4 ms·

You once again assumed the amount of variance matches exactly the amount of measuring error. But you didn't prove it. In my book, the jury is out. We take the

by slver 5y ago

You once again assumed the amount of variance matches exactly the amount of measuring error. But you didn't prove it. In my book, the jury is out. We take the scientific approach, yes? As for what particle physicists accept conventionally, versus what they claim is the actual nature of reality are two things. Again, a scientists to another, when questioned specifically on a topic, won't say "oh it's like that because we've universally accepted it's like that". Because they know history is full of things science accepted, and then was disproven. Either there's sufficient evidence, or there isn't. One of the top ways we get stuck in science is when we confuse model and convention with proven objective reality.

cmeacham98 5y ago
> Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little My claim is that no evidence exists to support this claim. Obviously, I cannot provide proof for the absence of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to provide _any_ reliable evidence to support this claim. While the absence of evidence does not 100% prove the theory is untrue, we generally treat theories with no evidence as untrue/very likely to be untrue (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).
- slver 5y ago
  I actually think it's fair for me to step back from "electron charge varies" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not" as long as you step back from "electron charge doesn't vary" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not". This is not a Russell's Teapot situation at all because this revised middleground statement isn't just something arbitrary I decided. Instead it's literally the most specific statement either of us can make in face of currently established facts. Once again, our everyday model is that electrons are little pinballs of exact charge and size, and that's a useful model. A more detailed model sees them as sizeless points of approximately measured charge that propagate in a probability quantum wave. That's also a useful model. Who knows what an even more detailed model would show? I prefer to keep my mind open because, as I said, if you stick to convention, you lose track of what was proven and what wasn't, and you get stuck on the wrong path to truth. In any case what I said about neutrons and protons is actually accepted scientific fact. They're not particles at all. They're a configuration of quarks in constant flux and exchange with the environment. And here we were not long ago, imagining they were persistent little pinballs as well. Go figure I guess.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    > I actually think it's fair for me to step back from "electron charge varies" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not" as long as you step back from "electron charge doesn't vary" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not". Sounds a lot like a middlegrounds fallacy. My claim is "electron charge could possibly vary, or not, but all existing evidence suggests it does not, and no existing evidence suggests it does". > A more detailed model sees them as sizeless points of approximately measured charge that propagate in a probability quantum wave. I _think_ this is supposed to be a reference to quantum field theory, which explicitly assumes that particles represent a fixed, minimum amount of energy called a quanta (that's where the "quantum" in "quantum physics" comes from by the way). It's so fundamental to the theory it's the beginning of the second paragraph on the wikipedia page for QFT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory): "QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles." > In any case what I said about neutrons and protons is actually accepted scientific fact. They're not particles at all. I'm referring to elementary particles, of which protons and neutrons are not (but quarks are).
    - slver 5y ago
      > My claim is "electron charge could possibly vary, or not, but all existing evidence suggests it does not, and no existing evidence suggests it does". But your claim is a falsehood. I asked you to provide evidence that it doesn't vary and you said you can't but you assume the variance comes solely from the measurement equipment. That's not what "evidence" means. We have variance. Either there's proof that it's the measurement, or there isn't. Assuming is just that. I'll tell you another assumption we often take for granted: speed of light. Actually we don't know if the speed of light is as measured, C. Do you know why? We can only measure reflected light. So we measure it going to some place, and then get reflected back. Maybe it goes there at C/2, and then comes back instantly. OR maybe it goes there instantly, and comes back at C/2. Or even more likely, it goes there at some ratio of C, and comes back at the inverse ratio of C. We can't know that. In fact Einstein explicitly mentions this in his work, and calls C, the "average speed" just that - a convention. Either you can prove it, or you can't. But how many people you hear, including scientists, talk about the speed of light this way? Not many. We take the model for granted to preserve our sanity. But from time to time we also need to remember: it's just a model. > I'm referring to elementary particles, of which protons and neutrons are not (but quarks are). Protons and neutrons are not. But until relatively recently, they were. What are we going to find out tomorrow? I actually Googled this to see how elementary particles are defined, and very first thing you see is this sentence (emphasis mine): "Particles CURRENTLY THOUGHT to be elementary..." See, when they need to be specific, they're quite aware this is just the current assumption. Nothing else. You know, the only place it pays to be so sure about current models being objectively right and the law is school. In school you can propagate this myth as if you have the gospel in your hands. In the lab, this same PoV is frowned upon. "What if" is king. As long as it doesn't contradict existing evidence.

by slver 5y ago

cmeacham98 5y ago

> Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little My claim is that no evidence exists to support this claim. Obviously, I cannot provide proof for the absence of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to provide _any_ reliable evidence to support this claim. While the absence of evidence does not 100% prove the theory is untrue, we generally treat theories with no evidence as untrue/very likely to be untrue (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

slver 5y ago
I actually think it's fair for me to step back from "electron charge varies" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not" as long as you step back from "electron charge doesn't vary" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not". This is not a Russell's Teapot situation at all because this revised middleground statement isn't just something arbitrary I decided. Instead it's literally the most specific statement either of us can make in face of currently established facts. Once again, our everyday model is that electrons are little pinballs of exact charge and size, and that's a useful model. A more detailed model sees them as sizeless points of approximately measured charge that propagate in a probability quantum wave. That's also a useful model. Who knows what an even more detailed model would show? I prefer to keep my mind open because, as I said, if you stick to convention, you lose track of what was proven and what wasn't, and you get stuck on the wrong path to truth. In any case what I said about neutrons and protons is actually accepted scientific fact. They're not particles at all. They're a configuration of quarks in constant flux and exchange with the environment. And here we were not long ago, imagining they were persistent little pinballs as well. Go figure I guess.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  > I actually think it's fair for me to step back from "electron charge varies" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not" as long as you step back from "electron charge doesn't vary" to "electron charge could possibly vary, or not". Sounds a lot like a middlegrounds fallacy. My claim is "electron charge could possibly vary, or not, but all existing evidence suggests it does not, and no existing evidence suggests it does". > A more detailed model sees them as sizeless points of approximately measured charge that propagate in a probability quantum wave. I _think_ this is supposed to be a reference to quantum field theory, which explicitly assumes that particles represent a fixed, minimum amount of energy called a quanta (that's where the "quantum" in "quantum physics" comes from by the way). It's so fundamental to the theory it's the beginning of the second paragraph on the wikipedia page for QFT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory): "QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles." > In any case what I said about neutrons and protons is actually accepted scientific fact. They're not particles at all. I'm referring to elementary particles, of which protons and neutrons are not (but quarks are).
  - slver 5y ago
    > My claim is "electron charge could possibly vary, or not, but all existing evidence suggests it does not, and no existing evidence suggests it does". But your claim is a falsehood. I asked you to provide evidence that it doesn't vary and you said you can't but you assume the variance comes solely from the measurement equipment. That's not what "evidence" means. We have variance. Either there's proof that it's the measurement, or there isn't. Assuming is just that. I'll tell you another assumption we often take for granted: speed of light. Actually we don't know if the speed of light is as measured, C. Do you know why? We can only measure reflected light. So we measure it going to some place, and then get reflected back. Maybe it goes there at C/2, and then comes back instantly. OR maybe it goes there instantly, and comes back at C/2. Or even more likely, it goes there at some ratio of C, and comes back at the inverse ratio of C. We can't know that. In fact Einstein explicitly mentions this in his work, and calls C, the "average speed" just that - a convention. Either you can prove it, or you can't. But how many people you hear, including scientists, talk about the speed of light this way? Not many. We take the model for granted to preserve our sanity. But from time to time we also need to remember: it's just a model. > I'm referring to elementary particles, of which protons and neutrons are not (but quarks are). Protons and neutrons are not. But until relatively recently, they were. What are we going to find out tomorrow? I actually Googled this to see how elementary particles are defined, and very first thing you see is this sentence (emphasis mine): "Particles CURRENTLY THOUGHT to be elementary..." See, when they need to be specific, they're quite aware this is just the current assumption. Nothing else. You know, the only place it pays to be so sure about current models being objectively right and the law is school. In school you can propagate this myth as if you have the gospel in your hands. In the lab, this same PoV is frowned upon. "What if" is king. As long as it doesn't contradict existing evidence.