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]