Friday, August 12, 2016

Why should I believe that "elementary" particles are indeed elementary?


Atoms were once thought to be indivisible (i.e. have no substructure), until it was discovered that they are made of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons in turn are made of quarks, and that's where current knowledge ends.


I had always assumed that it must only be a matter of time until the particles that quarks and other elementary particles are made of are found, but recently I ran into a physicist at a party who to my great surprise told me that scientists aren't looking very hard for such particles because there is a theoretical justification to strongly believe that yes, this time we really have reached the bottom of the ladder and the reason we have not discovered any constituents of elementary particles is that they have none.


Unfortunately, our conversation was interrupted at this point and I didn't see the guy again afterwards. Needless to say, I'm now burning with curiosity for the "theoretical justification" that will make me believe science indeed has closed that chapter. Can anyone here enlighten me?




No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...