andrew@tekecs.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (08/26/83)
"... quarks are (by definition) one-dimensional particles; that
is, they are points, in the mathematical/geometric sense. In
order to define a particle more basic than a point in
space-time, the entire concept of space-time as we know it will
have to be revamped. Most physicist don't think that this is
possible, let alone likely."
Hmmm ... let's go back seventy years and listen to the pundits of that
day:
"... atoms are (by definition) one-dimensional particles; that
is, they are points, in the mathematical/geometric sense. In
order to define a particle more basic than a point in
space-time, the entire concept of space-time as we know it will
have to be revamped. Most physicist don't think that this is
possible, let alone likely."
"After all, the word `atom' means `indivisible unit' ..."
Most physicists are cagey enough not to be caught making statements
like "I don't think this is possible".
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]