B Proving the Existence of Particles: An Exploration

[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.

 

[Iloveyou]

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.

If I asked a religious person about his beliefs and asked a question and he then he proceeded to answer in his set of sacred concepts. I would naturally ask about the meaning of the concepts. Expecting consistency, would it not be reasonable? If he turned towards shutting down my query because it was a vexation, then obviously I would look elsewhere.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Words and concepts hold information, but they are not actors within the world they describe

As I wrote before, and I write it almost on a daily basis, physics is not about finding the truth (TM). We use math to DESCRIBE the world.

 

[Dale]

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...

This is really a good example of what I mean when I say that this concern is overblown. Scientists are not Goons.

 

[Iloveyou]

As I wrote before, and I write it almost on a daily basis, physics is not about finding the truth (TM). We use math to DESCRIBE the world.

Then according to the context mentioned, the description, the electron, could not act on the world, hence this point is very important in describing the world...

 

[Dale]

but the information is not the actual thing it informs us about.

Yes, everyone is aware of that. Which is why your concern is overblown.

 

[Dale]

If I asked a religious person about his beliefs and asked a question and he then he proceeded to answer in his set of sacred concepts. I would naturally ask about the meaning of the concepts. Expecting consistency, would it not be reasonable? If he turned towards shutting down my query because it was a vexation, then obviously I would look elsewhere.

Did I shut down your query? No. I explained it clearly, and I also explained why the concern that you feel is needless.

Religion is off-topic here, please don't bring it up further.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Then according to the context mentioned, the description of the electron could not act on the world, hence this point is very important in describing the world...

And I as i wrote before "an electron is an electron, don't tell it what it should be". Physicsists are aware of this. Look at a tree with your eyes and try to describe it as best as you can. You will never be able to catch its true nature. But you can try to do your best and see if you can learn anything that can also be said about other trees and plants.

You seem to be looking for the truth. Physics is nothing for you then. Look elsewhere.

 

[Iloveyou]

And I as i wrote before "an electron is an electron, don't tell it what it should be". Physicsists are aware of this. Look at a tree with your eyes and try to describe it as best as you can. You will never be able to catch its true nature. But you can try to do your best and see if you can learn anything that can also be said about other trees and plants.

You seem to be looking for the truth. Physics is nothing for you then. Look elsewhere.

According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.
An example is, velocity is useful and measurable, but I can't say velocity acted on the leaf.

 

[malawi_glenn]

The tree is in the world and the electron is not.

You are saying that the electron does not exist.

Why does the tree exist and not the electron?

No one in their soberbess would ever say "velocity acts on a leaf"... one could say that the leaf has velocity though

 

[Iloveyou]

You are saying that the electron does not exist.

Why does the tree exist and not the electron?

Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.

 

[bob012345]

According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.

Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.

 

[Iloveyou]

Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.

Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...
As I said, I could be missing something here and instead of bringing that up, I'm getting resistance.
This is the whole reason I've been talking about the distinction between invention of mathematical models vs discovery. The implications are tremendous.

 

[Dale]

Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.

Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.

 

[DaveC426913]

Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...

No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.

They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.

 

[Iloveyou]

No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.

They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

 

[Iloveyou]

Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.

Never said you are. Not pointing to new knowledge.

 

[DaveC426913]

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

That's exactly what I said.

The point being: electrons exist independent of our mathematical descriptions of them.

 

[Dale]

Never said you are.

Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?

 

[jbriggs444]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and no known evidence has it behaving as anything other than a duck then any worry that it might not be a duck is idle until such time as a new experiment is proposed.

 

[bob012345]

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occurred. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

We are capable of both having a mathematical description of a thing and recognizing the thing itself acting in nature.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Mathematical structures don't exist in the world

That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.

This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.

 

[Iloveyou]

Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?

The context of my question and the implications that I have mentioned.
In terms of physics you are indeed more knowledgeable. In my lack on knowledge I would not be satisfied with another knowing, that's not why I posted. I adressed my understanding within limited knowledge and the concerns of it, mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

 

[Dale]

mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.

 

[Iloveyou]

That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.

This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.

Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
I hope this overly simple statement doesn't offend you. My question was simple, I've maintained simplicity...

 

[phinds]

Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?

 

[Dale]

The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.

Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.

Can we please move on? This is getting repetitive.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.

How is that a proof that mathematical structures do not exist in the world?

Does not humans exists?

Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?

Wondering the same.

This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.

 

[phinds]

This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.

Exactly.

 

[Drakkith]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.

mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.

 

[Iloveyou]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.

And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.

If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard

He did accept that trees exists, but not electrons. Hard to imagine that he will change viewpoint due to squirrels..

 

[malawi_glenn]

the electron is an invention and not a discovery

This has been already discussed. It is sematincs.

Take the Higgs boson for instance. Invention or discovery? Why not both?

 

[Drakkith]

If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons..

Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.

Squirrels are inventions for sure. Never seen one.

 

[Dale]

the thingness does not apply to electrons

And with that we are done here.

Thank you everyone for your participation. This has been a good thread that has gone as far as it could