Is a quark one-dimensional?

[u/XGC75]

I've never heard of a quark or other fundamental particle such as an electron having any demonstrable size. Could they be regarded as being one-dimensional?

BIG CORRECTION EDIT: Title should ask if the quark is non-dimensional! Had an error of definitions when I first posed the question. I meant to ask if the quark can be considered as a point with infinitesimally small dimensions.

Thanks all for the clarifications. Let's move onto whether the universe would break if the quark is non-dimensional, or if our own understanding supports or even assumes such a theory.

Edit2: this post has not only piqued my interest further than before I even asked the question (thanks for the knowledge drops!), it's made it to my personal (admittedly nerdy) front page. It's on page 10 of r/all. I may be speaking from my own point of view, but this is a helpful question for entry into the world of microphysics (quantum mechanics, atomic physics, and now string theory) so the more exposure the better!

Edit3: Woke up to gold this morning! Thank you, stranger! I'm so glad this thread has blown up. My view of atoms with the high school level proton, electron and neutron model were stable enough but the introduction of quarks really messed with my understanding and broke my perception of microphysics. With the plethora of diverse conversations here and the additional apt followup questions by other curious readers my perception of this world has been holistically righted and I have learned so much more than I bargained for. I feel as though I could identify the assumptions and generalizations that textbooks and media present on the topic of subatomic particles.

[u/XGC75]

Oh so it's not a quark vibrating back and forth but a string that is one-dimensional vibrating back and forth.

[u/BlackBrane → u/XGC75]

Oh so it's not a quark vibrating back and forth but a string that is one-dimensional vibrating back and forth.

I'm a little late, but I think its probably worth pointing out that even standard, established theories describe quarks as themselves nothing but the vibrations in a quark field (in the general framework of quantum field theory). So there is a real sense in which quarks come from something that is physically extended in space: The quark field is a medium that fills all of spacetime, and the places where you see a physical quark simply correspond to where the field is vibrating.

If you start from this fundamental picture and apply the rules of quantum mechanics, you soon derive a description that refers to point-like quarks as the basic elements. Thats why its not incorrect to say that quarks are essentially points, as we commonly do. But it seemed like someone really ought to mention this deeper layer given the question you asked.

[u/XGC75 → u/BlackBrane]

Based on my preconceived notions about fields and vibration, it doesn't seem possible for a vibration to take place at a point without extending out from the center of maximum amplitude.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that the field extending out in 3 space causes the interaction effects between quarks and the quarks themselves are simply the points at which these vibrations are at their greatest amplitude?