I've heard that particle physics is just like taxonomy and botany

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the analogy drawn between particle physics and botany or taxonomy, particularly in light of a quote attributed to Enrico Fermi. Participants explore the validity of this comparison and its implications for understanding particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that comparing particle physics to botany is nonsensical, arguing that having a systematic classification does not equate the two fields.
  • Others reference Fermi's quote, suggesting it reflects a historical perspective on the complexity of particle classification before the development of the Standard Model.
  • There are mentions of the Standard Model as a unifying framework that provides a clearer understanding of particle interactions, contrasting with earlier views of a "particle zoo."
  • Some participants express skepticism about the authenticity of Fermi's quote, noting that it may have originated from informal contexts rather than direct attribution.
  • One participant highlights the historical context of Fermi's quote, indicating it predates the establishment of the Standard Model and reflects the confusion surrounding particle identification at that time.
  • Another participant mentions the number of parameters in the Standard Model, suggesting that understanding these can simplify the complexity of particle physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the analogy between particle physics and botany, with some firmly rejecting it while others acknowledge historical context. There is no consensus on the authenticity of Fermi's quote or its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of historical perspectives on particle physics, including the evolution of understanding from a "particle zoo" to the more structured framework provided by quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying the history of particle physics, the development of scientific classification systems, or the philosophical implications of scientific analogies.

TechieDork
Messages
55
Reaction score
22
TL;DR
Please , provide me some insights
I've heard it from my classmates that particle physics is just like botany or when physics meets taxonomy.
There is even a quote from Enrico Fermi about this

"If I could remember all names of these particles I'd be a botanist"

I just want to know how true is that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Total nonsense (*). Your classmates have no idea. Compare: having a periodic system of the elements doesn't make chemistry just like botany either.

(*) not the Fermi quote -- he just had a hunch there might be a system underneath -- and he was right !
 
BvU said:
Total nonsense (*). Your classmates have no idea. Compare: having a periodic system of the elements doesn't make chemistry just like botany either.

(*) not the Fermi quote -- he just had a hunch there might be a system underneath -- and he was right !

So, there is a simple principle/rule describing the galore of these particles.
 
There sure is. 'Standard model' is the search term
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
Well, let's add some emphasis to Fermi's quote:

TechieDork said:
"If I could remember all names of these particles I [woul]d be a botanist"

so he did not think it was necessary to remember those names (of course, many (particle) physicists still remember a lot of (not fundamental) particle names and properties, just from working with them for a good part of their lifetime).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TechieDork
BvU said:
There sure is. 'Standard model' is the search term

You mean...

images - 2019-10-15T184516.051.jpeg


Source : SymmetryMagazine
I hope I don't have to memorize this for my graduate class.
 
Go do botany :wink:
 
TechieDork said:
I hope I don't have to memorize this for my graduate class.
You don't have to. It's the particle physics equivalent of writing "13+5+17+26+39" instead of writing 100. Here is a more compact version:

SMLagrangian-768x443.png


If you learn some QFT and learn the meaning of these terms it is quite easy to remember.

The Standard Model has 19 free parameters, add 7 from neutrino mixing and you have everything you need to describe the fundamental interactions in every experiment ever done on Earth. That's 26 parameters we need to measure, and thousands of values we can calculate based on these 26 parameters.

Fermi's quote is from 1963 or earlier, by the way, before the Standard Model was developed. At that time people found more and more hadrons, but didn't understand how to describe them in a unified way. That's one of the big things the Standard Model provided.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, pinball1970, Klystron and 2 others
mfb said:
Fermi's quote is from 1963 or earlier

I hope it's before he died in 1954! The alternative is frightening.

Actually, I doubt he said this. So far as I can tell, it only occurs in talk introductions by Lederman, who was very fond of, well, let's call them tall tales.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, berkeman and BvU
  • #10
TechieDork said:
I've heard it from my classmates that particle physics is just like botany or when physics meets taxonomy.
This is an old fashioned point of view, probably from the '70s, when particle after particle were discovered and a unifying description hadn't been found yet. Now we have such a description: quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
I hope it's before he died in 1954! The alternative is frightening.

Actually, I doubt he said this. So far as I can tell, it only occurs in talk introductions by Lederman, who was very fond of, well, let's call them tall tales.
Oh, didn't know he died so early. I found this mentioned 1963, so no matter who said it: The quote predates the SM.
 
  • #12
Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles" contains a nice history of the particle zoo and the path to the Standard Model.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
  • #13
TechieDork said:
Summary: Please , provide me some insights

I've heard it from my classmates that particle physics is just like botany or when physics meets taxonomy.
There is even a quote from Enrico Fermi about this

"If I could remember all names of these particles I'd be a botanist"

I just want to know how true is that.
Reminds of the below.
'That which cannot be measured is not Science, Science that is not physics is just stamp collecting.'
Rutherford I think.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
19K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K