Do electrons exits?

[Maxwell511]

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?

My point is; do they not exist in the same way because of the nature of reality? Or because our reasoning leads us to believe they don't exist in the same way?

An electron could be a modeling fiction in the same way that an electron hole is. It is just there are natural psychological processes that make us think that electrons are "more real" than electron holes.

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.

Accepting that a model can predict the results of experiment is not the same as believe the artifacts in the model are real. We have a Positivist versus a Platonist philosophical difference here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

We don't need to search for God or extraterrestrials because they are in the Bible.

True dat.

 

[Maxwell511]

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?

Back when I was an undergraduate we used cathode ray tubes to measure the charge and mass of an electron.

I am not against the idea that those ideas are the "final" explanation of reality.

Honestly my viva is next Friday (my supervisor tells me that it will go well ) and my thesis was on how scientific modeling of systems creates "a reality" of the behavior of systems in the way that it is tested. Please wish me luck.

When you were younger and finished your doctorate did you not think that maybe this is applicable to other things? "Not real" modeling artifacts that predict accurate results of experiment were par for the course in my research. I am just wondering how far that idea works for other areas of scientific research.

As I said to Wiccan_Child, I try to study scientists in a scientific manner. I am not disagreeing that electrons don't exist, I am just asking for some data on why scientists agree that they are real. Basically what is the data. Most importantly who gave that data to you and what is your level of respect to that person.

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?

English is a primitive form of mathematics.

Mathematical ideas are necessary for understanding. As I see it mathematics and logic are the language of the universe. However it is a ridiculous position in my opinion to assume that we currently have the mathematical "language" to explain the workings of the universe.

The majority of systems within the universe are known to be non-linear. The majority of our most advanced mathematical knowledge is based on linear reasoning and the resulting superposition.

If maths is the language of the universe and humanity is its baby we are at the point of pointing at things and saying "Mah" excitedly. And we get really excited about are ability to point and say "Mah".

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.

In order for humans to test a hypothesis, humans must reason on how to do so. All tests of a hypothesis are the result of human reasoning and are more than likely flawed do to intersubjective opinion.

Every scientific test of a hypothesis is not an objective test of it. It is an intersubjective test based on human reasoning.

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

That is your human opinion.

"...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.

I am of the opinion that external tests cannot exist and that all data is a subjective interpretation of reality. That scientific consensus is an intersubjective interpretation of reality that can asymptotically create "fake models" that represent reality.

 

[badtim]

I am of the opinion that external tests cannot exist and that all data is a subjective interpretation of reality. That scientific consensus is an intersubjective interpretation of reality that can asymptotically create "fake models" that represent reality.

Ah the Derrida is strong with this one

 

[Maxwell511]

Science doesn't tend to concern itself with the supernatural.

Scientists tend to be heavily concerned about "supernatural" events.

 

[Maxwell511]

Ah the Derrida is strong with this one

It is sort of. My view is sort of extreme. Maybe we can interpret reality objectively, however all objectively claimed knowledge must come with the disclaimer that it may contain unknown amounts of sociological and psychological influences.

We already know that sociological forces can effect the "results" of experiments....

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that...

It is a grave error and a gross misunderstanding of science to claim that science is about objectivity. It is about the minimization of sociological, psychological and some other influences in our reasoning. Minimizing and eliminating something are very different things. When you believe something is minimized you still test for its exist and value which is what science is all about, if you believe something has been eliminated you no longer test for it and you start being dogmatic.

 

[jonmichael818]

I am of the opinion that external tests cannot exist and that all data is a subjective interpretation of reality. That scientific consensus is an intersubjective interpretation of reality that can asymptotically create "fake models" that represent reality.

This idea seems to have some things in common with the thoughts involved in philosophical realism, also the so called measurement problem and observer effect in quantum mechanics.
Consider the following quote:

There is a related issue in quantum mechanics relating to whether systems have pre-existing — prior to measurement, that is — properties corresponding to all measurements that could possibly be made on them. The assumption that they do is often referred to as "realism" in the literature, although it has been argued that the word "realism" is being used in a more restricted sense than philosophical realism. A recent experiment in the realm of quantum physics has been quoted as meaning that we have to "say goodbye" to realism, although the author of the paper states only that "we would [..] have to give up certain intuitive features of realism". These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, although it is clear from experiment that an "observer" consisting of a single electron is sufficient—the observer need not be a conscious observer. Also, note that Bell's Theorem suggests strongly that the idea that the state of a system exists independently of its observer may be false.-Wikipedia/Observer effect

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think we are at an impasse. We are different types of scientists, you study nature scientifically and I attempt to study scientists and engineers, and their findings and the way they find them, in a scientific way*.

A major hypothesis for me is whether scientific "truth"** is the result of the nature of reality or the nature of human reasoning and "social" conditions. You obviously think that it is the result of the nature of reality. I think that that it is a hypothesis that needs to be tested under Popperian criterion.

Indeed, and I would cite the fact that it works as the greatest demonstration that scientific truths are not sociologically supported figments of imagination.

As an example of what I am talking about consider Brian Greene's lament in "The elegant universe" that the incorrect theory of General Relativity was found before the apparently more correct String Theory.

I haven't read that book, so I can't comment, but as a physicist I'm sceptical of the grandiose claims of string theorists.

**I believe science leads to more and more accurate predictions within paradigms and can cause paradigm shifts when needed. However I don't think we can ever call scientific knowledge "truth". It is our understanding of the nature of reality with the best information that we gathered.

Naturally, which is why no scientist, when pushed to be precise, would assert that science can lead to truth. It can, however, lead to scientific truth: the existence of atoms, for instance, isn't known, but it's so very well evidenced that it may as well be regarded as an established fact. It's a theory, but we're so certain of its veracity that we treat it as a fact.

 

[Inan3]

And this plethora of a variety of gods is a "proof" of the one God's existence?

No, His Word and all of creation is enough to prove that.

Does your copy of My Little Pony contain lots of Feynman diagrams?

Could you scan it and put it on the internet for us?

You scientists sure do like those pictures and diagrams don't you.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? I mean, gravitation is considered one of the 4 fundamental forces and the only one so far without a known mediator particle, so let's use the proper term: hypothetical.

It is hypothesized and awaiting evidence for its existence or failure to provide evidence. It may be "imaginary" in the crudest sense of the word, but this is science. Investigation is still ongoing.

Why do you kick so against the pricks, TMT? God so loves you. I do not know why you continue to resist. You of all people would love it as He showed you all of the things in Creation that you have so enjoyed studying.

 

[Upisoft]

God so loves you.

God doesn't love necromancy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do electrons actually physically exist or are they just a scientific model we use to describe physical phenomena?

Scientists, who used to laugh at geocentrism, used to claim electrons were positively charged.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientists,

who used to laugh at geocentrism,

We still do.

used to claim electrons were positively charged.

Whether we call them 'positively' charged or 'negatively' charged is an arbitrary convention. They don't come with a massive minus sign slapped on them. It's like the 'north' and 'south' side of a bar magnet - they're called that as a historical convention, handy labels to denote the simple fact that they are opposites. We arbitrarily call one 'north', or 'positive', or 'left', or 'up', and call the other the opposite.

Most engineers I've talked to would much rather electrons be denoted as 'positive' particles, but hey, c'est la vie.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, His Word and all of creation is enough to prove that.

Others disagree.

Why do you kick so against the pricks, TMT? God so loves you. I do not know why you continue to resist. You of all people would love it as He showed you all of the things in Creation that you have so enjoyed studying.

Professing how much fun it is to be a believer isn't going to convince a scientist, Inan. If a scientist is worth her salt, she basis her beliefs on the evidence. Saying that it feels good to believe in God is irrelevant to her - she wants to know whether God actually exists.

 

[Inan3]

Others disagree.


Professing how much fun it is to be a believer isn't going to convince a scientist, Inan. If a scientist is worth her salt, she basis her beliefs on the evidence. Saying that it feels good to believe in God is irrelevant to her - she wants to know whether God actually exists.

Firstly, Hello WC. I see you are still lurking about.
I don't know how you got what you did out of what I was saying, though.

Secondly, the evidence exists for God as it does for the wind, and gravity, and love, and joy, and energy. It is effectual evidence.

I see that your explanation as a problem for some scientists. It's good to know they are not ALL that way. It appears those who are don't realize there is so much more to life than just the facts and what you can see with your eyes, or at least it seems they discount it. I would NEVER want to limit my life like that.

 

[Inan3]

Professing how much fun it is to be a believer isn't going to convince a scientist, Inan. If a scientist is worth her salt, she basis her beliefs on the evidence. Saying that it feels good to believe in God is irrelevant to her - she wants to know whether God actually exists.

Oh BTW, I wasn't talking about seeing these things now while on the earth but later in eternity with God Who has told us we would continue to learn and live and grow, ... while others.... let's just say do not. I choose to be in the first group and so can you if you will just let go of what you KNOW is not truth and bow your knee to Jesus the ONLY way to all that YOU, WC are seeking.

 

[Greg1234]

Firstly, Hello WC. I see you are still lurking about.
I don't know how you got what you did out of what I was saying, though.

Secondly, the evidence exists for God as it does for the wind, and gravity, and love, and joy, and energy. It is effectual evidence.

I see that your explanation as a problem for some scientists. It's good to know they are not ALL that way. It appears those who are don't realize there is so much more to life than just the facts and what you can see with your eyes, or at least it seems they discount it. I would NEVER want to limit my life like that.

Unless you can find telescopic evidence for molecules then there is something wrong with that microscope. It's not a lack of evidence but a denial of the evidence for which they have no refutation in sight. They believe in some futuristic naturalistic process. If you still do science based on evidence, then you don't really have a problem.

 

[variant]

Do electrons actually physically exist or are they just a scientific model we use to describe physical phenomena?


Edit: my bad for the spelling mistake. I typed this thread in like 8 seconds. Moral: always proof-read kids!

[Metaphysics and epistemology]

Everything you are capable of perceiving is a model used to describe phenomena physical or otherwise.

They exist to the extent that our modeling of electrons corresponds to consistent observations within reality.

[/Metaphysics and epistemology]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Firstly, Hello WC. I see you are still lurking about.

Howdy Long time no see .

I don't know how you got what you did out of what I was saying, though.

Secondly, the evidence exists for God as it does for the wind, and gravity, and love, and joy, and energy. It is effectual evidence.

Such evidence may very well exist, but I've yet to see any. Wind is evidenced through the moving trees and leaves, gravity in falling rain, love and joy in a mother's smile, energy in a nuclear power plant. Harking back to the OP, electrons are evidenced through a number of other well-established phenomena. Without wanting to derail the thread, what evidence is there for God?

I see that your explanation as a problem for some scientists. It's good to know they are not ALL that way. It appears those who are don't realize there is so much more to life than just the facts and what you can see with your eyes, or at least it seems they discount it. I would NEVER want to limit my life like that.

Why not? For some people, truth and the pursuit thereof are the greatest joys and goals of life. A scientist is someone who works in and advances science, who pushes the sphere of human knowledge further outward. Ipso facto, a good scientist is someone who does this well - that is, their science is good science. And what is good science? Something that's well-evidenced, repeatable, testable, has explanatory power, etc.

This all relies on facts. If a proposed claim isn't supported by the facts, we cannot be sure it's actually true, so it has no use in science.

So why should a scientist, who's goal is the pursuit of facts that advance human knowledge, disregard facts? More generally, why should we believe in or affirm the truth of anything that isn't supported by the facts?

Oh BTW, I wasn't talking about seeing these things now while on the earth but later in eternity with God Who has told us we would continue to learn and live and grow, ... while others.... let's just say do not. I choose to be in the first group and so can you if you will just let go of what you KNOW is not truth and bow your knee to Jesus the ONLY way to all that YOU, WC are seeking.

A thousand different religions say the same thing. Christians tell me Christianity is the only way, Muslims tell me Islam is the only way, Sikhs tell me Sikhism is the only way...
Why should I believe you over the others?

 

[Michael]

Such evidence may very well exist, but I've yet to see any. Wind is evidenced through the moving trees and leaves, gravity in falling rain, love and joy in a mother's smile, energy in a nuclear power plant. Harking back to the OP, electrons are evidenced through a number of other well-established phenomena. Without wanting to derail the thread, what evidence is there for God?

Without wanting to derail the thread....
http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288-64/#post57215535