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

  • Thread starter Thread starter alpha_wolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientist
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the historical assumptions in physics regarding the nature of fundamental particles, space, and molecular structure. Scientists initially considered fundamental particles as point-like due to the mathematical simplicity and the success of this model in explaining various phenomena. The notion of flat space and two-dimensional molecules arose from similar simplifications. However, modern string theory, which posits that particles are one-dimensional strings or branes without thickness, aims to address the limitations of solid particle models. Attempts to create theories with particles modeled as small spheres faced significant challenges, leading to their abandonment. These challenges often stemmed from issues such as the inability to reconcile the behavior of solid particles with quantum mechanics, which string theory successfully navigates by treating particles as extended objects, thus avoiding the complications associated with solid structures.
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 to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top