About ‘tropical fish’ One can study tropical fish in a restaurant and have his a culinary philosophical doctrine . Other can study tropical fish in their own surrounding natural environment. His philosophy is absolutely different. The problem is that physicists study electron without know its own surrounding natural environment - vacuum. Therefore we have ‘a culinary philosophical doctrine’. ==.
On Mar 6, 10:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <socra...@bezeqint.net> 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 <nomin...@yahoo.com> 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. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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 epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
