Do electrons exits?

[HappyApostate]

Electricity is one of the few real phenomena in physics.

*sprays soda over keyboard*

Say what?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

*sprays soda over keyboard*

Say what?

Too much reality customarily causes that reaction in some people.

I apologize...

 

[HappyApostate]

Too much reality customarily causes that reaction in some people.

I apologize...

I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you meant, because apparently you're better informed than hundreds of thousands of physicists.

 

[lucaspa]

I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you meant, because apparently you're better informed than hundreds of thousands of physicists.

Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of physicists would say that electricity is not a real phenomenon? Or are you arguing about "one of the few real" part of Agonaces' statement?

In terms of how we usually think of "exists", electrons exist. There is discussion over the exact form that electrons "exist" -- particle, wave, etc, -- but I've never seen a denial of existence.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I'd appreciate it if you would explain what you meant, because apparently you're better informed than hundreds of thousands of physicists.

Electrons have been observed and are real; gravitons have not been observed and are imaginary. Shall I go on?

 

[HappyApostate]

Electrons have been observed and are real; gravitons have not been observed and are imaginary. Shall I go on?

I'd be careful about claiming that things we haven't observed are imaginary.

 

[Supreme]

Electrons have been observed and are real; gravitons have not been observed and are imaginary. Shall I go on?

Please don't turn this into a chemistry vs physics debate.

Because we all know chemistry will win.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Please don't turn this into a chemistry vs physics debate.

Because we all know chemistry will win.

LOL.

What makes you think this is a physics vs. chemistry debate?

Electrons are real in physics and in chemistry; gravitons are imaginary in physics and in chemistry.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LOL.

What makes you think this is a physics vs. chemistry debate?

Electrons are real in physics and in chemistry; gravitons are imaginary in physics and in chemistry.

Gravitons are hypothetical; they may exist, and they may not exist. We have no evidence either way. So, on what basis do you dismiss their existence ("gravitons are imaginary")?

 

[Maxwell511]

Yes, they exist. We know they exist with the certainty we know anything else exists.

I am sorry that we have to drag this horse out again and continuously beat it. Do you think that "electron holes" exist?

It seems to me that electrons are just mathematical constructs that our ape minds use to explain reality. I am not a Platonist so I don't think electrons actually "exist" unless we are using the word "exist" in the sense that electron holes exist. Since electron holes are just mathematical constructs that we use to explain reality they exist as much as electrons. The actual existence of electron holes you have denied various times to me. Why are electrons special?

The Standard Model is a abstract scientific model of reality, it is not reality. We do not know if our thoughts on the nature of reality are correct and therefore whether electrons exist. We can know if we exist ala Descartes but everything else is up for debate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am sorry that we have to drag this horse out again and continuously beat it. Do you think that "electron holes" exist?

As a mathematical concept, sure. But I don't believe they're real in the same way we (by which I mean, the scientific community) consider electrons to exist.

It seems to me that electrons are just mathematical constructs that our ape minds use to explain reality. I am not a Platonist so I don't think electrons actually "exist" unless we are using the word "exist" in the sense that electron holes exist. Since electron holes are just mathematical constructs that we use to explain reality they exist as much as electrons. The actual existence of electron holes you have denied various times to me. Why are electrons special?

The Standard Model is a abstract scientific model of reality, it is not reality. We do not know if our thoughts on the nature of reality are correct and therefore whether electrons exist. We can know if we exist ala Descartes but everything else is up for debate.

Science isn't a vote, it's a process. The evidence supports the Standard Model, and the Standard Model posits the existence of various kinds of particles to explain various phenomena (namely: all of it ). The evidence that supports the Standard Model supports the truth of the Standard Model. Thus, electrons, and not electron holes, are posited to exist.

The mechanics of electron behaviour don't really cross over well if you convert everything into electron holes; when energy ionises an atom, the Standard Model says that energy goes into ejecting the electron. Your alternate model, then, would say this energy goes into forcing an 'electron hole' closer to a nuclei; in a vacuum, where would this 'electron hole' come from?

In essence, what we posit as a single, real, tangible particle, you explain this as the absence of a single, real particle in a universe sea of positively-charged particles.
Our model uses a single particle, yours uses a literal infinity of particles. Occam would be rolling in his grave

Moreover, you say you're not a Plato-ist, but at the end of the day, either electrons or electron holes exist as real, physical particles. Otherwise, I challenge you to explain why my hand won't go through a wall

 

[Maxwell511]

As a mathematical concept, sure. But I don't believe they're real in the same way we (by which I mean, the scientific community) consider electrons to exist.

I know that it doesn't and it really bugs me. It does not seem very Popperian to me.

Science isn't a vote, it's a process. The evidence supports the Standard Model, and the Standard Model posits the existence of various kinds of particles to explain various phenomena (namely: all of it ). The evidence that supports the Standard Model supports the truth of the Standard Model. Thus, electrons, and not electron holes, are posited to exist.

Why does the electron hole not constituent a particle in the standard model?

The mechanics of electron behaviour don't really cross over well if you convert everything into electron holes; when energy ionises an atom, the Standard Model says that energy goes into ejecting the electron. Your alternate model, then, would say this energy goes into forcing an 'electron hole' closer to a nuclei; in a vacuum, where would this 'electron hole' come from?

You understand that the logic behind "inventing" the electron hole is exactly that which Dirac first used to derive the existence of the proton?

In essence, what we posit as a single, real, tangible particle, you explain this as the absence of a single, real particle in a universe sea of positively-charged particles.
Our model uses a single particle, yours uses a literal infinity of particles. Occam would be rolling in his grave

You always go to Occam razors. I assume that he was spinning in a sort of dance to celebrate Dirac winning a Noble prize.

Moreover, you say you're not a Plato-ist, but at the end of the day, either electrons or electron holes exist as real, physical particles. Otherwise, I challenge you to explain why my hand won't go through a wall

Don't misunderstand my point, the phenomena that we model as electrons and electron holes I think are real. There is just a difference between believing the reality and believing the reality of the Model.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know that it doesn't and it really bugs me. It does not seem very Popperian to me.

Meh, Popper was overrated.

Why does the electron hole not constituent a particle in the standard model?

Because there are no 'electron holes' in the standard model, only electrons.

You understand that the logic behind "inventing" the electron hole is exactly that which Dirac first used to derive the existence of the proton?

The positron, actually. Besides, I'm not saying electron holes aren't useful; solid state physics runs on them. But they're ultimately not real, any more so than the wavefunction - it's a mathematical description or extension of something that is real.

You always go to Occam razors. I assume that he was spinning in a sort of dance to celebrate Dirac winning a Noble prize.

Nothing like a Nobel Prize to cement scientific achievement.

Don't misunderstand my point, the phenomena that we model as electrons and electron holes I think are real. There is just a difference between believing the reality and believing the reality of the Model.

Unless, of course, the Model is a complete and final description of reality.

 

[Supreme]

LOL.

What makes you think this is a physics vs. chemistry debate?

Electrons are real in physics and in chemistry; gravitons are imaginary in physics and in chemistry.

However, the sudy of electrons is predominantly done by chemists, and the study of gravitons is a field largely confined to physicists.

 

[Maxwell511]

The positron, actually.

Sorry my mistake. I meant positron I should proofread my posts more.

Besides, I'm not saying electron holes aren't useful; solid state physics runs on them. But they're ultimately not real, any more so than the wavefunction - it's a mathematical description or extension of something that is real.

If you accept that we can create mathematical descriptions of real phenomena that are not "real" and you accept that....

Unless, of course, the Model is a complete and final description of reality.

... the standard model is a mathematical description of real phenomena, why do you think that electrons are real? Isn't an electron a description of reality and not real in and of itself?

Or I could ask this a different way. Physics is the product of human reasoning. Do you think that it is possible that an intelligent alien life, which did not reason as we do, could create a unified theory of the laws of nature without positing the modeling artifact that we call an electron?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry my mistake. I meant positron I should proofread my posts more.



If you accept that we can create mathematical descriptions of real phenomena that are not "real" and you accept that....



... the standard model is a mathematical description of real phenomena, why do you think that electrons are real? Isn't an electron a description of reality and not real in and of itself?

No, it is real, in and of itself. The Standard Model summarises those particles that are considered to be real, physical particles. 'Electron holes' are not real, physical particles: they're gaps where electrons 'should' be.

Or I could ask this a different way. Physics is the product of human reasoning. Do you think that it is possible that an intelligent alien life, which did not reason as we do, could create a unified theory of the laws of nature without positing the modeling artifact that we call an electron?

Effectively no, technically yes. Such a GUT must be able to explain electronic behaviour, even if it doesn't actually posit electrons, but deduces them (in much the same the Standard Model doesn't posit protons, but rather posits their constituents).

Ultimately, if electrons exist, any attempt to explain everything must, in some way, account for these real particles. The Standard Model does this with protons, for instance.

 

[lucaspa]

Electrons have been observed and are real; gravitons have not been observed and are imaginary. Shall I go on?

It's not clear that gravitons are imaginary. In order to put something into the "imaginary" column because they have not been observed, you have to be able to observe them, look in all the places they could be, and failed to find them.

That is not the case with gravitons. We lack the ability to detect them.

BTW, if you use your criteria for God, you end up having to say that God is imaginary. Since you have made it plain you believe in God, it means that your criteria is flawed.

 

[lucaspa]

I know that it doesn't and it really bugs me. It does not seem very Popperian to me.

It is. If you look at the Wiki article you cited, you find that "electron holes" are tested by techniques. Auger electron spectroscopy, for instance, depends on electron holes. It therefore becomes a test of the hypothesis.

However, it seems you and Wiccan_Child are performing a semantic dance. Electron holes are not particles; they are places where an electron used to be. An electron hole is the absence of an electron. This too has physical effects. But an electron hole is not a "thing" or a "particle" the way an electron is. So Wiccan_Child can say he does not accept their "existence" like he does for electrons. Because they do not exist in the same way electrons do. Is that clearer?

Don't misunderstand my point, the phenomena that we model as electrons and electron holes I think are real. There is just a difference between believing the reality and believing the reality of the Model.

The model is supposed to be a model of reality. If you accept the reality of the things predicted by the model, then you end up accepting the reality of the model.

 

[lucaspa]

... the standard model is a mathematical description of real phenomena, why do you think that electrons are real? Isn't an electron a description of reality and not real in and of itself?

Back when monitors were cathode ray tubes, what you saw on the screen was the result of a stream of electons hitting the back of the screen. If electrons were only a "mathematical description", then how did they cause the picture on the screen?

Mathematics is a language that we can use to describe what is real. Not all mathematics describe things that are real. Look at all the failed versions of String Theory or Einstein's unpublished attempts at Relativity. Do you think things become more "real" if we describe them in English rather than mathematics?

Or I could ask this a different way. Physics is the product of human reasoning. Do you think that it is possible that an intelligent alien life, which did not reason as we do, could create a unified theory of the laws of nature without positing the modeling artifact that we call an electron?

Absolutely not. Physics, like all science, is tested against reality. Yes, we hypothesize based on imagination and reasoning, but then the hypothesis has to be tested against the external universe. That testing against external reality removes physics (and the rest of science) from being "only" a product of human reasoning.

Electrons are part of that external reality, so any alien species is going to have to have them in their theories.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

However, the sudy of electrons is predominantly done by chemists, and the study of gravitons is a field largely confined to physicists.

When you phrase it like that, it makes physics sound like a joke by comparison to chemistry.

I would rather say it like this: the study of electrons is predominantly done by scientists, and the study of gravitons is a field largely confined to pseudoscientists.