3 ms·

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 "ele

by 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.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    > 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. My claim is literally true. No evidence exists that suggests the mass of an electron varies. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing such evidence. All existing measurements of the mass/charge of an electron are consistent. I really don't have the time to look up papers measuring the mass of an electron and figure out what degree of accuracy they're claiming and compare the measurements, but I guarantee you if you bother doing this you'll see the measurements are all the same. > We have variance. Either there's proof that it's the measurement, or there isn't. Assuming is just that. Variance is the expected outcome. Human-made measurement devices are imperfect. If the mass/charge of an electron varies, it either would have to do so at a level where our tools can detect it (provably untrue) or it would do so at a level below where our tools could detect it (unprovable until our tools improve obviously). > I'll tell you another assumption we often take for granted: speed of light. ... The fact we cannot measure the 1-way speed of light is well known. Using 'c' as the speed of light is a common convention. On the other hand, we _can_ measure the mass/charge of an electron, and that value is consistent to the degree we can measure it accurately.

by slver 5y ago

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.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  > 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. My claim is literally true. No evidence exists that suggests the mass of an electron varies. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing such evidence. All existing measurements of the mass/charge of an electron are consistent. I really don't have the time to look up papers measuring the mass of an electron and figure out what degree of accuracy they're claiming and compare the measurements, but I guarantee you if you bother doing this you'll see the measurements are all the same. > We have variance. Either there's proof that it's the measurement, or there isn't. Assuming is just that. Variance is the expected outcome. Human-made measurement devices are imperfect. If the mass/charge of an electron varies, it either would have to do so at a level where our tools can detect it (provably untrue) or it would do so at a level below where our tools could detect it (unprovable until our tools improve obviously). > I'll tell you another assumption we often take for granted: speed of light. ... The fact we cannot measure the 1-way speed of light is well known. Using 'c' as the speed of light is a common convention. On the other hand, we _can_ measure the mass/charge of an electron, and that value is consistent to the degree we can measure it accurately.