B Proving the Existence of Particles: An Exploration

[PeroK]

Summary: What is exactly the reasonable context for the existence of particles

I studied physics in University a bit out of interest. Curious on how exactly one proves the existence of particles.

If I look it up, often the most basic example would be the cathode ray experiment. It seems pretty simple to me, but in my eyes it does not prove the existence of particles. What I'm interested is first and foremost how one goes from the physical observable to actually creating a model for it. I don't really see a way to do that without making assumptions.

And if this is done on a basic level of physics and then new theories are limited by the former theory which is based on assumption. If the assumption was incorrect, then would not all qualitative aspects of new theories be compromised.

It is obvious that an infinite different version of qualitative theories can achieve the same quantitative result. For instance if an anomaly within the system of a theory occured, one could just as easily invent any mathematical entity to compensate. I'm interested in what on the fundamental level justifies the jump. Because I did not study physics in depth I am very curious about the fundamental procedure.

With regards to the proof of electrons, I am curious within the context of simple reason hoping the process is not just picking the least absurd theory available. If we had chosen a different model, in my eyes it would still be quantitavely consistent because it would've been modified to account for contrary data, no?

Electric charge comes in discrete, localisable quanta. The electron as a particle models this and is, therefore, a useful concept. Existence beyond that is more philosophy than physics.

 

[LeakingRoof]

By which you mean it might not count as empirical observation?
What a microscope does is identical to what your cornea and lens do.

Define "particle"

Gold star on where to start the human-scale, observable mechanical analogy intuition dialog. Consider a bin (one of those 6 gallon, bi-fold top mechandise bins) containing copper BBs, another containing water. BBs observably have, and maintain against manipulation (we exclude extreme conditions outside most human experience) a chunkness, an individual separateness even though they are indistinquisable by all the properties we can measure (length dimensions, mass, charge, etc.) of each individually. You can pick up the bin (you've been doing your weight lifting reps, good boy) and slosh the BBs around. They rub and bump against each other as you slosh them, in bulk acting somewhat like a fluid, yet each can be imagined as following an individual trajectory, maintaining chunkness and separateness. If we accept Newtonian physics for macroscopic objects, we can ascribe momentum to each and forces acting on them to change that momentum.

Compare to the human-scale, observable mechanical behavior of the bin of water.

This is a start on particle-ness.

 

[LeakingRoof]

I don't think it's possible to prove electrons are particles (even in the historical context of their discovery). What you do is propose that the behaviour of some physical phenomenon ("cathode rays") is well explained if they consist of discrete chunks of matter carrying a negative charge. I believe they were initially thought to be light atoms, in fact, but it turned out that they did not behave like a thing of atom-sized mass, and always behaved the same whatever material you used for the cathode. So it became more plausible that they were some new kind of thing. In that context, it's possibly worth looking up Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong, about the fact that generally theories aren't "right" or "wrong", they just make accurate predictions in broader or narrower ranges of circumstances.

I think @Drakkith's point that coming up with new theories is hard is a key one. I think that asking "how did someone come up with the idea" is a bit like the perennial question to writers of where they get their ideas from. Usually not even they know. The difference with science is that there's an agreed process for determining whether an idea is a good one or not - make a prediction and see if experiment bears it out.

And I agree that reflecting on how you would answer @malawi_glenn's question might yield some insight.

Good -- gets to "chunkness" as a better fit to observation compared to "fluidness."

 

[LeakingRoof]

By which you mean it might not count as empirical observation?
What a microscope does is identical to what your cornea and lens do.

Ware literal-mindedness. It was a play on words: macro (scopic) intuition <--> micro (scopic) observation method.

 

[Hornbein]

Physicists have math that works. People who don't understand that come along and want an explanation in plain English. I have learned to not take these explanations seriously. The English language is inadequate for the task. These explanations are just rough approximations. The best seems to have been Feynman. I'd recommend his book QED.

Physicists often have models that inspire theories. But it is routine for a wrong model to come up with math that works. This confuses the situation, especially since once popular literature latches on to an explanation they hold on to it like a dog with a bone, even after no one in physics is using that model any more.

In particular the word "particle" is short hand for a localized excitation of a field. But then, what is a field? Why does it have any excitations at all? Etc. So when I see "particle" I think "weird thing that sort of has a location and does all sorts of stuff that billiard balls can't do".

The "particle/wave duality" particularly irritates me. I recommend instead to give up trying to relate quantum things to familiar concepts. Wipe your mind clean and see them as completely new.

 

[DrDick1954]

Summary: What is exactly the reasonable context for the existence of particles

I studied physics in University a bit out of interest. Curious on how exactly one proves the existence of particles.

If I look it up, often the most basic example would be the cathode ray experiment. It seems pretty simple to me, but in my eyes it does not prove the existence of particles. What I'm interested is first and foremost how one goes from the physical observable to actually creating a model for it. I don't really see a way to do that without making assumptions.

And if this is done on a basic level of physics and then new theories are limited by the former theory which is based on assumption. If the assumption was incorrect, then would not all qualitative aspects of new theories be compromised.

It is obvious that an infinite different version of qualitative theories can achieve the same quantitative result. For instance if an anomaly within the system of a theory occured, one could just as easily invent any mathematical entity to compensate. I'm interested in what on the fundamental level justifies the jump. Because I did not study physics in depth I am very curious about the fundamental procedure.

With regards to the proof of electrons, I am curious within the context of simple reason hoping the process is not just picking the least absurd theory available. If we had chosen a different model, in my eyes it would still be quantitavely consistent because it would've been modified to account for contrary data, no?

Your question requires clarification. You are not asking for proof of the nature of ANY particle, you are looking for the characterizations which are unique to any PARTICULAR particle. In other words, what makes a neutron, or an electron, or a neutrino, or a positron unique and separately defined from any other particle, and perhaps also the experimental proof that verifies these differentiations. So first, confirm that this is REALLY what you are asking...

 

[malawi_glenn]

Gold star on where to start the human-scale

Sorry but are you @Iloveyou ?

 

[Dale]

But it is routine for a wrong model to come up with math that works.

In fact, I think that it is always the case that there are multiple models and multiple mathematical formulations that work to explain any set of observations. To understand science I think it is important to recognize that.

 

[pinball1970]

Sorry but are you @Iloveyou ?

Was thinking same.

 

[Iloveyou]

In my eyes I still see that the correct word would be, particularly for electrons in this case, invention rather than discovery. So far everyone has made perfect and understandable justifications of its application. Now that has helped me understand the context better. Now I see it more as an invented mathematical entity/tool which is useful in expressing and unifying the experimental findings. So basically we use electrons to ascribe these particular properties that have been discovered.

In my eyes the distinction of the word used is of immense implication (discovery vs invention). With invention it is more clear and would be seen more as a model rather than observable entity. Which when formulating new theories would rid one of rigidity or even having the need to burden oneself with treating an electron as a fundamental entity, rather it becomes a mathematical construct filled with data, which can possibly be reformulated. I obviously then would not advise disregarding the wealth of data we have inherited, just to be able to use the idea rather than to be bound by it.

In general I see the hypocrisy of my question because I'm not sure that by human language the gap from observable to conceptual mathematical models can be bridged. For instance even the definitions that we use in physics cannot bridge that. When we define Force or torque or etc, we are doing our best to make something observable mathematically manipulatible, but then it does not seem to be exactly a counterpart to anything observable (not dismissing the value of it).

I'm grateful for all who have shared and continue to do so because it has helped me organize my mind. The gap I speak of bridging for me has huge meaning in physics and in general beyond physics because that gap when bridged is the difference between understanding and being informed about a thing. I felt like in my education I did not get the understanding I sought, but rather a cheap counterpart, that is being informed of another's understanding, which is even taught as real knowing.

The way that I see this gap is that within us we do acquire understanding through experience, and it is an invisible indescribable part of us. In the case of being beneficial, the symbols and models that we use is a way of inheriting a shadow of understanding as a symbol, model, and theory and that has the use to have direct our attention towards what will give us through experience (application of directed attention) the same understanding. However the downside of that is that there is a risk that the symbol might become viewed as the understanding itself if one is not careful. In my mind all of this is just as true for the words we use even when participating in (casual) daily dialogue.

This indeed turned out to be a much more philosophical question.
There's a saying, you can read Shakespeare, but it doesn't make you Shakespeare.

I Am genuinely interested in what has been shared and so if anyone has ideas to share, I would love to hear them and I will bookmark and research the topics/books/essays/materials mentioned.
Thank you! :)

 

[LeakingRoof]

Sorry but are you @Iloveyou ?

Nope, not @Iloveyou. Spotted this thread title on https://phys.org/ and got curious. On review, seemed to be a case of people talking past each other. Thought I would try a reset of the dialog to the original question, having encountered this particular dialog disconnect phenomena in other contexts. Experts tend (not absolutely will) to jump past their own hidden assumptions of what the non-expert's initial conceptual model is (Having been an expert in my own field dealing with non-experts in the course of business, I had to fight this in myself all the time). In this case the model question is the winding path to how a sci-method theory is developed in the first place. @Iloveyou laid out their model of theory development (coherence of it a different question) as best they could in the initial post, then mentioned discovery of electrons (Note the timing: in 1897, on the edge of when classical physics, which @Iloveyou seems more comfortable with, came up short explaining the accumulating data on atomic-scale phenomena.) at the end. The experts community shot off in the JJ direction rather than responding to the meta question. All of my "Good --" from there ecouragement notes are my way of connecting subsequent commentary from the experts community to a classical, mechanical intuition theory-development model for @Iloveyou.

Also note my writing style persona, quirks and all, is very different from that of @Iloveyou.

Regards.

 

[pinball1970]

In my eyes I still see that the correct word would be, particularly for electrons in this case, invention rather than discovery. So far everyone has made perfect and understandable justifications of its application. Now that has helped me understand the context better. Now I see it more as an invented mathematical entity/tool which is useful in expressing and unifying the experimental findings. So basically we use electrons to ascribe these particular properties that have been discovered.

In my eyes the distinction of the word used is of immense implication (discovery vs invention). With invention it is more clear and would be seen more as a model rather than observable entity. Which when formulating new theories would rid one of rigidity or even having the need to burden oneself with treating an electron as a fundamental entity, rather it becomes a mathematical construct filled with data, which can possibly be reformulated. I obviously then would not advise disregarding the wealth of data we have inherited, just to be able to use the idea rather than to be bound by it.

In general I see the hypocrisy of my question because I'm not sure that by human language the gap from observable to conceptual mathematical models can be bridged. For instance even the definitions that we use in physics cannot bridge that. When we define Force or torque or etc, we are doing our best to make something observable mathematically manipulatible, but then it does not seem to be exactly a counterpart to anything observable (not dismissing the value of it).

I'm grateful for all who have shared and continue to do so because it has helped me organize my mind. The gap I speak of bridging for me has huge meaning in physics and in general beyond physics because that gap when bridged is the difference between understanding and being informed about a thing. I felt like in my education I did not get the understanding I sought, but rather a cheap counterpart, that is being informed of another's understanding, which is even taught as real knowing.

The way that I see this gap is that within us we do acquire understanding through experience, and it is an invisible indescribable part of us. In the case of being beneficial, the symbols and models that we use is a way of inheriting a shadow of understanding as a symbol, model, and theory and that has the use to have direct our attention towards what will give us through experience (application of directed attention) the same understanding. However the downside of that is that there is a risk that the symbol might become viewed as the understanding itself if one is not careful. In my mind all of this is just as true for the words we use even when participating in (casual) daily dialogue.

This indeed turned out to be a much more philosophical question.
There's a saying, you can read Shakespeare, but it doesn't make you Shakespeare.

I Am genuinely interested in what has been shared and so if anyone has ideas to share, I love to hear them and I will bookmark and research the topics/books/essays/materials mentioned.
Thank you! :)

Chemistry is all about what electrons get up to, mainly. If you study basic chemistry and see how those rules work, an electron will not seem that strange.
If you don't want to call it a particle then you have to decide what you think a particle is. It may not be something that is relevant in Science.
This is from a non physicist/Scientist.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Nope, not @Iloveyou. Spotted this thread title on https://phys.org/ and got curious. On review, seemed to be a case of people talking past each other. Thought I would try a reset of the dialog to the original question, having encountered this particular dialog disconnect phenomena in other contexts. Experts tend (not absolutely will) to jump past their own hidden assumptions of what the non-expert's initial conceptual model is (Having been an expert in my own field dealing with non-experts in the course of business, I had to fight this in myself all the time). In this case the model question is the winding path to how a sci-method theory is developed in the first place. @Iloveyou laid out their model of theory development (coherence of it a different question) as best they could in the initial post, then mentioned discovery of electrons (Note the timing: in 1897, on the edge of when classical physics, which @Iloveyou seems more comfortable with, came up short explaining the accumulating data on atomic-scale phenomena.) at the end. The experts community shot off in the JJ direction rather than responding to the meta question. All of my "Good --" from there ecouragement notes are my way of connecting subsequent commentary from the experts community to a classical, mechanical intuition theory-development model for @Iloveyou.

Also note my writing style persona, quirks and all, is very different from that of @Iloveyou.

Regards.

Nice wall of text

 

[pinball1970]

Nope, not @Iloveyou. Spotted this thread title on https://phys.org/ and got curious. On review, seemed to be a case of people talking past each other. Thought I would try a reset of the dialog to the original question, having encountered this particular dialog disconnect phenomena in other contexts. Experts tend (not absolutely will) to jump past their own hidden assumptions of what the non-expert's initial conceptual model is (Having been an expert in my own field dealing with non-experts in the course of business, I had to fight this in myself all the time). In this case the model question is the winding path to how a sci-method theory is developed in the first place. @Iloveyou laid out their model of theory development (coherence of it a different question) as best they could in the initial post, then mentioned discovery of electrons (Note the timing: in 1897, on the edge of when classical physics, which @Iloveyou seems more comfortable with, came up short explaining the accumulating data on atomic-scale phenomena.) at the end. The experts community shot off in the JJ direction rather than responding to the meta question. All of my "Good --" from there ecouragement notes are my way of connecting subsequent commentary from the experts community to a classical, mechanical intuition theory-development model for @Iloveyou.

Also note my writing style persona, quirks and all, is very different from that of @Iloveyou.

Regards.

Fair enough. Multiple accounts not allowed is all.
You looking for physics? You came to the right place.

 

[Iloveyou]

Nice wall of text

We indeed share that forum writing style :)

 

[pinball1970]

We indeed share that forum writing style :)

And use of brackets.

 

[Dale]

With invention it is more clear and would be seen more as a model rather than observable entity.

It is important to understand that science is about both. Both the observations and the models are essential for science.

However the downside of that is that there is a risk that the symbol might become viewed as the understanding itself if one is not careful.

I think that is a largely overstated risk on the part of those who state it. Usually scientists are very aware that our “map is not the territory”. The rest of the quote continues “it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”.

In your specific case, yes, particles are an invented concept, in the way that a map is an invented concept. This “map” is very useful and has been shown to have a very similar structure to the “territory”. Although future “maps” may use different symbols, this structure will remain because it matches the structure of the “territory” so well, at least at the scales of the “territory” that we have “mapped” so far.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Force is also invented. And field. And energy...

 

[Iloveyou]

It is important to understand that science is about both. Both the observations and the models are essential for science.

I think that is a largely overstated risk on the part of those who state it. Usually scientists are very aware that our “map is not the territory”. The rest of the quote continues “it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”.

In your specific case, yes, particles are an invented concept, in the way that a map is an invented concept. This “map” is very useful and has been shown to have a very similar structure to the “territory”. Although future “maps” may use different symbols, this structure will remain because it matches the structure of the “territory” so well, at least at the scales of the “territory” that we have “mapped” so far.

I agree with what you said 100%, but my whole point is that in the wording of the electron being discovered (rather than invented), the map is confused as the territory, no?

 

[malawi_glenn]

I agree with what you said 100%, but my whole point is that in the wording of the electron being discovered (rather than invented), the map is confused as the territory, no?

Again, semantics.
Did Newton discover or invent his law of gravity? Or both

 

[Iloveyou]

Again, semantics.
Did Newton discover or invent his law of gravity? Or both

He invented the concept, obviously he wasn't the one to discover it.
We can say it being semantics or not, but if it is inconsistent semantically, that would be an issue, no?
If I dismissed meaning as mere philosophy, I would be lead into confusion.
If I study something, must I not first know the meaning of the concepts and must they not adhere to consistency?
If this is so, then semantics becomes essential to any field. To bridge the gap of just being informed to understanding is living semantics; to penetrate beyond the symbol.

The father of the symbol indeed had a meaning ascribed to it and without penetrating that for myself, I acquire a shell of his conclusion and not his understanding at all.

Indeed if I ask for justification for the assumption, it departs from physics, but if this physics is divorced from analysis of what is behind the assumption. If physics was deprived of semantics or philosophy it would be dogma.

 

[Ibix]

I agree with what you said 100%, but my whole point is that in the wording of the electron being discovered (rather than invented), the map is confused as the territory, no?

I recall an episode of the Goon Show where they were trekking through the jungle. Major Bludnock (I think) says that they've come to this river on this map. "What's the river doing on the map?" demands Neddie Seagoon. "Put it back in its banks!" Which they do, but then come to regret it when they realize they now have to get across the river when they could have walked across the dry bed before.[1]

I don't think anyone (except the Goons) who needs to worry about it is likely to have any trouble distinguishing "the river" from "the blue line on the map" even if we do say things like "there's a river on the map". Similarly "we discovered the electron".

[1] They build a raft to cross the river. The same gag is repeated at the next river, but they have to build a bigger raft because they have to get themselves and the first raft across this river. It was that sort of programme...

 

[malawi_glenn]

He invented the concept, obviously he wasn't the one to discover it.

Where was the inverse square law published earlier?

Do we invent or discover math? Its semantics.

One can say this. One discovered that there was some entity bearing negative electric charge that seemed localized in space and having definite momentum, could be accelerated and all that. Just like a tiny charged metal ball. Thus one "invented" the concept of the electron, as a particle. The some decades later, quantum theory was born and this older naive veiw of the electron as a tiny metal ball was severely challenged.

Physics is not about finding the truth (TM), it is to make mathematical models that fit and explain observations and can make new testable predictions. Then one can find structures amongst those models, like maxwell did, and make more unified and elgant models.

 

[pinball1970]

He invented the concept, obviously he wasn't the one to discover it.
We can say it being semantics or not, but if it is inconsistent semantically, that would be an issue, no?
If I dismissed meaning as mere philosophy, I would be lead into confusion.
If I study something, must I not first know the meaning of the concepts and must they not adhere to consistency?
If this is so, then semantics becomes essential to any field. To bridge the gap of just being informed to understanding is living semantics; to penetrate beyond the symbol.

The father of the symbol indeed had a meaning ascribed to it and without penetrating that for myself, I acquire a shell of his conclusion and not his understanding at all.

Indeed if I ask for justification for the assumption, it departs from physics, but if this physics is divorced from analysis of what is behind the assumption. If physics was deprived of semantics or philosophy it would be dogma.

It works too. If you want to find out about the universe and how it works are you going to use:
Philosophy
Feelings
Politics
Religion

Or the Scientific method?

You are posting now using Science yes?

 

[Iloveyou]

I recall an episode of the Goon Show where they were trekking through the jungle. Major Bludnock (I think) says that they've comme to this river on this map. "What's the river doing on the map?" demands Neddie Seagoon. "Put it back in its banks!" Which they do, but then come to regret it when they realize they now have to get across the river when they could have walked across the dry bed before.[1]

I don't think anyone (except the Goons) who needs to worry about it is likely to have any trouble distinguishing "the river" from "the blue line on the map" even if we do say things like "there's a river on the map". Similarly "we discovered the electron".

[1] They build a raft to cross the river. The same gag is repeated at the next river, but they have to build a bigger raft because they have to get themselves and the first raft across this river. It was that sort of programme...

I get what your saying, but what we in terms of evidence observe or discover is not the electron, but its attributes. Most of these attributes being discovered prior to its invention. I'm not at all saying I have a problem with the invention of an electron, it is useful when it is kept in its place. As I said, I may be overlooking something big. So far I have not been pointed to that. I'm just expressing things as I see them.

We invent the map, but the terrain is already there and is self evident and discoverable/observable. I'm not saying that we can only discover what the senses show, we can discover statistical patterns, but those patterns are directly observable within the data. Now if we take a word to symbolize that data, we are still doing things consistently if things are categorized as they are. We don't start saying this x (symbol for statistical pattern) is a physical entity, but rather a description of a set of tangible qualities of the physical world, so it is not interacting in any way within the world, nor can it actually possesses any attributes within the world. The distinction doesn't dismiss the attributes nor the information, but the information is not the actual thing it informs us about.

 

[Iloveyou]

Where was the inverse square law published earlier?

Do we invent or discover math? Its semantics.

One can say this. One discovered that there was some entity bearing negative electric charge that seemed localized in space and having definite momentum, could be accelerated and all that. Just like a tiny charged metal ball. Thus one "invented" the concept of the electron, as a particle. The some decades later, quantum theory was born and this older naive veiw of the electron as a tiny metal ball was severely challenged.

Physics is not about finding the truth (TM), it is to make mathematical models that fit and explain observations and can make new testable predictions. Then one can find structures amongst those models, like maxwell did, and make more unified and elgant models.

In this case my point is, math does not act on the world.
We use math, we use electricity. We use concepts such as electrons, but in the context of what I am saying, they would be unable to act on the world because the qualities they posess is the content of the information they store as mathematical entities.

I stress the following point, I'm not saying that this is true, it's simply consistent with the limited knowledge of physics I am using. So please don't look upon me as attacking your understanding of it, I'm trying to be transparent with my thinking process instead.

I hope this doesn't turn into the sort of conversation I would get if I questioned someone's religion.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I have still not understood what you are really after here because you are hiding it in long walls of text.

Are you asking what observations made physicsists start to describe the electron as a particle?

Your thread title has the word "proof" and you claimed that you have studied physics at a university. We do not prove things in natural science. Perhaps its just due to semantics, a poor choice of words on your behalf.

If you do not think that electrons exsist, then how do you think your computer works?

 

[malawi_glenn]

In this case my point is, math does not act on the world.

It seems that math is a very useful tool for describing our world. If you have a better idea, then go somewhere else. On this forum we discuss mainstream science

 

[Iloveyou]

It seems that math is a very useful tool for describing our world. If you have a better idea, then go somewhere else. On this forum we discuss mainstream science

I don't disagree at all. I love math myself. What I'm saying is by encountering the word wet, you won't get wet. Words and concepts hold information, but they are not actors within the world they describe.

I strongly believe that what I'm saying has huge relevance to my understanding of physics.

 

[Dale]

I agree with what you said 100%, but my whole point is that in the wording of the electron being discovered (rather than invented), the map is confused as the territory, no?

No, that is where people raising this concern are overblowing it. The wholly correct way of saying this is that "the concept of the electron was invented and then experimental results were discovered showing that the real world indeed had the same structure as the structure of the electron". That is very cumbersome to say so we say "the electron was discovered". Scientists understand what is meant. Professionals in any profession often communicate succinctly in ways that are not always understood by non-professionals. This is such a case. There is no confusion here by scientists.