There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 2)

DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: quarks are highly unstable- to the point that they could be considered transitional stages, rather than fundamental particles.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: if you follow the decay particles of bets+ decay, you see proton decays into a positron and a neutron. neutrons are highly unstable, so they decay into 3 quarks, which are also unstable, and decay into 3 lepton/anti-lepton pairs, which annihilate into 6 photons.

according to this decay process, it could be said that the only real fundamental quanta is 511mev- the energy equivalent of an electron- and also the energy equivalent of a positron, as well as the energy of a basic photon
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Thanks Deep, but this isn't really relevant to the topic, namely, do we have sufficient grounds for committing to the belief that quarks exist.

You've simply presupposed their existence.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: no, i stated that they do not exist as particles, but are merely the perception of a transitional stage of decay
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: "quarks are highly unstable"

They'd have to exist to be unstable.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: yes, i said that in a paragraph which began with "if you follow the decay products" and in the second paragraph i stated that the only real quanta is a 511mev energy equivalent. now, read between the lines, if the only fundamental quanta is 511mev, than, following that line of logic, quarks are NOT fundamental particles, as claimed- which poses doubt in the current, accepted quantum model.

the fact that i have shown quarks not to be fundamental particles begs the question as to what they are- as my post clearly showed that they are not what current physics claims them to be.

i am producing evidence to reenforce your claim that they are not real particles- as described, without going out on a limb, and stating that your premise is the absolute truth.

im just adding information which puts the actual nature of quarks into question, as to open inquiry into the validity of the standard scientific stance on quarks.

i also never said that transitional stages are real; rather, a transitional stage is possibly an observational error regarding the process of decay, from protons down to photons.
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Ok then.

It's a common mistake in the Religion Forum, for example, in a thread questioning the existence of God for certain posters to list the qualities of God, apparently as evidence . This, of course, is entirely unhelpful. (Listing the properties of Santa Claus does little to prove his existence)

Likewise, in a thread like this, it would be quite beside the point for any other poster to tell us the qualities of quarks. If the question is "Does the aether exist?", it doesn't help to tell us what color it is, or its specific mass, or whatever.

I just want to be as clear as possible on this. And so your comment:-

"the fact that i have shown quarks not to be fundamental particles begs the question as to what they are- as my post clearly showed that they are not what current physics claims them to be."

I made the point earlier that what makes unobservable entities like quarks problematic is that they are entirely defined by science; they are NOTHING MORE THAN what science tells us they are.

Compare this with the Sun, for example. Scientists may change in what they tell us about the Sun, but we still know what we're talking about - that thing up there! It's defined ostensively. Its reference is fixed. It's NOT ONLY what science says it is.

So, if quarks are not what science tells us they are, or as you put it "not what current physics claims them to be", the problem is we have nothing to point at - there is no fixity of reference - and thus we may have to conclude that they have no real existence at all.
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i do appreciate this comprehensive post challenging scientific realism. as the nature of science is to ALWAYS be open to new evidences, and, thusly, new and/or refined theories.

anyone who claims that so-and-so theory is a verified truth is ignorant of the true nature of science- that is, to determine the true nature of reality thru constant refinement, rather than the erroneous, realist stance that the observable evidence on which we base the current theories on are proof that the current theories are sound.

now, you did touch on this; however, i would like to expound. our observational evidences of the current theories are based on our contemporary observational methods. now, our observational methods of the electromagnetic spectrum are limited to a certain frequency range- while, there is NO theoretical upper limit to em radiation. this would suggest that we are unable to observe a considerable amount of em radiation, which leaves us totally oblivious as to what could be observed if and when our detection methods of em radiation are sufficiently improved.

as our methods of observation are enhanced, and as we postulate new and innovative observational experiments- well then, it is a no-brainer that future observations may reveal some major game changers- which may lead to the supplanting of our current theories- as the evidence of relativity, in the observation of gravitational lensing during the 1913 solar eclipse, largely supplanted newtonian physics on the cosmic scale.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: stating that quarks are an observation of a decay process begs the question of quarks merely being an observational bias
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i do not personally believe that quarks are particles, as this would reduce many fudge factors in qm and quantum chromodynamics. we can observe, in free space, exotic particles with the characteristics of being quark composite particles; however,, by themselves, they are so highly unstable that their existence could be an observational bias. does a particle need to have a certain level of stability, or is a instantaneously decaying quark merely an observational bias of a particle which should, or does not exist?
(Edited by DEEP_acheleg)
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Hi again, Deep. Clearly you're approaching the topic of the thread from a different angle than myself, and that's fine too, of course.

My arguments are generic arguments applicable to all scientific theories which contain unobservable entities. It's not a personal grudge I bear against quarks.

The two main arguments I presented, viz., the Pessimistic Induction and the Underdetermination of Theories by Data, are historical and conceptual respectively. These arguments, I've suggested, give us ample grounds for doubting the existence of ANY unobservable entities postulated in scientific theories.

My arguments require no expertise in any particular scientific theory. Analogously, if ten different religions are making mutually incompatible claims as to metaphysical reality or the nature of God, one requires no detailed knowledge of the particular religions in question to demonstrate that they can't all be right - logic alone will suffice.

Your argument is apparently attacking quantum theory from within, poking holes in the coherency of the theory from inside. I lack the scientific competence to comment, but feel free to hammer away.


Oh, can you be more clear when you use the expression "beg the question" please? To someone like myself, the phrase immediately suggests the logical fallacy of presupposing what one is attempting to establish. I suspect, however, you're using it in its more colloquial corruption, i.e. to "raise the question".

Sorry to be an insufferable pedant. But count your lucky stars you're not married to me.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: the angle which i am taking is that quarks cannot be fundamental particles (as is the establishment position), since single quarks have instantaneous decay products, without being bombarded by photons, as in beta + proton decay. exotic composite particles (seemingly made by 4 quarks) have been observed in free space, but, never on the earth, so, they may be particles, in free space, or, again, an observational bias.

i do not believe that the use of the phrase "begging the question" qualifies as the fallacy of "begging the question" (which is more closely related to a loaded question- ad nauseum"; however, if i am wrong at my assumption, then, it would be more appropriate to use the "poses the question", as you suggested.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: edit* "begging the question" fallacy refers to circular reasoning. it was poor judgement for me to use that phrase; however, the simple use of that phrase does not necessitate circular reasoning
(Edited by DEEP_acheleg)
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I wasn't accusing you of begging the question. You used the expression "beg the question" a couple of times above and it wasn't entirely clear in which sense you were using it. That's all.

Now, back to quark-bashing...
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Ask the average Joe, or even the average scientist I daresay, why science is so successful and he's likely to look at you slightly askance while offering the response:-

"Because scientific theories are TRUE "

Or, in a more refined version, because our best current scientific theories are true or approximately true; they are accurate representations of reality.

This is the position of "scientific realism" we've been examining here, doubtless the default position. Philosophy, though, has a nasty habit of making the default position, or the common sense position, appear precarious rather than obvious.

Philosopher of science Bas Van Fraassen offers an alternative explanation for the success of science - a Darwinian explanation - in contrast to Hilary Putnam's "Miracle argument" for scientific realism outlined earlier:-

"I claim that the success of current scientific theories is no miracle. It is not even surprising to the scientific (Darwinist) mind. For any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive — the ones which in fact latched on to actual regularities in nature."

Just as we needn't impute any knowledge of predator-prey relations to cheetahs or gazelles in order to explain their success, likewise the appeal to some metaphysical notion of truth to explain the success of science is redundant; it's quite sufficient that theories WORK. Gazelles that don't run fast enough and theories that don't carry their weight get eliminated in the competition. That's all.
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructive-empiricism/
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Or...try this for size:-

: The reason why Christianity is so successful is that it's TRUE. God exists and Jesus is his only begotten son. And the Trinity and all the other stuff too.

Scientific Realist : Pfft! Don't be silly. The success of Christianity can easily be explained rationally without appeal to unobservable metaphysical nonsense.


* 30 minutes later *

Scientific Realist : The reason why science is so successful is that it's TRUE. Scientific theories accurately represent reality and the unobservable entities posited within actually do exist.


Ahem
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: http://mises.org/daily/4713

An interesting article on what's referred to as "Whiggish" histories of science, that is, those overly simplistic (and dismayingly prevalent ) histories of science which trace a constant line of progression from ancient times to present, with the good guys being those who were "on the right track" (more or less) and the bad guys (Priestley et al) barely worth a mention.

(Thomas Kuhn also debunks the so-called "crucial experiments" contained in such misleading texts : experiments which purportedly demonstrate the rationality of scientists in recognizing the superiority of one theory over a rival, but which in fact were never conducted until decades or longer AFTER the paradigm shift had occurred and the new theory was firmly entrenched!)

You know the jive : "Einstein improved on Newton who improved on Kepler who improved on Galileo who...."

I'm reminded of the history of the Earth in the film "Airplane" : "First the Earth was a molten mass, then it cooled, then the dinosaurs appeared,..."


In particular, and in a slightly different vein, this:-

"Kuhn has caught a lot of flak on his philosophy of science, which he claims he doesn't really have. I think he's not interesting as a philosopher; he is interesting as a historian and a sociologist of science, asking, How did science actually develop? And essentially what he says is that this linear, step-by-step stuff isn't the case. First of all, nobody ever tests their basic axioms, ever. That's of course obviously true. That's of course obviously true [sic - repetition]. Once an axiom (or a "paradigm," as he put it, a set of basic beliefs) is adopted, people just apply it. Now, various peripheral matters or "puzzles," he calls them, come up, but anybody who challenges the basic paradigm is considered not a scientist. Not that he's refuted, I think, just out of the dialogue: he's had it."


Well said! Time and time again on Wireclub I see the enthusiastic defender of, say, evolutionary theory assert something like "The theory has been tested ad nauseum for over a century! It can't be wrong!"

I beg to differ. The theory has not been "tested" for over a century. The theory (and all others like it) has been a universally accepted truth in science for over a century; a dogma or quasi dogma, and I do not use the term in a pejorative sense. For Kuhn, and even Popper, a certain degree of dogma is an essential ingredient of science.

A paradigm theory like evolution is the meter-stick against which all else is measured. If you think you're 170cm tall and the meter stick says otherwise, then you're wrong, I'm afraid. As noted in the quote above, if you question the meter stick, you're likely to be told you're not doing science.

The meter stick is not under test. That only happens during times of crisis
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i was thinking scientific dogmatism long before you used those words...

to contrast a dogmatic scientist from a TRUE skeptic-

Einstein refused to accept that his own theories of relativity were true until an experiment could be conducted to lend validity to his theories- and this happened during the total solar eclipse of 1913, when gravitational lensing was verified by observation. and the 2nd "observation" of relativity was hubble's detection of the redshift of quazars- which, at the time, was hailed as proof of photons' vulnerabilities to gravity wells- immense gravitational attraction emanating from the massive black holes in the center of the distant quasar galaxies.

now, today, the dogmatic scientist has rewritten history, and, no longer is redshift evidence of gravity wells, but instead, is now touted as virtually proof of the big bang's expansion/inflation- never mind all the observational anomalies, missing gravity, etc...

all of this is moot to the dogmatic scientist.
(Edited by DEEP_acheleg)
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I'd suggest that Einstein was never naive enough to suppose that his own theory was "true".

The experiment you cite lent confirmation to his theory. That's a far cry from "proof". Einstein, being something of a realist in later life, was wont to speak of "lifting a corner of the veil".
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I repeat that "dogma" is not being used here in a pejorative sense just to get up people's noses. If scientists were to drop every theory at the first whiff of disconfirming evidence, well...we'd have no theories left!

A certain "loyalty" or even faith in a theory is called for.
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i never did say "proved", i said 'lend validity to"- nor did i say that einstein then put faith in his theories, neither. i am simply contrasting the present trend of scientific conformity to the true skepticism of a real scientist- a man whom would refuse to put faith in even his own works, but, rather, demanded objective, observable evidence- rather than to go on a narcissistic frenzy and tell the world how enlightened he is, on a soapbox of scientific superiority.
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: occhams razor tends to come to mind, in regards to the present state of physics. how long do you go on adding presumptive "fudge factors" before you should question your loyalty to a theory, and go back to the drawing board- discarding the innumerable presumptions?
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: You said - "Einstein refused to accept that his own theories of relativity were TRUE until an experiment could be conducted to lend validity to his theories".

Einstein is perfectly clear about what a scientific theory is and does. It is not DERIVED from data, but rather is a creation of the scientist. The scientist can never know if his theory is "true". Here's one of my favorite quotes:-

(Note also his allusion to "underdetermination" in the opening sentence; the second argument I presented against scientific realism.)

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: sidenote- my pet peeve is the declaration- "ITS SCIENCE!!!!" (hence, it must be true).
10 years ago Report
0