Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Prismatic]

It might be more useful to have Xris tell us why he believes in atoms than to try to convince him that subatomic particles exist. What is different about atoms that wins his approval? Of course he needs the atom to hook the ropes onto, but there must be a prior justification.

[Xris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

I have no idea if you have watched this but I would be interested in your reply.

I am still waiting for an adequate answer to my request.

[Prismatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE I have no idea if you have watched this but I would be interested in your reply. I am still waiting for an adequate answer to my request.

What is your request? To know the shape of an electron? Gaede has shown it to you: an electron is a little red balloon around the nucleus of the atom. He even shows you a picture. What more could you ask for? And the nice thing is that Gaede himself didn't have to do any experiments or use any mathematics to arrive at that conclusion. It's revealed truth like the Bible.

The rest of us can't show you an electron. They are too small and they move too fast. They act like particles in the electron beam of a microscope and produce sharp images and they act like particles when they interact with other particles. You can calculate their energy and mass and spin, and how they behave in an electric or magnetic field, but their shape and color doesn't appear.

There is on record an experiment described in Physics Review Letters that shows definitively that photons exist:

H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, ‘‘Photon antibunching in resonance fluorescence,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691–695 ~1977.

The full paper itself is available online at authors.library.caltech.edu/6051/1/KIMprl77.pdf This is perhaps the most prestigious way to publish in physics, so the paper is important. Unfortunately the result relies on mathematics. Here is the abstract:

The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation,antibunching is understandable only in ... tic field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom undergoing a quantum jump.

[my emphasis]

A second experimental result of the same nature providing the same conclusion was reported in 1980, confirming the first result. It is available at

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 89#preview

There is a followup review article:

H. Paul Zentralinstitut für Optik und Spektroskopie, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, DDR-1199 Berlin, German Democratic Republic

A review is given of recent theoretical studies devoted to the problem of generating radiation fields that exhibit the opposite of the well-known bunching of photons observed in light from thermal sources, the so-called antibunching effect. It is made clear that this phenomenon reflects the corpuscular nature of light and, hence, cannot be interpreted in terms of classical electrodynamics, needing, instead, the quantum-mechanical formalism for its description. It is shown in some detail that nonlinear interaction mechanisms like multiphoton absorption and parametric three-wave interaction are suited to change the photon statistical properties of incident (in most cases coherent) light such that the output field will be endowed with antibunching properties. Special emphasis is given to the problem of correctly specifying the dimensions of the mode volume occurring in the usual single-mode treatment of the field, which is, in fact, of great practical interest, since the magnitude of the antibunching effect is determined by the inverse average number of photons contained in that volume. In a later section it is pointed out that destructive interference with a coherent reference beam provides a means of (a) effectively enhancing photon antibunching that is already present in a high-intensity field, through reduction of the intensity, and (b) transforming phase fluctuations produced in a Kerr medium into antibunching-type intensity fluctuations. On the other hand, there exists a way of directly generating light with antibunching properties, the physical mechanism being resonance fluorescence from a single atom. The main features of this technique, both theoretical and experimental, are outlined, including a discussion of the first experimental results obtained a few years ago.

[my emphasis]

Once again the result requires mathematics. However, it shows that Einstein was correct and that photons exist.

[Mcdoodle]

What do you think the concept of particles plays in the working of any of these inventions. Even if I can not convey my views it still requires particle science to conclusively prove they actually exist. ...

You answer a question with a question. Then you do not answer my simple question. How does an electron microscope work if there are no electrons? How does an analogue tv work if there is no such thing as electrons? The concept of electrons as particles is fundamental to these two practical inventions. I am asking you to explain their operation using some other concept.

Particle science has conclusively demonstrated that, using its concepts, electron microscopes and analogue televisions work. In what way is this insufficient? On an instrumentalist level - I'm not demanding realism - even if electrons were discovered by some future scientist to be an inferior model, they worked just fine in constructing these things. In what way is this inferior to Gaede, who has made nothing much work that I know of?

I don't see why it's up to 'particle science to conclusively prove they actually exist'. A working operational definition has been going for over a century and has enabled all kinds of interesting stuff to happen. Maybe that's all that life has to offer, working operational definitions.

[Wooden shoe]

Hi all.

I have a simple question, is there any indeterminacy at all in Gaede's work or is everything deternined in his theory? Of course I am talking about the micro world.

Regards, John.

[Prismatic]

Hi all.

I have a simple question, is there any indeterminacy at all in Gaede's work or is everything deternined in his theory? Of course I am talking about the micro world.

Regards, John.

I would suppose not.

Indeterminacy arises mathematically when one function is the Fourier transform of another. It says that if one function is spread out—which is to say, non-zero over a large interval, its Fourier transform will be concentrated in a small interval and vice versa. An extreme example is the constant function 1, spread out over the entire real line, and its Fourier transform, the Dirac delta function. In quantum mechanics position is a de Broglie matter wave and momentum its Fourier conjugate, so that the more the particle is confined, the less determined its momentum will be.

Gaede uses no mathematics at all, says mathematics is not the language of physics, and claims mathematics has nothing to do with physics. That would obviate his even forming an indeterminacy relation.

On the other hand his physics is entirely without meaning, not based on observation or experiment, and in that sense, it is the epitome of indetermination.

[Wooden shoe]

Prismatic, thank you.

Grasping for straws??? As stated before I have insufficient knowledge to speak on the science in this debate but have been following this thread with interest. Yes I have gained from it in science knowledge, but I see a underlying theme which is very human rather then science. Whenever someone holds to much to some belief it can make them very illogical when something seems to threaten said belief. This is very evident with those who have a dogmatic belief in religious writings, for example when the creation story was discredited they found solace in intelligent design despite the fact that there is no evidence. Very well educated people have joined this line of thought. There are other things in our awareness that we have no clear understanding off but nevertheless believe to be true. Science has been unable to unravel the mystery of gravity, but I have yet to find anyone who disbelieves it is a fact. Has science discovered all there is to know in the quantum world in order to explain it in all detail? No, but it works and has provided mankind with some benefits, but it is a work in progress. So as the book is not closed, and there are chapters to be written, I believe it best to give the authors the freedoms to write on. In my lifetime I do not expect that the final chapter will be done but that is ok because nothing in my life depends on it.

In anyones life it is beneficial to look at the underlying causes for a strong belief in something despite the fact of a lot of contrary evidence. Many years ago I gave up on a belief I had been brought up with, that was a painful process that has been shared by a number of posters. Bt what it has done is, it brought a far better balance in what I believe and the evidence.

For what it's worth, just some rambling thoughts.I think I will have another glass of wine before I go to sleep.

Regards, John.

[Xris]

Good Idea Clogs. Maintaining belief requires we refuse to accept alternatives. The more we invest in that belief the more dogmatic we become. I do not think we will come to any agreement on this subject and I will have to accept I am not going to be convinced of particles and those who do will not believe otherwise. I just wonder are we both expressing faith or standing by our logical train of thoughts. I must stop before I become dogmatically attached. Dogmatism is a very dangerous human condition. xris.

[Prismatic]

Has science discovered all there is to know in the quantum world in order to explain it in all detail? No, but it works and has provided mankind with some benefits, but it is a work in progress. So as the book is not closed, and there are chapters to be written, I believe it best to give the authors the freedoms to write on. In my lifetime I do not expect that the final chapter will be done but that is ok because nothing in my life depends on it.

No problem with any of what you say. My objections to Gaede's view is simply that he has no evidence—no observation, no experiments, no well-developed theory—and on the basis of his misinterpretations and misunderstandings wants to throw out all of physics. Science does not advance by speculation the way theology or philosophy does. It takes hard results.

[Xris]

Has science discovered all there is to know in the quantum world in order to explain it in all detail? No, but it works and has provided mankind with some benefits, but it is a work in progress. So as the book is not closed, and there are chapters to be written, I believe it best to give the authors the freedoms to write on. In my lifetime I do not expect that the final chapter will be done but that is ok because nothing in my life depends on it.

No problem with any of what you say. My objections to Gaede's view is simply that he has no evidence—no observation, no experiments, no well-developed theory—and on the basis of his misinterpretations and misunderstandings wants to throw out all of physics. Science does not advance by speculation the way theology or philosophy does. It takes hard results.

And you refuse to accept that science might just be wrong in principle.When confronted with an alternative concept you reject it simply because your adversary has not had millions of dollars committed to his theory.He has not had thousands of experimental scientist considering his theory with countless billions of dollars at their disposal. He has had to bare stupid remarks that have no bearing on on his ability to give an alternative. I ignore your purposely obtuse remarks about electrons buzzing around atoms to prevent this debate becoming personal. After 80 years there is no conclusive proof particles exist but you hang on to them like a dog with a bone. The bone is dry and has no meat left upon it so let it go.

[Prismatic]

And you refuse to accept that science might just be wrong in principle.When confronted with an alternative concept you reject it simply because your adversary has not had millions of dollars committed to his theory. He has not had thousands of experimental scientist considering his theory with countless billions of dollars at their disposal. He has had to bare stupid remarks that have no bearing on on his ability to give an alternative. I ignore your purposely obtuse remarks about electrons buzzing around atoms to prevent this debate becoming personal. After 80 years there is no conclusive proof particles exist but you hang on to them like a dog with a bone. The bone is dry and has no meat left upon it so let it go.

So you tell us—when you yourself have not even looked at the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that any science might be beyond your intuitive grasp. The whole problem with Gaede's theories is lack of evidence. The kindest characterization of them would be that they are plausibility arguments, but the problem is that they are highly implausible. When challenged to explain how they account for established observations, you have never been able to provide convincing answers.

On the other hand, whether or not you are willing to look at it or even try to understand it, there is loads of evidence for quantum mechanics and for the existence of particles—observation, experiment, theory, and application—but you have to understand the details to realize the enormous power of all that evidence and to interpret correctly what it means.

[Wooden shoe]

Hi Prismatic.

When I first encountered quantum physics on this website I saw the need to familiarise with this branch of science and found a book written by a non-scientist who went to the horses mouth to make sure he got his ducks in a row. This author made a very difficult subject as easy as possible and with what he wrote I got a feeling of respect for those doing the science. An additional thing I found out was that this field is competitive and new insights would benefit the group that comes up with them. This makes me believe that knowledge will continue to increase. From what I have learned thus far my vote would not be for Gaede until he shows that he deserves it. So far I have enjoyed what you have written especially on science, but perhaps my opinion is shaded by learning that I was not the oldest poster.

Regards, John.

[Xris]

And you refuse to accept that science might just be wrong in principle.When confronted with an alternative concept you reject it simply because your adversary has not had millions of dollars committed to his theory. He has not had thousands of experimental scientist considering his theory with countless billions of dollars at their disposal. He has had to bare stupid remarks that have no bearing on on his ability to give an alternative. I ignore your purposely obtuse remarks about electrons buzzing around atoms to prevent this debate becoming personal. After 80 years there is no conclusive proof particles exist but you hang on to them like a dog with a bone. The bone is dry and has no meat left upon it so let it go.

So you tell us—when you yourself have not even looked at the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that any science might be beyond your intuitive grasp. The whole problem with Gaede's theories is lack of evidence. The kindest characterization of them would be that they are plausibility arguments, but the problem is that they are highly implausible. When challenged to explain how they account for established observations, you have never been able to provide convincing answers.

On the other hand, whether or not you are willing to look at it or even try to understand it, there is loads of evidence for quantum mechanics and for the existence of particles—observation, experiment, theory, and application—but you have to understand the details to realize the enormous power of all that evidence and to interpret correctly what it means.

Quantum has had thousands upon thousands spent on it and it still can not prove conclusively that particles exist as you pretend a particle exists. Solid lumps of matter that do not suddenly change to alternative lumps of matter or strangely turn into waves. Waves that have no logical concept, that defy any description and you all try desperately to justify some strange idea that observation can work a kind of magical metaphysical result. How long or how much has been spent looking for the god particle and how much longer, how much more will they need. You give me countless links that not one has the ability to prove particles. You desperately search the web looking for that one important find to convince your audience that those pesky creatures exist and you fail ever time.

[Prismatic]

Quantum has had thousands upon thousands spent on it and it still can not prove conclusively that particles exist as you pretend a particle exists. Solid lumps of matter that do not suddenly change to alternative lumps of matter or strangely turn into waves. Waves that have no logical concept, that defy any description and you all try desperately to justify some strange idea that observation can work a kind of magical metaphysical result. How long or how much has been spent looking for the god particle and how much longer, how much more will they need. You give me countless links that not one has the ability to prove particles. You desperately search the web looking for that one important find to convince your audience that those pesky creatures exist and you fail ever time.

So you tell us—without investigating or understanding the evidence. You misrepresent quantum mechanics and then ridicule your own misrepresentations as though they are stupidities of those working in the field. You can't even state the science right, but you assure us on your personal authority it must be all wrong. You've bought into the crazy ideas of a charlatan and nothing can change your mind at this point.

It's time to leave you alone with your folly. Even my patience has its limits. Here is an apt quote from the blog of a young astrophysicist working on his Ph.D. at the University of Leicester:

Consensus busting is appealing, but it tends to be more so to people who don't actually understand the consensus in the first place. There is a tendency for certain kinds of people, outside a particular field to underestimate how complex it is - and thus dismissively offer the first solution they think of, assuming nobody in the field has even considered it. To really bust a consensus though, you've got to learn it properly first. Einstein studied physics for years before coming up with his theories of relativity. He didn't just stumble onto an Internet forum, bash out the first thing that came to mind, and revolutionize physics (or whatever the early 20th century equivalent of doing that would be.) Yet that is quite a common occurrence these days, and is normally followed by surprise that the speaker isn't taken more seriously.

[my emphasis]

[Xris]

The failure to prove a point of view always ends with desperate rhetoric and a strange confession that patience has been exhausted.

Cern and its desperate attempt to find one particle. Oct 2011 by next year we will find it,Dec 2011, yes by next year, Feb 2012, yes by the summer,June 2012 certainly by the end of the year. An estimated 6.5 billion. Yes billion. 10,000 scientists and engineers. A 100 countries, 100s of universities. 19m million a year at least. Then you tell me that one man with one novel theory should be capable of proving his theory to a critical self serving, self interested group of theoretical scientists whose reputation depends on the existance of a particle as a concept.