Why Do Scientists Assume Particles Are Point-Like in Theories?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alpha_wolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientist
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Scientists assume fundamental particles are point-like due to the limitations encountered in theories that propose particles as extended objects, such as spheres. String theory, particularly in its modern form, posits that strings and branes are one-dimensional and lack thickness, which avoids the complications associated with solid particles. Historical attempts to model particles as spheres have consistently failed, leading to their abandonment in favor of point-like representations. This preference is rooted in the mathematical and conceptual advantages that point-like particles offer in theoretical physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of string theory concepts, particularly one-dimensional strings and branes.
  • Familiarity with fundamental particle physics and the Standard Model.
  • Knowledge of dimensionality in theoretical physics.
  • Basic grasp of the mathematical challenges in modeling extended objects in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical framework of string theory, focusing on its implications for particle physics.
  • Explore the historical context of particle modeling, including failed theories involving extended particles.
  • Study the dimensionality of particles and its impact on physical theories.
  • Investigate alternative theories to string theory that propose different models for fundamental particles.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, theoretical researchers, and students interested in the foundations of particle physics and the implications of string theory on our understanding of the universe.

alpha_wolf
Messages
163
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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?
 

Similar threads

High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
Graduate Why do the proton and electron have equal and opposite electric charge?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Graduate Alternative topology of our 3D space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Problems in classical electrodynamics: Only for point-like particles?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dalton's atomic theory, Avogadro, and caloric theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate Why are particles in QFT assumed to be point-like?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Problems with quantizing branes in string theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School The building blocks of strings
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K