Photons are larger than electrons. Electrons are "point particles" which means while they have mass, they do not have any determinable heighth, width or depth. Photons, on the other hand, most definitely have a specific volume.
Correction:
A fairly common misconception so I'm leaving the original answer in place. Under quantum mechanics we can observe a photon as a particle or a wave, just as we can an electron. We happen to find it easier to think of electrons as particles and photons as waves but in reality both can be either, it just depends which properties we measure. Both particles, in fact all fundamental ones, are pure points - at least down to the superstring level where all bets are off. Quantum mechanics makes the position of the particle uncertain, it does not mean the particle itself is bulked up.
They are both fundamental particles and therefore points. Points cannot be bigger or smaller than other points.
Quarks are never found alone but many common subatomic particles are not elementary but composed of two or three quarks. Protons and neutrons which make up the nucleus of an atom are themselves composed of three quarks. Such composite particles may be thought of as a small cloud of point particles or as a single ball with a particular diameter.
Photons, on the other hand, don't stick together.
Opinion 1: No. A quark is a nano-sized part of an electron.
Opinion 2:
Since the Quarks are thought to be the building blocks of atoms...
No. I do not find this to be logical. There is more to it than this though.
Experiments have been run in order to try to figure out the size of an electron. None of which have been successful to my knowledge as of today.
The electron is thought to be a fundamental particle. A Quark is thought to be a fundamental particle. What is smaller? This basketball or that basketball?
They might even be the same size.
Fundamental particles does not have to be the same size but we can not say for sure they are not. You pull out your ruler and try to measure them.
What is logic when we try to apply this to particles we simply have no method of taking a picture of, let alone actually measure.
Science have made different models in order to try to understand how things works. The model of atoms and electrons etc... It is a proven model. It works. It is however only a simplistic and crude model used to explain cause and effect. Even though we imagine how atoms behave and electrons orbiting these atoms, this is only a model and can not be 100% proven as of today. This is why we try to figure out what the smaller particles making the atoms are.
Due to the size and limitations of electronics and mechanics due to size, this is a problem we most likely will never be able to figure out with factual proof.
It can most likely be explained by the following question:
How can we accurately measure the size of a virus with a 30 cm ruler?
Take a further look at related link below.
YES!!!?
Photons are mass-less particles. The wave nature of photons makes it hard to define a size for a photon. You could (sort of) say that a photon is smaller than a neutron because it is mass-less. Analyzing the size of a photon gets tricky due to the quantum nature of photons.
They are the same size, All fundamental particles are points.
A neutrino is lighter than the photon
The photon IS the particle in this case. It isn't known to be made up of any smaller particles. The electric charge of a photon is zero.
Both of them can have a low or a high energy.The question is essentially meaningless for the above reason, but let's try to answer it anyway.Neutrons have an inherent energy equivalent to their mass (which is, for a subatomic particle, pretty substantial).The energy of a photon can be pretty much any desired value. Low-energy photons have low frequencies; high-energy photons have high frequencies.The energy equivalent of a neutron at rest is roughly equal to that of a photon with a frequency of 2.2 x 1023 Hz. This is an amazingly high frequency (way up in the gamma region of the spectrum, which starts at around 1019Hz), so it's rather likely that for any given photon/neutron pair, the neutron has a higher overall energy.Gamma-ray bursts can contain photons with energies far higher than a neutron at rest, though. The neutron energy is around a GeV; gamma-ray bursts can have photons with energies in excess of 10 TeV, 10,000 times higher.
No, protons and neutrons are in the nucleus and the electrons orbit around the nucleus. This all happens inside the atom.
The energy of a photon is inversely propotional to its wavelength. The wavelength of a blue photon is less than that of a red photon. That makes the blue photon more energetic. Or how about this? The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. The frequency of a blue photon is greater than that of a red photon. That makes the blue photon more energetic. The wavelength of a photon is inversely proportional to its frequency. The the longer the wavelength, the lower the frequency. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency.
Smaller than a neutron
Yes, the neutron has a negative charge and a mass that is smaller than the mass of a proton.
An atom is larger than a neutron; a neutron is a part of any atom except a hydrogen atom.
A neutron.
neutron
The neutron is a part of the atom, therefore it is smaller.
Absorbing a neutron and emitting a gamma photon Th-232 become U-233.
Neutron ?
The neutron is the largest of the particles mentioned. Compared to the proton, it has an additional weight of 1.293 MeV.
No, an electron is MUCH smaller than a neutron. About 1/1836 or something like that. Just Google "mass of an electron".
Neutron, neutrino, photon, the still-hypothetical graviton.
They are much denser. it's the same with stars and neutron stars. Neutron stars are many times smaller than the original star but much heavier because they are so denser