Why did scientist just assume?

  • Thread starter alpha_wolf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Scientist
In summary, scientists have assumed that fundamental particles are point particles, space is flat, and molecules are two-dimensional. However, modern string theory assumes that strings and branes have no thickness, contradicting these assumptions. This is because theories with particles as little spheres have been found to be unsuccessful. The appeal of string physics lies in its ability to address these problems without the limitations of solid particles.
  • #1
alpha_wolf
163
0
How come scientist assummed that fundamental particles were point particles, that space was flat, that molecules were two-dimensional, and so on? If modern string theroy assumes string and branes have no thickness, why does it assume so? Doesn't it make more sense for particles to have volume, for molecules to be 3D like everything else around us, etc.?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Every now and then someone has tried to build a theory with particles that are little spheres. They quickly found that they couldn't make those theories work, and abandoned them. This was part of the cachet of string physics; it concerned elementary things that were extended, but didn't have the problems of solid particles.
 
  • #3
selfAdjoint said:
Every now and then someone has tried to build a theory with particles that are little spheres. They quickly found that they couldn't make those theories work, and abandoned them. This was part of the cachet of string physics; it concerned elementary things that were extended, but didn't have the problems of solid particles.

What sorts of problems did they run into?
 

1. Why did scientists just assume that the Earth was flat?

In ancient times, people believed that the Earth was flat because it appeared that way to the naked eye. However, scientists in the 3rd century BC, such as Pythagoras and Aristotle, used logical reasoning and observations to suggest that the Earth was actually round. This assumption was later confirmed by explorers like Ferdinand Magellan and modern technology like satellites.

2. Why did scientists just assume that atoms existed?

Early scientists, such as Democritus and John Dalton, hypothesized the existence of atoms based on philosophical and experimental evidence. However, it wasn't until the 20th century, with advancements in technology like the electron microscope, that scientists were able to directly observe and confirm the existence of atoms.

3. Why did scientists just assume that evolution was real?

The theory of evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, but it took many years and a significant amount of evidence from various fields of science, such as biology, geology, and genetics, for it to be widely accepted by the scientific community. Scientists continue to study and provide evidence for evolution, but it is now considered a well-supported and fundamental concept in biology.

4. Why did scientists just assume that climate change was caused by humans?

Climate change has been a topic of study for many years, but it wasn't until the late 20th century that scientists began to gather significant evidence that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, were contributing to the Earth's changing climate. This evidence includes data from ice cores, tree rings, and atmospheric measurements, among others.

5. Why did scientists just assume that the Big Bang theory was true?

The Big Bang theory is the widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe, based on evidence from multiple branches of science, including astronomy, cosmology, and physics. Scientists have been able to gather and analyze data from the cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and the abundance of elements, all of which support the Big Bang theory. However, this theory is still being studied and refined by scientists today.

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
844
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
899
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
0
Views
881
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top