Timeline for Put yourself in the shoes of Wolfgang Pauli (1930): How could Pauli have narrowed the culprit down to one particle, instead of many?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | webb | @rob very interesting! I'm not sure historically if he went with one or many, but you should always try to keep your model as simple as possible until there is added complexity you have to incorporate. If there's "missing mass", I would assume one particle carrying it until I was required by further observation to add more. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 2:48 | comment | added | Gödel | You gave me a better insight concerning the elimination process, and how he got to "particle." But my main question was how did he get from particle(s) to particle. Why just one? It was correct, and it means that Occam's razor wins again. But are there other reasons? | |
| May 21, 2014 at 2:44 | vote | accept | Gödel | ||
| May 21, 2014 at 1:21 | comment | added | rob♦ | If you read Allan Franklin's nice history of the neutrino, you'll see that prior to Pauli's proposal of an "unobservable" neutral particle there were several people ready to accept that energy conservation was a statistical phenomenon only. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 21:09 | history | answered | webb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |