Electron is now three quasi-particles - spinon, holon and orbiton. Physics is less about what an electron is than that it helps us use them - "sending them down wires so our computers work" and so on. We don't know what a particle is.
My take on Socratus is he may ask (rightly) too much of science. My take on science is this: ‘… scientific realism[is defined] as the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value." What requires explanation is why this is a philosophical position rather than just a common sense one. Consider, for example, tropical fish realism -- the doctrine that there really are tropical fish; that the little books you buy about them at pet stores tend to get it approximately right about their appearance, behavior, food and temperature requirements, etc.; and that the fish have these properties largely independently of our theories about them. That's a pretty clear doctrine, but it's so commonsensical that it doesn't seem to have any particular philosophical import. Why is the analogous doctrine about science a philosophical doctrine? The answer is that -- setting aside skepticism about the external world -- there are no philosophical arguments against tropical fish realism, whereas important philosophical challenges have been raised against scientific realism.’ (Boyd 2002:1 [] mine) The philosophical issues are intractable if we start with the idea they can be bottomed-out. With a comfortable sinecure I might spend the rest of my life trying, say, to reconcile what the Ancient Greeks knew about argument and complex set theory in the programmes of Scheibe, Ludwig and Sneed (see Balzer and Moulines 1996; Ludwig & Thurber 1996 and Scheibe 2001). The later work is German and may give us some pointers by describing the complexity of theory formation in physics. Ludwig’s main points are: • Physical observations are first translated into sentences of an auxiliary mathematical theory containing only finite sets, and, in a second step, approximately embedded into an idealized theory. By this manoeuver the authors accentuate the contrast between finite physical operations and mathematical assumptions involving infinite sets. • Inaccuracy sets and unsharp measurements are always considered right from the start – the role of approximation is held key in theory formation. • The ‘basic domain’ of a theory is now that part of the ‘application domain’ where the theory is successfully applied, up to a certain degree of inaccuracy. • The complicated terminology concerning various kinds of hypotheses in Ludwig is radically reduced to a small number of cases including fuzzy hypotheses. • The problem of unsharp indirect measurements is reformulated in an elegant way which yet should be scrutinized by means of case studies. I'm not good at this stuff as it 'butters no parsnips' in my life - just interested. Issues of science and technology as ideology are well articulated in Critical Theory (esp. Habermas) and I take them to be right if construing 'use' (as in the vampire squid of neo-classical economics and corrupt politics). We don't work in the certainty of faith in science and approximation plays a key role. I think this gets lost and to some extent Nom I think your nominalism plays a role in ironing some of this out. David Deutsche recently said: Constructors appear under various names in physics and other fields. For instance, in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the condition that it be capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear in laws of physics. Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, fields and spacetime; there is an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion determine how the state evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction is characterised only by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor and the substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are themselves composite objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could possibly mention them: the whole continuous process of interaction between constructor and substrate is already determined by the universal laws governing their constituents. However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper is not primarily the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing conception would require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations input state of substrates → output state of substrates can be caused and which cannot, and why. As I shall explain, the idea is that the fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of those issues, and that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can be abstracted away, leaving transformations as the basic subject matter of the theory. I shall argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a fundamental branch of physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new language for expressing other theories. We are not perplexed alone! On Mar 5, 6:42 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you "Physics" perplexed, like me? Options > ==. > 1 > *ATOMS* - have electrons. . . . . . . . . > 2 > *ELECTRONS* Negatively charged particles that constitute electricity. > 3 > *ELECTRON VOLT* . . . . > 4 > *FERMIONS* . . have leptons . . . . . . . > 5 > *LEPTONS* . . . .Lightweight particles like the electrons that > constitute electrical current and . . . . . > 6 > *NEUTRINOS* Extremely light, almost massless, invisible particles > produced > in radioactive decays, they are part of the lepton family . . . . > 7. > PHOTONS* Particles that transmit electromagnetic forces, or light. > 8 > *STANDARD MODEL* A set of equations that describes forces of nature > in > terms of elementary particles, known as fermions, . . . . . > 9 > There are three forces of nature in the Standard Model: > light, or electromagnetism . . . . > ===. > Half of your perplexed points tied with electron / photon. > Nobody knows what electron is. > If we solve that problem - the perplex will be disappeared > ==========================.. > The Electron’s puzzle. > ===. > 1900, 1905 > Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. > 1916 > Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, > 1928 > Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: > +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. > According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s > energy is infinite: E= ∞ > Questions. > Why does the simplest particle - electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ? > What is connection between them ? > Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? > a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass > b) Maxwell’s equations > c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law > d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law > e) Fermi-Dirac statistics > What is connection between them ? > # > What is an electron ? > Nobody knows. > In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron > All of them are problematical > We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. > But how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is ? > ==. > Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: > > "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae > have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, > that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, > that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." > =. > The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, > he is much wiser than we are. > ==========. > Conclusion from some article: > One of the best kept secrets of science is > that physicists have lost their grip on reality. > ========. > > On Mar 5, 7:10 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know a bit about, say ..... half of the terms..... (maybe more) > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/science/a-glossary-of-physics-terms... > > > Glossary: A Guide for the Perplexed > > > *ATOMS* The basic units of ordinary matter consist of one or more electrons > > circling a tiny, dense nucleus of protons and neutrons. > > > *BOSONS* Particles that can transmit forces between other particles, > > according to quantum theory, the lingua franca of modern physics. An > > example is the photon, which carries electromagnetism or light — and, of > > course, the bosons called Higgs, W and Z (see below). > > > *DARK > > MATTER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/dark_matter/index.h...> > > * Invisible matter that seems to provide the gravitational glue to assemble > > galaxies and other large cosmic structures, according to astronomical > > measurements. > > > *ELECTRONS* Negatively charged particles that constitute electricity. > > > *ELECTRON VOLT* A unit of energy or mass (in Einstein’s world, they are the > > same) equal to the energy gained when an electron passes through one volt > > of potential. An electron is, for example, 511,000 electron volts in mass, > > and a proton is 938,000,000 electron volts. > > > *FERMIONS* Particles that form the basis for what we normally think of as > > matter. Elementary fermions are divided into two categories, leptons and > > quarks (see below). Protons and neutrons are also fermions. > > > *GLUONS* Bosons (see above) that transmit the strong nuclear force. > > > *HADRONS* Particles made of more than one quark, like protons or neutrons, > > which have three, and mesons, which have two. > > > *HIGGS > > BOSON<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/higgs_...> > > * The building block of the Higgs field, which imbues other elementary > > particles with mass. > > > *HIGGS FIELD* A field of energy said to permeate space and to imbue > > elementary particles with mass. > > > *LARGE HADRON > > COLLIDER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/large_hadron_collid...> > > * A particle accelerator at > > CERN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/c...>, > > outside Geneva, that collides bulky hadrons like protons and lead ions. > > > *LEPTONS* Lightweight particles like the electrons that constitute > > electrical current and their relatives, and three kinds of neutrinos (see > > below). > > > *NEUTRINOS* Extremely light, almost massless, invisible particles produced > > in radioactive decays, they are part of the lepton family and come in three > > kinds. > > > *NEUTRONS* Electrically neutral particles found in the atomic nucleus along > > with protons. Like protons they are made of quarks. > > > *PHOTONS* Particles that transmit electromagnetic forces, or light. > > > *PROTONS* Positively charged particles that anchor the atomic nucleus. > > > *QUARKS* Entities that make up protons and neutrons. They come in six > > varieties — up, down, strange, charmed, bottom and top — and interact with > > each other by way of the strong force. > > > *STANDARD MODEL* A set of equations that describes forces of nature in > > terms of elementary particles, known as fermions, interacting by tossing > > blobs of energy called bosons at one another in a sort of cosmic game of > > catch. In this theory, matter has been further subdivided. Fermions are > > divided into six kinds of quarks and six kinds of lighter particles like > > electrons and neutrinos called leptons. > > > There are three forces of nature in the Standard Model: light, or > > electromagnetism, conveyed by the bosons called photons; the weak nuclear > > force, which causes some kinds of radioactive decay, conveyed by the W and > > Z bosons; and the strong nuclear force — sometimes called the color force — > > which binds quarks together into protons and neutrons. The strong force is > > transmitted by the colorfully named gluons. > > > *SUPERSYMMETRY* A hypothetical property of nature relating matter particles > > (fermions) and force particles (bosons). For each particle in one group, > > there would be a corresponding superpartner, as yet undiscovered, in the > > other group. The result would be to double the number of kinds of > > elementary particles in the universe. > > *W AND Z BOSONS* Particles that transmit the weak nuclear force responsible > > for some types of radioactive decay. * * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
