For example, I’ve seen that an electron is assumed to be a point-particle, i.e, occupies negligible space.
But it obviously has mass, so it’s gotta occupy *some* space!
However, the math seems to add up (pun intended), and the behaviour of the electron can be explained.
How?
(This was inspired by the *assume a spherical cow* thing)
In: Physics
>For example, I’ve seen that an electron is assumed to be a point-particle, i.e, occupies negligible space.
>
>But it obviously has mass, so it’s gotta occupy some area!
You’re confusing *mass* with *volume*. If something has volume then it must occupy some area. It is not clear that elementary particles such as electrons and such have any sort of volume which is why it is fine to treat them as point particles.
There are proposals, such as string theory, which give them a volume (of sorts) but they are currently untestable in these regards. Basically, if they do have volume, it is currently below our threshold to detect, which is why ignoring it hasn’t raised any problems.
>However, the math seems to add up (pun intended), and the behaviour of the electron can be explained.
>
>How?
>
>(This was inspired by the assume a spherical cow thing)
Mainly because our math is derived from past observations. So it should be little wonder then why future observations are in line with our math!
But the real answer is: our math *doesn’t* check out. All of the math is approximations based on our finite set of observations made within the degrees of accuracy that we are capable of. As we make more observations and are able to measure things with greater accuracy, we find that our math doesn’t check out in some areas.
It’s why we moved from Isaac Newton’s math to Einstein’s math and why we are trying to find new math to move to from Einstein.
Latest Answers