Smallest, I think not.

[Balstrome]

The thinker Democritus deduced that if you split a rock in half, then do it again, and again, and again, eventually you might come to a point where you simply cannot split it any more. That tiniest part he called an atom, meaning “indivisible.”

Why should this be so? Ever? why should there be an ultimate indivisible particle ?

 

[Geriatrix]

Um, should this be in the philosophical section?

 

[Datura]

Why should this be so? Ever? why should there be an ultimate indivisible particle ?

Only man's inability to comprehend infinity makes it so.

 

[copacetic]

Don't things start behaving, err, unlike particles in any way we can really define anyway? If something has no mass, how can it be split further? Anyway, this stuff is all greek to me really.

 

[UnUnOctium]

String theory agrees with you, OP. Strings are not particles, just energy. But ofcourse there's always quantum loop mechanics, etc. The classical model says there should be an ultimately small, undivisible particle but it's going rapidly out of fashion.

 

[Balstrome]

So then what the hell was the Singularity ? An infinitely small point means ???

 

[copacetic]

So then what the hell was the Singularity ? An infinitely small point means ???

Aren't we still figuring that out?

 

[ChilliGirl]

There is lots to discover still