the answer, now it makes more sense. But still, why would larger particles be impossible if mass alone isn't enough to form a black hole? How did scientists calculate the upper limit?

>>8716014
And also giant quasar clusters, largest known structures in the universe. Maybe there are superparticles that appear less dense from our relative microcosmal point of view but are actually quite dense on larger scale (and also in the opposite way, on an infinite scale)

>>8715727
>galaxies forming from photons
How the fuck would that work if photons have to always move at c

>>8716204
Well, I didn't mean literal galaxies, rather "galaxies" on lower microscopic level, e.g. subgalaxies. And yes, everything (motion, speed of natural processes) would be at much higher speeds at lower levels. The smaller something is the faster it moves etc. That would mean there is no largest nor smallest speed in the universe (subphotons would be much faster than photons etc). Maybe galaxies on our level formed from "superphotons" (or some other particle, point is every type of particle would repeat itself over and over again when looked on an infinite vertical micro-macro scale - sorry for clumsy expressions, english is not my mother tongue).

>>8716509
So the lifespan of those "subgalaxies" would probably be a fraction of a second or something similar on our level.