Indisputable Proof that Electrons Exist?

[disregardthat]

Is it relevant in as much as I can confidently say that "individual electrons don't exist in the same way as classical obejects do". This is the ABC of physics, if you don't want to stick to what we know from physics and science, what are you doing in a science forum?

Does the chair you are sitting on, have a definite position and momentum?

You proposed a fundamental difference, but these are only difference with respect to properties. I don't see how this is fundamentally different. Particles are also subjects to our perception just as chairs. "They don't exist in the same way as" is not equivalent to "They don't have similar properties". Or maybe that was what you meant? In that case, we obviously agree.

Are you aware that the ontology of modern physics is riddled with paradoxes? I.e. somewhere between these paradoxes quite possibly lie important insights about reality.

Of course, but the ultimate truth won't be found in the particles themselves. That is ridiculous. We may however reach a higher level of understanding by rejecting some of our previous beliefs. This may be accelerated by the blatant "contradictions" found in the properties of what we call particles. There are no real "paradoxes". Paradoxes arise when we have unreasonable expectations /false assumptions to our isomorphism between concepts and the perceived reality. We have thus much to learn from what we call paradoxes.

Why should put efforts in explaining everything word by word?

Relevance?

Most folks here understand very well what i meant by there being a connection between what reality is and the true nature of the fundamental particles.

This wording "The true nature of fundamental particles" reflects a misunderstanding. "Particle" is essentially a human concept with connected notions. What we observe have particle-like properties, and thus we call them particles. Or waves, that depends on the context. To seek the "true nature of fundamental particles" is futile. We have no access to any "true nature" of anything. "True nature" is an illusion. An object is not equivalent to its properties in a specific context.

 

[WaveJumper]

This wording "The true nature of fundamental particles" reflects a misunderstanding. "Particle" is essentially a human concept with connected notions. What we observe have particle-like properties, and thus we call them particles. Or waves, that depends on the context.

Huh? So you'd rather I said "fundamental wavefunctions"? How does that make sense, compared to "fundamental particles"? Before you can teach me what a 'particle' is, it'd be useful to understand what is meant by 'fundamental particle'.

To seek the "true nature of fundamental particles" is futile. We have no access to any "true nature" of anything.

Yet, this is exactly what science is striving for. An ever better model of describing phenomena and their correlations.

"True nature" is an illusion. An object is not equivalent to its properties in a specific context.

What is an object equivalent to, then? As far as human logic is concerned(i assume you don't use alien logic), an object is equivalent to its properties.

 

[disregardthat]

Huh? So you'd rather I said "fundamental wavefunctions"? How does that make sense, compared to "fundamental particles"? Before you can teach me what a 'particle' is, it'd be useful to understand what is meant by 'fundamental particle'.

I was referring to the problem of "true nature" which you speak of. Particles are not essential to my point. "particle" can be interchanged with any object. All objects, not only particles, are relative to the context in which they are treated. Its "true nature" is meaningless.

Yet, this is exactly what science is striving for. An ever better model of describing phenomena and their correlations.

This is wrong, science does not seek truth. Read this for example: http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm to understand my point.

What is an object equivalent to, then? As far as human logic is concerned(i assume you don't use alien logic), an object is equivalent to its properties.

Is a football equivalent to the facts that it is round and soft? Is a stone equivalent to the facts that it is hard and cold? The thing is not equivalent to the properties we give them.

 

[JordanGo]

Obviously you're not getting my point. I'm not saying they don't exist, neither saying they do. But, we shouldn't base proofs off of theories such as electrons. We should think outside this bubble and come up with something that maybe can make more sense other than electrons. It won't hurt to try.

 

[WaveJumper]

I was referring to the problem of "true nature" which you speak of. Particles are not essential to my point. "particle" can be interchanged with any object. All objects, not only particles, are relative to the context in which they are treated. Its "true nature" is meaningless.

"The true nature of fundamental particles" is a correct statement in the context of the OP(e.g. whether electrons exist prior to observation/measurement). There is nothing wrong with it. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"electrons don't exist the same way classical objects do"

This is wrong, science does not seek truth. Read this for example: http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm to understand my point.

On the contrary. Science is striving for truth, whether there is truth to be had is another topic.

Is a football equivalent to the facts that it is round and soft? Is a stone equivalent to the facts that it is hard and cold? The thing is not equivalent to the properties we give them.

Yes, of course a stone is its properties revealed to us. All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses. As far as we(humans) are concerned, information about reality is reality. Within our experience, all the properties of an object are ALWAYS the object itself. And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

 

[disregardthat]

"The true nature of fundamental particles" is a correct statement in the context of the OP(e.g. whether electrons exist prior to observation/measurement). There is nothing wrong with it. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"electrons don't exist the same way classical objects do"

So basically you could say that a stone does not exist the same way dirt does? This is an odd way of differentiating between properties. I still refer to my last comment on it.

On the contrary. Science is striving for truth, whether there is truth to be had is another topic.

"Truth" as in "pragmatic truth" is changing all the time. This is the kind of truth we are searching for, and always renewing. Truth is dependent on context. Every statement is true in some context. Everything is relative. "Ultimate truth", or "objective truth" is an illusion. It is not "to be had"; it is meaningless to say that it exists regardless of our inability to reach it. Truth is what we force upon nature to comprehend it, it is not inherent to nature itself. I recommend that you read the article I linked to, it explains in detail.

All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses.

Of course, but that does not imply equivalence.

And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

No, there are infinitely many ways of interpreting information. The conceptual connections we make with our observations are ambiguous and many, and different interpretations are often inconsistent with each other.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my question,

I agree with the fact that an electron is just the way we name it. But, how do we prove that what we call "electron" is the same thing that surrounds an atom to the "electron" that we use in our technology? Also, how do we know for sure that electrons do circulate around an atom? Maybe neutrons, protons and electrons do not even exist, it was just the easiest way we can explain it. Maybe we should take the time and sit down and rethink this through.

Did you read the first handful of posts in this thread? They explained it pretty clearly:

An electron is a word - a name. The definition of that word is a list of properties. An object that has the properties in that list fits the definition, so it is, by definition, an "electron".

It really is no more complicated than that. People who want to "sit down and rethink this" tend to overthink something that really isn't that complicated.

Obviously you're not getting my point. I'm not saying they don't exist, neither saying they do. But, we shouldn't base proofs off of theories such as electrons. We should think outside this bubble and come up with something that maybe can make more sense other than electrons. It won't hurt to try.

The theory we have works exquisitely well and is responsible for all modern electronics including that computer you used to type that post! It would be counterproductive to try to find something different when we already have something that works so well! Yes, as a matter of fact, it would hurt to try!

 

[JordanGo]

Magpie...

I understand what you mean, I think you got a little personal about the whole thinking situation, but I admit, you're thinking outside this little bubble everyone lives in. And you prove my point exactly. I'm not trying to prove that electrons do not exist, neither try to prove they do exist. All we need to do is not to stop about the possible and not to confirm the theories of electrons. Let's keep our minds open and keep thinking about all the possibilities.

 

[disregardthat]

It really is no more complicated than that. People who want to "sit down and rethink this" tend to overthink something that really isn't that complicated.

There is no such thing as "overthinking". Nothing can be "overthunk"

Examining concepts is the most important thing we can do, and not blindly accept everything which commonly is understood in the appropriate context. The examination of concepts in not necessarily for scientific purposes, but for philosophical ones. And science is blind without philosophy.

 

[magpies]

Well with that in mind... Might I suggest that it is possibly the shape of the electron that gives it its propertys? Like size and form be it sphere or pancake.

 

[disregardthat]

Well with that in mind... Might I suggest that it is possibly the shape of the electron that gives it its propertys? Like size and form be it sphere or pancake.

How would you define "shape" for an electron?

 

[magpies]

are you joking? do you know what a shape is?

 

[disregardthat]

are you joking? do you know what a shape is?

Shape is a geometric concept. How would you define the geometric shape of an electron? The electron can in some sense be seen as a point particle, in some sense a wave. In some sense none of these models are appropriate. These "shapes" (if you can call it that) depends on the measurement device being used. The electron is thus not perceived in any apparent shape.

Most of important of all is, of course, that "shape" is not an intrinsic property of any object. (It can be argued that "shape" is to a certain degree fundamental to our interpretation of nature. This is another matter) It is just a certain way of perceiving some of them. When we have realized/created an isomorphism between our geometrical concepts and perceived objects we find do useful consistency. It is an unreasonable expectation to expect that this isomorphism is universally valid. An especially unreasonable expectation is to believe that objects can be defined through these concepts.

 

[magpies]

Oh ok I am sorry I didnt realize it was a point particle there for having no mass or size.

 

[WaveJumper]

So basically you could say that a stone does not exist the same way dirt does? This is an odd way of differentiating between properties. I still refer to my last comment on it.

No, you are playing stupid games. Both stone and dirt behave to the same set of physical laws. Single electrons and your bath tub do not. Their properties are not just somewhat different, they have little in common.

"Truth" as in "pragmatic truth" is changing all the time. This is the kind of truth we are searching for, and always renewing. Truth is dependent on context. Every statement is true in some context. Everything is relative. "Ultimate truth", or "objective truth" is an illusion. It is not "to be had"; it is meaningless to say that it exists regardless of our inability to reach it. Truth is what we force upon nature to comprehend it, it is not inherent to nature itself. I recommend that you read the article I linked to, it explains in detail.

I don't care for such Hindu nonsense. Here is an excerp from your website(links to crackpot and religious sites is forbidden):


"One idea I have is to use them for healing. Anyone with a disease such as AIDS or cancer, whether or not they have any understanding of Dharma, can use the prayer wheel for meditation and healing..."


"Tibetan prayer wheels (called Mani wheels by the Tibetans) are devices for spreading spiritual blessings and well being. Rolls of thin paper, imprinted with many, many copies of the mantra (prayer) Om Mani Padme Hum, printed in an ancient Indian script or in Tibetan script, are wound around an axle in a protective container, and spun around and around. Typically, larger decorative versions of the syllables of the mantra are also carved on the outside cover of the wheel.
Tibetan Buddhists believe that saying this mantra, out loud or silently to oneself, invokes the powerful benevolent attention and blessings of Chenrezig, the embodiment of compassion.
Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect -- and the mantra is carved into stones left in piles near paths where travelers will see them. Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit."


http://dharma-haven.org/tibetan/prayer-wheel.htm


Is this your source of truths?

All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses.

Of course, but that does not imply equivalence.

What exactly does it imply? That your computer is a Demon behaving like a computer, perfectly matching a computer's properties? Do you doubt that your GF/wife is truly a female? It could be Batman manifesting as a female, or even worse, a male porn star with the properties of your wife(and science cannot refute this).

And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

No, there are infinitely many ways of interpreting information. The conceptual connections we make with our observations are ambiguous and many, and different interpretations are often inconsistent with each other.

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), adopt the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way and embrace commonly accepted scientific facts(not just Hindu healing, all-knowing crackpottery).

 

[disregardthat]

No, you are playing stupid games. Both stone and dirt behave to the same set of physical laws. Single electrons and your bath tub do not. Their properties are not just somewhat different, they have little in common.

Actually, it is you who are playing games. To say that they "exist differently" is an absurd way of wording it. The difference is only in their properties, which are governed by "different set of physical laws" as you describe. This is only semantics.

I don't care for such Hindu nonsense. Here is an excerp from your website(links to crackpot and religious sites is forbidden):

This made me laugh. I linked to an article which didn't pose anything. It was merely a critique of the stance some people have to the concept of "truth". To call a critique crackpottery is pathetic. The article have no religious material whatsoever.

"One idea I have is to use them for healing. Anyone with a disease such as AIDS or cancer, whether or not they have any understanding of Dharma, can use the prayer wheel for meditation and healing..."


"Tibetan prayer wheels (called Mani wheels by the Tibetans) are devices for spreading spiritual blessings and well being. Rolls of thin paper, imprinted with many, many copies of the mantra (prayer) Om Mani Padme Hum, printed in an ancient Indian script or in Tibetan script, are wound around an axle in a protective container, and spun around and around. Typically, larger decorative versions of the syllables of the mantra are also carved on the outside cover of the wheel.
Tibetan Buddhists believe that saying this mantra, out loud or silently to oneself, invokes the powerful benevolent attention and blessings of Chenrezig, the embodiment of compassion.
Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect -- and the mantra is carved into stones left in piles near paths where travelers will see them. Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit."


http://dharma-haven.org/tibetan/prayer-wheel.htm

Again, this has nothing to do with the article I linked to. The website contains a collection of articles and essays. They are not linked to each other in the way you try to make it look like. By the way, it's Buddhism, not Hinduism.

Is this your source of truths?

I find it ironic that you say it is a "source of truths" when the article is a critique of your notion of truth. No, it is not my source of truths. By the way, the site doesn't pose "truths" at all. If you read how your quotation is worded, you'll see that. For example: "Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect", and "Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit.". You should understand that these are not claims of truth, but descriptions of use by some. There is a gigantic difference, I hope you can see it.

What exactly does it imply? That your computer is a Demon behaving like a computer, perfectly matching a computer's properties? Do you doubt that your GF/wife is truly a female? It could be Batman manifesting as a female, or even worse, a male porn star with the properties of your wife(and science cannot refute this).

What does this has to do with anything? To say that the thing is not equivalent to its properties has nothing to do with such pessimistic practical skepticism. If you believe so, you have not understood a thing of what I mean.

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), adopt the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way and embrace commonly accepted scientific facts(not just Hindu healing, all-knowing crackpottery).

You are creating a strawman which you find easy to beat on. To call the article crackpottery and "Hindu healing" is nonsense. It does not in any way disregard science as the search for knowledge and understanding of nature - it is the notion of truth it is criticizing. If you had read it and understood it, you'd see that it doesn't criticize science at all!

Actually, the following:

the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

illustrates just how wrong you are. (my emphasis) You have no idea how intricate and complicated our brains are, and what a fundamental part the contextual relativity of language has to do with our thought and understanding of the world.

You seem blinded in you naturalistic view.

 

[qraal]

The Brain has well known cognitive and decision-making faults that cognitive science has revealed, so "the way our brains interpret information is the correct way" is altogether too strong a statement. Surely you know that WaveJumper?

 

[WaveJumper]

Actually, it is you who are playing games. To say that they "exist differently" is an absurd way of wording it. The difference is only in their properties, which are governed by "different set of physical laws" as you describe. This is only semantics.

No it is not. You need to update your physics knowledge. No one on this planet knows what an electron is. And I mean absolutely NO ONE. We know its properties, we can calculate its charge, mass and momentum but mix them with its other properties(dynamics, 'collapse', entanglement, etc.) and you have an entity that makes no sense. There are various attempts to explain those properties, but the results of all those attempts sound from crazy to ridiculous. It's definitely not semantics, though you are now desparate to push it into that pseudo-philosophical corner. Wouldn't it be much easier for you to save your face and admit that you did not understand my statement that single electrons don't exist the same way as your bath tub does?

This made me laugh. I linked to an article which didn't pose anything. It was merely a critique of the stance some people have to the concept of "truth". To call a critique crackpottery is pathetic. The article have no religious material whatsoever.

This drivel stated the limitations of science and on the next page, it offered salvation and curing of AIDS through meditation. I agree that this is not not nonsense, it's pure, unadulterated tripe.

I find it ironic that you say it is a "source of truths" when the article is a critique of your notion of truth. No, it is not my source of truths. By the way, the site doesn't pose "truths" at all. If you read how your quotation is worded, you'll see that. For example: "Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect", and "Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit.". You should understand that these are not claims of truth, but descriptions of use by some. There is a gigantic difference, I hope you can see it.

Makes no sense to me.

What does this has to do with anything? To say that the thing is not equivalent to its properties has nothing to do with such pessimistic practical skepticism. If you believe so, you have not understood a thing of what I mean.

This is probably the 20th time i am asking - What is the thing equavalent to, if not its properties? I will type this question until you stop evading it and give an answer.

You are creating a strawman which you find easy to beat on. To call the article crackpottery and "Hindu healing" is nonsense. It does not in any way disregard science as the search for knowledge and understanding of nature - it is the notion of truth it is criticizing. If you had read it and understood it, you'd see that it doesn't criticize science at all!

It proposes curing AIDS through meditation(while on the previous page detailing the weakness of science that the authors see). Should i say anything more?

Actually, the following:

the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

illustrates just how wrong you are. (my emphasis) You have no idea how intricate and complicated our brains are, and what a fundamental part the contextual relativity of language has to do with our thought and understanding of the world.

You seem blinded in you naturalistic view.

No. It illustrates that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Why did you crop the sentence, when anybody could see that the whole statement was:

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), ADOPT the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

If you don't know what "adopt" means, look it up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adopt

 

[WaveJumper]

The Brain has well known cognitive and decision-making faults that cognitive science has revealed, so "the way our brains interpret information is the correct way" is altogether too strong a statement. Surely you know that WaveJumper?

You too, look up 'adopt'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adopt

 

[Math Is Hard]

Locked. This thread has degraded into childish bickering.