There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 11)

slasian: Taken from Colin's post on Page nine
Q : Well, had these people really observed/detected witches?
Ans: Granted that there is no such thing as a witch, then clearly NO.

Q : Had they really observed/detected WHAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE witches?
Ans : Of course.

Now, no one is suggesting witches were a scientific creation; the lesson to be learned, rather, is that the conceptual infrastructure on which our observations/detections are based are subject to constant revision.

to Colin for those words!

This is what I call ‘The Pursuit of Impulse’. (Yeah I know I am not there to create my own terms but I had discussed this with you in some other thread and I believe that gives me the right to use it as a well-established theory )

In the philosophy of science, the one thing that we can most certainly take for granted is that there is a possibility to have more than one working theory on a single phenomenon at hand. And this was the reason for all this argy-bargy. In my theory also the pursuit of Impulse works because the universe responds to our impulses.

There is this miraculous science, ah the paradox! Miracle and science I want you to consider it. Well, I want to know your stand on the theory of Quantum Physics and 'The Pursuit of Impulse" on "The Principle of Uncertainty"?

The present popular I said popular not in the way critics use that word 'popular science of Ufology...) I said popular because after Einstein's relativity theory, which had been accepted as somehow the better theory that tried to give some sense to the nature existence and the universe, Quantum physics is getting a strong foot hold in the mainstream. It has also proved to be practical in some technological inventions. It tells us that a single pheromone’s reality exists infinitely. And only our measurements make it certain.

What do you say to this and the argy-bargy of scientific philosophy

Taken from Colin’s Post on page nine
>>>But surely no one supposes that a 99 day-old fetus Is NOT human while a 100 day-old fetus IS. The line we've drawn is, in a sense, entirely arbitrary, nevertheless the arbitrariness of the demarcation does not imply that there is no meaningful distinction between a zygote and an adult human. The distinction is not artificial.

No arguing to that!

It is our impulse that makes the 99 day zygote less human than the 100 zygote. I think you are saying, "then what should guide our impulse"? Well my friend, what guides our impulse doesn’t matter because the universe will respond to our impulse in either way and in either way we might find our self-correct and our theory true.

Mind you, this is not metaphysics, it is a science They call it Quantum Physics.

CoIin: I decided to dig out my copy of "The Scientific Image" and examine precisely what noted antirealist Bas van Fraassen has to say about some of the issues we've been discussing recently.

First, on observability...

"X is observable if there are circumstances which are such that, if X is present to us under those circumstances, then we observe it. This is not meant as a definition, but only as a rough guide to the avoidance of fallacies."

Clearly, then, dinosaurs are observable on van Fraassen's account. But can the observable-unobservable distinction be meaningfully drawn at all? Doesn't it suffer from an incurable vagueness of the type Slasian alluded to earlier? Van Fraassen responds to an imaginary opponent's objection...

"Objection 1: The distinction between observation through instruments and inference from data cannot be drawn. Can we observe through an electron microscope? Through an optical microscope? Through a reading glass? Through window panes?

Which objection I counter by reducing to absurdity the idea that a difference of degree is no difference. For on that account, everyone is poor, if a man has one penny, he is poor; and if a poor man be given a penny, he is still poor. I take no credit for this sorites sophism, and hesitate to give credit for the objection it refutes."



Finally, what does the "able" in "observable" refer to? Observable by spiders? Bees? Aliens with radically different perceptual apparatus than our own? Aliens with electron microscope eyes perhaps?

"This strikes me as a trick, a change in the subject of discussion. I have a mortar and pestle made of copper and weighing about a kilo. Should I call it breakable because a giant could break it? Should I call the Empire State Building portable? Is there no distinction between a portable and a console record player? The human organism is, from the point of view of physics, a certain kind of measuring apparatus. As such it has certain inherent limitations—which will be described in detail in the final physics and biology. It is these limitations to which the ‘able’ in ‘observable’ refers—our limitations, qua human beings."


http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1470783.files/van%20Fraassen_Scientific%20Image.pdf


Edit : Can't make the link work, dammit . Go do yer own searching

quarks:
this "able" means of course observable by none other than Quarks!
*wipes hands on trousers done with the messy work*
*sits on floor teaching Quarks to do silly song and dance numbers*

quarks:

Ballad of an Uncertain Cat

Erwin Schrödinger a man now most famous for his cat
back in 1926 with Heisenberg had a quarrelsome spat

the founder of Wave Mechanics was openly refuted 
Theory first then the man Heisenberg openly disputed

the Uncertainty Relation of Mass x Velocity was the claim
on subatomic particles Heisenberg's  publication drew fame 

scientific implications seem harmless same for philosophy 
leading physicist to call this the  Principle of Indeterminacy

Heisenberg forming his theory, how both did shout and yell 
is where the fun and entertainment reside within this tale

Heisenberg with band of brutes esposed the Matrix stance
Shrödinger insited upon Wave Mechanics like man in trance

"I felt reppelled" he said in debate of Heisenberg's Theory
 "no faith in theory counter to our conception" responded he

with neither open to hear theory of the other completely out 
one began insults in publication while other mostly whined about

physicists gave Matrix Mechanics a punch, stomp and kick
unfamilure mathematics was labeled upon their beating stick

Schrödinger stated "transcendential algebra" was discouraging 
Einstein's stance with Wave Mechanics to him was encouraging

Schrödinger published Matrix and Wave Mechanics equivilent
yet he stated Wave Mechanics superior and Matrix not relivent 

Hiesenberg was quite enraged for more than opinion was at stake
Matrix Mechanics creators wished teachers of themselves to make

"his theory 'is possibly not quite right,' in other words it's crap."
Heisenberg spouted this as if to give Schrödinger feudal slap

Heisenberg with Niels Bohr took Matrix Mechanics in debate 
Schrödinger behind Wave Mechanics October 26 was the date

the København debates quite intense ended without conclusion
both sides at feverish rate now sought way their stance be proven 

Jordan in Göttingen and Paul Dirac of Cambridge to us gave
taking Schrödinger's equivalence combining Matrix and Wave 

Transformation Theory as the unified equation the gave all to read
this is now regarded as Quantum Mechanics the physicists creed

to find physical meaning of these equations was now task at hand
observing physical objects as Waves or Particles a quest quite grand

"events in tiny atoms are subject to Quantum Mechanics" expressed Bohr
yet we deal with larger objects thus  Newton's Laws one can not ignore

back to Heisenberg and his work we must now return in ballad tale
after all it is important to note he did not actually in final quest fail 

study the papers of Paul Dirac and Jordan ole Heisenberg did next do
discussing with Pauli problem appeared bringing to light something new

his analysis showed  uncertainties or imprecicions always came to be
measure position and momentum of particles at the same time to see

this was inherent in Quantum Mechanics was what Heisenberg wrote
his initial letter soon evolved into published paper one and all should note  

this is all I can say of how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle came about
certainly it should be in Quantum Physics the man has great standing and clout  

Nobel of Physics Werner Heisenberg did obtain from what began as a spat
but in sorrow Erwin Schrödinger is best known for story told in jest of a cat 

*thine own Quarks have asked to sing my ballad to which I have denied them. they sing quite hi pitched and it is unsettling*

CoIin: Very clever, iViolet

Thunderous applause


Psst Now can you compose an Ode To A Spitting Cobra?

slasian: to iViolet

CoIin: Turning the subject back to the issue of underdetermination of theories by evidence -- the proposition that an indefinite number of logically incompatible theories are consistent with, and are confirmed to precisely the same degree by, the same body of evidence -- on the previous page I posted two examples for consideration: one was Nelson Goodman's infamous "grue" predicate; the other suggested by Larry Laudan.

I now offer a third example quoted directly from Howson and Urbach's "Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach". This example is more mathematical and thus might appeal more to my numerically-gifted friend, Bourbaki, although I don't fully understand it myself. (Can you explain please, Bourbaki? )

Once again the same problems arise. If there exists a plurality of theories all indistinguishable at the level of observation, yet mutually incompatible nonetheless, they cannot possibly all be TRUE (in the realist sense). Moreover, what basis do scientists have for choosing one rather than another? What does The Scientific Method (TSM) have to say about this?

Howson and Urbach's own answer is that, while other formulations of TSM are at a loss to explain why "all emeralds are green" should be preferred to "all emeralds are grue", and likewise for the Galileo example, the Bayesian approach handles this conundrum very nicely, thank you very much, insofar as scientists assign differing prior probabilities to the range of candidate theories. Clearly, scientists both DO and OUGHT TO assign a lower prior probability to the gruesome grue hypothesis compared with the nice, respectable, clean-shaven, boy-next-door green hypothesis.




QUOTE

We pointed out in Chapter 1 that any data are explicable by infinitely many, mutually incompatible theories, a situation that some philosophers have called the "under-determination" of theories by data. For example, Galileo carried out numerous experiments on freely falling bodies, in which he examined how long they took to descend various distances. His results led him to propound the well known law:

s = a + ut + 1/2gt^2

where s is the distance fallen by the body in time t, and a, u and g are constants. Jeffreys (1961) pointed out that without contradicting his own experimental results, Galileo might instead have advanced as his law:

s = a + ut + 1/2gt^2 + f(t)(t - t1)(t - t2) ... (t - tn)

where t1, t2, ... tn are the elapsed times of fall that Galileo recorded in each of his experiments; a, u and g have the same values as above; and f is any function that is not infinite at any of the values t1, t2, ... tn. Jeffrey's modification therefore represents an infinity of alternatives to the orthodox theory, all implying Galileo's data, all mutually contradictory, and all making different predictions about future experiments.

UNQUOTE

CoIin: ACHTUNG

Never trust quarks

They make up everything

CoIin: "Many physicists have subscribed to the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, a position often equated with eschewing all interpretation. It is summarized by the sentence "Shut up and calculate!". While this slogan is sometimes attributed to Paul Dirac or Richard Feynman, it seems to be due to David Mermin."

-- Wikipedia (page on the Copenhagen Interpretation)




To recap once again, scientific antirealism or instrumentalism is the view that scientific theories, though undeniably useful, should not be interpreted literally; they should not be taken to describe reality.

What? All of them?

Well, that would put you among the exalted ranks of those sexy leather-clad daredevils advocating the position known as "global" antirealism. Those of a more timid disposition who are not quite ready to propel themselves over twenty double-decker theories on an antirealist motorcycle may feel more comfortable -- at least to begin with -- assuming a stance of "local" antirealism with respect to PARTICULAR theories.

But where to begin?

The most obvious candidate is surely quantum physics. And you'll be in good company too. This is precisely the stance that the authors of the the orthodox interpretation, the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation -- Niels "Knievel" Bohr and Werner "Hell's Angel" Heisenberg -- recommended that we adopt.

The paradoxes of quantum physics are well known: entities behaving as both a wave and a particle, spooky action-at-a-distance whereby events here on Earth might -- in defiance of Einstein's cosmic speed limit -- instantaneously causally affect events on the other side of the universe, and ...

... and, notoriously, cats in boxes that are neither alive nor dead.

Well, it's just bleedin' silly, innit guv

Clearly, all of the above would be more appropriate to a Picasso painting than to anything we would normally want to describe as "reality". Reality isn't supposed to BE like that. No self-respecting object would ever behave that way.

Arch rivals Bohr and Einstein were at least able to agree on this much. Quantum theory, as it stood, could not possibly describe reality. Their disagreement lay in which of the following resolutions to adopt:-


(i) Quantum theory does aspire to describe reality, but the paradoxes inherent in the theory betray its incompleteness. There must be more to it than has been uncovered to date.

(ii) Quantum theory IS complete, thank you very much. The theory is just fine. Paradoxes arise only insofar as the theory is taken literally to be a description of reality. This is a misinterpretation. It should be understood, rather, as a tool; a calculating device.


Bohr plumped for the latter antirealist interpretation; Einstein for the former realist account. But Einstein hadn't always been such an unapologetic realist:-

"Such were some of Einstein's chief objections in the famous series of debates with Niels Bohr, when he argued that the orthodox (Copenhagen) theory of quantum mechanics was necessarily 'incomplete' since it entailed the existence of unthinkable phenomena such as instantaneous remote correlation or 'spooky action-at-a distance'. Although he had been among the chief contributors to the early development of quantum mechanics, Einstein was by now deeply dissatisfied with what he saw as its failure to provide any adequate realist or causal-explanatory account of QM phenomena. This change of mind went along with his shift from a broadly positivist (or instrumentalist) approach according to which a scientific theory need achieve no more than empirical-observational and predictive accuracy to a realist position that entailed far more in the way of express ontological commitment."

[...]

"Thus Einstein maintained that orthodox QM was demonstrably 'incomplete' in so far as it failed in the basic task of providing a description of quantum phenomena that was consistent with the full range of observational-predictive results while also explaining those results in terms of a credible realist ontology and an account of the underlying causal mechanisms that produced them. Since the doctrine as it stood offered no such account -- since it refused on principle to venture beyond the empirical evidence so as to avoid certain highly paradoxical or counter-intuitive consequences with regard to the supposed 'reality' behind quantum-phenomenal appearances -- therefore (he argued) it fell far short of the requirements for an adequate physical theory."

"To Bohr's way of thinking, conversely, orthodox QM was indeed 'complete' in all basic respects, and any problems had to do with the limits of our classical-realist concepts and categories when applied to quantum mechanics. Only by adopting an empiricist approach -- one that sensibly acknowledged those limits and resisted the temptation to speculate on matters beyond its conceptual grasp -- could thought be prevented from creating all manner of needless problems, dilemmas and antinomies."



The final quote offers a nice synopsis of the antirealist (= instrumentalist, empiricist, positivist, etc) stance. To repeat for the hundredth time -- so get it into yer thick skulls -- antirealism does not equate to anti-science. Quite the reverse; the antirealist claims his position is the only proper attitude we should assume to scientific theories, the one that adheres as closely as possible to the empirical evidence -- AND GOES NO FURTHER. To proceed further, as the scientific realist does, is to enter the domain of metaphysics. It's here that quarks are reputed to reside. But it's also here that The Absolute, elan vital, phlogiston, and, yes, God convene.

Do you really wanna go THERE? Caveat emptor

Ask an antirealist if he thinks such-and-such a theory is "true" and he'll tell you you're asking the wrong question. We don't ask whether a hammer or a ladder, or even a subway map, is "true"; the only relevant question is: Is it up to the task we've assigned it?



"Orthodox QM gets around this difficulty by taking an instrumentalist line, that is, by adopting the philosophy propounded by thinkers from Berkeley to Mach. On this view the proper business of physical science is to 'save appearances' by accepting the results of empirical observation, devising the simplest possible theory to accommodate these data, and eschewing the quest for causal explanations of a realist ('metaphysical' ) kind. Thus, according to Bohr, there is simply no answer to the question how and where the wavefunction 'collapses' so as to produce determinate results at the point of measurement. Such questions are ill-framed in so far as they adopt a descriptive language that works well enough for observable objects or events, but which cannot be applied to the quantum domain since it imposes a wholly inappropriate conceptual apparatus or explanatory scheme."




All quotes are from "Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics" by Christopher Norris.

The filthy rich, capitalist pigs among you can purchase a copy for US$77.32 from Amazon as part of their current Daylight Robbery promotion series. Those of a lighter pecuniary endowment may read the opening pages at Google books using the link below.

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ZwKDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Quantum+Theory+and+the+Flight+from+Realism:+Philosophical+Responses+to+Quantum+Mechanics


And if any of you fat-Schrödinger-cat capitalists do decide to buy a copy, can I borrow it when you're done, pleeeeeaaaaase?

CoIin: Did you learn about "imaginary numbers" at school?

The protagonist of the imaginary numbers saga goes by the unprepossessing name of "i". i is equal -- so we're told -- to the square root of minus one. In other words

i^2 = -1

But THERE IS NO square root of minus one.

I still recall feeling quite indignant about falling victim to imaginary number abuse. As if maths classes weren't agonizing enough already...


What a load of bollocks!

There's no such thing as the square root of minus one, dammit!



Or, as I said in the post above vis-à-vis quantum physics...

Well, it's just bleedin' silly, innit guv


Why am I being taught this crap about imaginary numbers?




Ans : Because they're USEFUL



Quarks are useful too. Innit, guvnor.

CoIin: All that follows is excerpted from "Trespassing on Einstein’s Lawn: A Father, a Daughter, the Meaning of Nothing and the Beginning of Everything" by Amanda Gefter



If I had come to London to ponder the nature of reality, I had clearly come to the right place. In my philosophy of science class, we discussed it endlessly. Is there a reality? Is it sitting “out there,” independent of us? If so, what is it made of ? How can we distinguish it from mere appearances? Is there any hope we’ll ever know it at all?

In class, we debated the merits of realism and antirealism. Realism is the commonsense belief that scientific theories describe true things about the world — a real world that exists whether or not we're looking — and that electrons, quarks, dark matter, and whatever other objects appear in our best theories, whether or not they can be observed directly, are real objects, the true ontological furniture of a singular, mind-independent world.

Antirealism is an umbrella category for all sorts of ideas that reject realism in one way or another. There's Kantean antirealism, which says that while there is a real world out there independent of us, there's no way for us to know it. There's Berkeley's esse est percipi, the more radical claim that behind appearances lurk more appearances, that objects are made not of atoms but of thoughts. There's social constructionism, which says that reality and truth are whatever we agree to call reality and truth, a theory that reminded me of something my New School postmodernist friends would say and then argue that it had to be true because they believed it, even after I had pointed out that by not agreeing with them I had, by their own definition, proven them wrong. On the saner side there's instrumentalism, which simply states that science is a tool for predicting the outcomes of experiments; whether or not there is a reality, and whether or not we can access it, is entirely beside the point.

I had already discovered that instrumentalism was a common position among physicists, who always seemed to squirm at any mention of the R-word. It’s the philosophers’ job to worry about reality, they’d say. We just calculate and predict and test.

No matter how many times I heard that, it always struck me as total bullshit...

[...]

Antirealism had seemed a rather insane position until I felt the sting of its best right hook: every previous scientific theory ever devised in the history of science has, until now, turned out to be wrong. So what kind of morons would we have to be to believe that our current theories are the exception, the one time mankind — or womankind — has ever gotten it right? And if theories are always turning out to be wrong, how can they possibly be telling us anything about the true nature of reality? I learned that this rather fatal blow is known in philosopher-speak as the "pessimistic meta-induction", which just means that with some solid inductive reasoning it becomes obvious that science is a hopeless enterprise.

[...]

When theories turn out to be wrong, Worrall said, it's usually our interpretative story that's wrong — not the structure. Take gravity. According to Newton, gravity is a force that masses exert on one another from a distance. According to Einstein, it's the local curvature of spacetime. The two ideas are contradictory. Both couldn't be right, so clearly, the antirealists said, Newton's theory wasn't describing reality at all, a fact that made it pretty hard to explain how he was able to predict the motions of the planets. Worrall disagreed. [...]


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schrodingers-rats-and-the-search-for-ultimate-reality-excerpt/

CoIin: .
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." -- Psalm 14:1

The antirealist fool says in his heart, "Scientific theories aren't true" -- anonymous



In the post above this one I've reproduced part of a lighthearted but informative article from the Scientific American website (with a link for the entire article) sketching some of the landscape in the ongoing scientific realism vs antirealism debate.

The writer astutely captures the sense of utter bewilderment -- amply evident in the earlier pages of this thread -- evoked in the naive realist upon first encounter with a person like myself who does not share his faith in science to produce true theories; that is, to get the world right!

The realist can almost be heard muttering, "What's WRONG with this person?"

The naive realist struggles to formulate an explanation for the inexplicable; the antirealist's failure to acknowledge the self-evident fact that scientific theories successfully describe reality must surely be a result of either (i) stupidity, (ii) ignorance, or (iii) some ulterior motive driving this irrational anti-science hostility -- religion most likely .

The naive realist is apparently unable to even CONCEIVE of the possibility that the antirealist's conclusion may have nothing at all to do with cognitive deficiency or religiously motivated bias, but rather is based purely on questions of epistemological warrant. In other words, the realist cannot conceive that the antirealist has concluded -- after careful examination -- on purely epistemic grounds that the evidence for committing to a belief in the literal truth of scientific theories is inadequate.

Ignorant? I think not. The antirealist is perfectly cognizant of, and has a ready reply to, the standard common-sense arguments in favor of scientific realism ( "How can scientific theories be untrue? They got us to the Moon " ). He just doesn't find them compelling. On the other hand, and as this thread bears witness, the naive realist is usually blissfully unaware that there are good reasons for NOT committing to a belief in the literal truth of scientific theories.

Good reasons for not believing scientific theories are true? "Are you out of your mind?" the naive realist wails. What reasons could there possibly BE?


There are two main reasons, as I outlined on page 1 of this thread:

(i) the underdetermination of theories by evidence
(ii) the pessimistic meta-induction (or simply, pessimistic induction)


The writer of the Scientific American article adverts only to the latter -- the pessimistic meta-induction. You want good reasons not to believe in the truth of current scientific theories? Well, how about this one: Every single scientific theory taken to be true by previous generations -- a number vastly greater than the number of extant theories -- later came to be regarded as untrue.

Yet the realist remains firmly convinced that we've got it more or less right this time. Now, who's supposed to be deluded again?

To the sophisticated antirealist, the naive realist -- perhaps a victim of indoctrination by Discovery Channel type "Whiggish" histories of science (see note below) -- with his religious-like faith in science to get reality right, despite overwhelming evidence from history that the norm of science is to produce false rather than true theories, risks becoming uneasy bedfellows with some very unlikely inamoratos:-

Staunch Scottish patriot Archie from Kilmarnock who, after viewing the entire series of "Great Victories of the Scots over the English" on BBC Scotland (and Braveheart too, of course), has inferred that Scottish armies vanquishing the auld enemy on the battlefield was the historical norm.

Christian fundamentalist Stanley from Missouri who is convinced that his will be the generation when Jesus returns, and never mind that Dad, Granddad, and great great great great great Granddaddy all believed the same -- and were quite wrong.





Note on "Whig history" : (from Wiki) The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress towards enlightenment. The term is also used extensively in the history of science for historiography which focuses on the successful chain of theories and experiments that led to present-day science, while ignoring failed theories and dead ends. [...] The writing of Whig history of science is especially found in the writings of scientists and general historians, while this whiggish tendency is commonly opposed by professional historians of science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

DEEP_acheleg: faith, hope love

faith, or ideology, appeals to the subjective elements of a mans psyche- often simply by providing such an objective goal.

a structured belief system can provide release for inner chaos (irrational and insatiable desire, obsessive curiositiy and unrealistic fantasy)- what could become self-destructive behaviour is re-directed on an external motivator.



this being said, i dont begrudge a scientist for being driven, passionate and preferrential towards scientific progress. i smile to think of the teenage wallflowers whom have stopped questioning themselves, and began questioning the universe. I am thankful for those personalities of insatiable curiosity and lofty fantasy.- those whom would try every position twice- a day. those whom are so driven to the unknown that their creativity peaks to sheer genius in the bedroom- and, yet, still have 8 hours a day of otherwise unbridled curiosity in which to plan experiments for the lhrc to test the notion of "fundamental particle(s)". I just might get tingly over the b/s Domme whom couldnt show less sympathy, except that which she has (nt) been shown, whom plants her face so far inside her marine biology textbooks, that she makes me forget that global warming is a hoax. A hoax, all right. a tale fabricated as a scapegoat, and put into a little pie chart- like dragging hundreds of dead bodies out into the ocean, then blaming the smell on your autistic cousins flatulence.



if the ideology is to progress, improve, advance... then so be it; however, when the driving ideology is fashioned around the current level of "scientific progress", well, i dare say, at such a time, "science" and "progress" become mutually exclusive terms.

lori100: ....hmm....quarks and insatiable sex....ok....now it's getting interesting....

CoIin:

DEEP_acheleg: there is a possible experiment to validate or invalidate scientific realism. if black holes were to be falsified, just see if it causes stephen hawkins to die, or, even yet- just vanish

DEEP_acheleg: quantum sex- a million, trillion trillium quickies in our observable lifetime

CoIin: Do scientists still speak of "potential energy"?

Take a moment to reflect. No doubt the concept has its uses, but are we expected to believe that such an entity or property is REAL?

Are we to believe the universe keeps a ledger of energy credit and debit?

"You don't have much energy right now, at least not that can be expressed anyway, but we owe you some. Don't worry, we haven't forgotten." - The Universe (perhaps to a stone that was thrown up onto the roof)

CoIin: .
: I'm with the Universal Bureau of Energy. I'll have to see your energy, sir.

: Well, I have lots of potential energy. Is that ok?

: Potential energy? Well, get it out. Let's see it.

: No, no, no. You don't understand. It's not the kind of thing that can be expressed. I can't show it to you. It's stored energy.

: Stored? Stored where? On your person, sir?

: Um, no. At least I don't think so. I mean I'm not really sure myself. But it's OWED to me, I swear.

: That's it. Cuff him and read him his rights, boys.



Epilogue
----------------------------------------------------
(Oliver Hardy voice) Hard boiled eggs and stored energy. MMMMMmmmm.

CoIin: My participation in this thread, and all other threads, is suspended until a dispute with Wireclub over a recent incident is resolved to my satisfaction. Anyone interested can follow events on my homepage/wall.

In addition to my homepage, see the link below:

Topic: Off Topic

I do hope we can get back to constructive discussion again very soon.

DEEP_acheleg: potential energy is gravitational potential, sorry about getting grounded

Hatman20: Actually quarks can be directly observed thanks to a breakdown in the strong force at extremely high energies and temperatures. This was observed DIRECTLY recently in the LHC:

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-littlest-quark-gluon-plasma-revealed-physicists.html

Basically, at high enough temperatures, the strong force stops working properly. While some residual force exists, the quarks more or less float freely, something that is physically impossible at lower temperatures. These free floating quarks can be directly observed without having to deal with all the sticky quandaries of trying to observe them at lower temperatures.

I was originally going to go into all the mathematical and indirect observations of them as proof, but that would take far longer and it's kinda not even worth bothering when I can just give you this less disputable piece of evidence. It's hard to claim direct observations aren't proof of something's existence.

On a side note, now that free-floating quarks and gluons are achievable, I've been looking into using this substance to turn matter into antimatter. It would make producing the stuff for technologies like antimatter engines a whole lot easier.