6 ms·

Are there really electrons? Or does observable phenomena simply fit with the theory of electrons?

adolph 2y ago
If theory bounding the observer's sense-making apparatus does not refute the electron, then make of it what you will.
JadeNB 2y ago
> Are there really electrons? Or does observable phenomena simply fit with the theory of electrons? Practically speaking, what is the difference?
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  There isn't a difference, but you could say the same about this one electron idea.
- gnulinux 2y ago
  The reality of electron (presumably) is static but our model of electron can change given new data, new information. The reality of our solar system is the same but the way Newton modeled it in his head is different than the way Einstein modeled it in his head (which is ever so slightly different than how a contemporary physicist would model it in their head at the moment).
javajosh 2y ago
I propose a new flat electron theory. They do in fact orbit the nuclei in a simple orbit. It's just that Maxwell's equations don't apply at those length scales. Electron tunneling is a conspiracy designed to hide the truth. This is of course a sarcastic aside, but I have to admit even toying with the idea of throwing out observations you don't like feels really good. I see why for some unbinding their beliefs from the constraints of reality is so appealing.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  I don't think you understood the question. It was about the status of theories, not the status of reality.
  - stcredzero 2y ago
    It was about the status of theories, not the status of reality. What is the difference?
    - randallsquared 2y ago
      “In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice...”
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      Theories are attempted descriptions of reality for various purposes (usually prediction.) Don't confuse the map for the territory. Theories, like maps, are created by humans, reality, like territory, is apparently not.
throwawayk7h 2y ago
If you can explain the difference, maybe you can help me make sense of postmodern philosophy.
- wwweston 2y ago
  It's the usual map / territory or model / reality difference. If you've ever heard or said the Box-ism "All models are wrong, but some are useful" you've been introduced. Some practice with it may even be a good intro to some veins of actual postmodernism (as opposed to piñata postmodernism which is mostly stuffed with straw by people who like hitting it).
- Vt71fcAqt7 2y ago
  I think GP's qiestion dates back to earlier than postmodern philosophy.
  - jrumbut 2y ago
    Is Platonic realism valid? I need to know before I plug in this toaster.
    - BlueTemplar 2y ago
      A bit like for Marxism, so many schools tried to claim that name, with a messy history, it's hard to even know what you mean by that : https://samzdat.com/2018/01/26/platonism-without-plato/ https://samzdat.com/2018/01/26/platonism-without-plato/
- gnulinux 2y ago
  This has nothing to do with postmodern philosophy. There is a difference between the reality, and a human's conceptualization of that reality. In fact, we can abstract further and say that there is a difference between X and the concept of X. Now, the GP comment is saying that the model of X (which is how a human being conceptualizes X) is different than X. So, when you look at nature as it is, there are no electrons. There are just things that humans happen to model as electrons. We could also happen to model them as something else perhaps inconceivable to us at the moment. But the reality of what-we-call-electron is independent from the concept of electron. This insight is as old as Plato and Kant.
gosub100 2y ago
I think it's too easy to get sidetracked with the science aspect and not pay enough attention to the language/philosophy aspect. I have 2 olives in my martini glass right now. I can see, feel, smell, and even hear them if I throw them. So we say they are "real" and it makes perfect sense for 99.9999% of our lives. But "real" has a very specific meaning that we never think about. Then consider subatomic particles. You can't feel or see them. But the theories that describe their behavior have gone undefeated for decades. But we'll never be able to see one, so does it exist? 2 more examples: does something exist after it passes the event horizon of a black hole?you can see it, frozen and red shifted. But you can't be guaranteed that if you crossed over that you could touch it. You might get spaghettified and die but there's no way to report this experience to anyone before the event horizon. there's effectively two separate realities. Next, consider 2 identical marbles mixed up in a box. If you measure both of them before and after shaking, you could still tell them apart because at the macro level, nothing is perfectly identical. One marble will have more protons or defects or higher temperature, etc. But now try that with 2 atoms or molecules in a box. If you shake it, and discard any measurements on the box like vibration, you absolutely can not tell them apart. They could have disappeared and regenerated for all we know. My point is that "real" isn't the only concept that leans heavily on language. But also the concept of "same" and for the black hole, even seeing it isn't enough to establish proof that what you're seeing is real. Even though it's the gold standard we constantly rely on. (Not to mention that the very perception of "sight" itself is just subatomic particles hitting a detector! Which is then carried by an EM field to the brain. But I'll stop there).
lebean 2y ago
Ok Hegel
Byamarro 2y ago
Electron is something humans created to describe reality in a way that's comprehensible to us and at the same time we can observe via experiments that it is an accurate descriptions in a way that we can measure. Asking whether electrons are something else that conceptualization doesn't make much sense.
- coldtea 2y ago
  Well, it does makes sense, and there has been research and experiments to see if it is something else (and, compared to early descriptions of an electron, it has been shown to be something else: QM, further subatomic particles and all that). You can argue that this is because we measured better, but even for some of the things we can't measure, we still opt for specific explanations of how they "really are" over others, even if they describe the same phenomena and have the same measurement accuracy. If anything what you say is just a particular philosophy of looking into what those models mean, not some definitive truth.
- thejohnconway 2y ago
  I think it does, they could turn out to be like phlogiston or the luminiferous ether.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  If there's a gap between theory and reality, then there's a more accurate theory. If you know this more accurate theory, you're going to have specific arguments for it.

If theory bounding the observer's sense-making apparatus does not refute the electron, then make of it what you will.

> Are there really electrons? Or does observable phenomena simply fit with the theory of electrons? Practically speaking, what is the difference?

Wowfunhappy 2y ago
There isn't a difference, but you could say the same about this one electron idea.
gnulinux 2y ago
The reality of electron (presumably) is static but our model of electron can change given new data, new information. The reality of our solar system is the same but the way Newton modeled it in his head is different than the way Einstein modeled it in his head (which is ever so slightly different than how a contemporary physicist would model it in their head at the moment).

javajosh 2y ago

I propose a new flat electron theory. They do in fact orbit the nuclei in a simple orbit. It's just that Maxwell's equations don't apply at those length scales. Electron tunneling is a conspiracy designed to hide the truth. This is of course a sarcastic aside, but I have to admit even toying with the idea of throwing out observations you don't like feels really good. I see why for some unbinding their beliefs from the constraints of reality is so appealing.

guerrilla 2y ago
I don't think you understood the question. It was about the status of theories, not the status of reality.
- stcredzero 2y ago
  It was about the status of theories, not the status of reality. What is the difference?
  - randallsquared 2y ago
    “In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice...”
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    Theories are attempted descriptions of reality for various purposes (usually prediction.) Don't confuse the map for the territory. Theories, like maps, are created by humans, reality, like territory, is apparently not.

throwawayk7h 2y ago

If you can explain the difference, maybe you can help me make sense of postmodern philosophy.

wwweston 2y ago
It's the usual map / territory or model / reality difference. If you've ever heard or said the Box-ism "All models are wrong, but some are useful" you've been introduced. Some practice with it may even be a good intro to some veins of actual postmodernism (as opposed to piñata postmodernism which is mostly stuffed with straw by people who like hitting it).
Vt71fcAqt7 2y ago
I think GP's qiestion dates back to earlier than postmodern philosophy.
- jrumbut 2y ago
  Is Platonic realism valid? I need to know before I plug in this toaster.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    A bit like for Marxism, so many schools tried to claim that name, with a messy history, it's hard to even know what you mean by that : https://samzdat.com/2018/01/26/platonism-without-plato/ https://samzdat.com/2018/01/26/platonism-without-plato/
gnulinux 2y ago
This has nothing to do with postmodern philosophy. There is a difference between the reality, and a human's conceptualization of that reality. In fact, we can abstract further and say that there is a difference between X and the concept of X. Now, the GP comment is saying that the model of X (which is how a human being conceptualizes X) is different than X. So, when you look at nature as it is, there are no electrons. There are just things that humans happen to model as electrons. We could also happen to model them as something else perhaps inconceivable to us at the moment. But the reality of what-we-call-electron is independent from the concept of electron. This insight is as old as Plato and Kant.

gosub100 2y ago

I think it's too easy to get sidetracked with the science aspect and not pay enough attention to the language/philosophy aspect. I have 2 olives in my martini glass right now. I can see, feel, smell, and even hear them if I throw them. So we say they are "real" and it makes perfect sense for 99.9999% of our lives. But "real" has a very specific meaning that we never think about. Then consider subatomic particles. You can't feel or see them. But the theories that describe their behavior have gone undefeated for decades. But we'll never be able to see one, so does it exist? 2 more examples: does something exist after it passes the event horizon of a black hole?you can see it, frozen and red shifted. But you can't be guaranteed that if you crossed over that you could touch it. You might get spaghettified and die but there's no way to report this experience to anyone before the event horizon. there's effectively two separate realities. Next, consider 2 identical marbles mixed up in a box. If you measure both of them before and after shaking, you could still tell them apart because at the macro level, nothing is perfectly identical. One marble will have more protons or defects or higher temperature, etc. But now try that with 2 atoms or molecules in a box. If you shake it, and discard any measurements on the box like vibration, you absolutely can not tell them apart. They could have disappeared and regenerated for all we know. My point is that "real" isn't the only concept that leans heavily on language. But also the concept of "same" and for the black hole, even seeing it isn't enough to establish proof that what you're seeing is real. Even though it's the gold standard we constantly rely on. (Not to mention that the very perception of "sight" itself is just subatomic particles hitting a detector! Which is then carried by an EM field to the brain. But I'll stop there).

lebean 2y ago

Ok Hegel

Byamarro 2y ago

Electron is something humans created to describe reality in a way that's comprehensible to us and at the same time we can observe via experiments that it is an accurate descriptions in a way that we can measure. Asking whether electrons are something else that conceptualization doesn't make much sense.

coldtea 2y ago
Well, it does makes sense, and there has been research and experiments to see if it is something else (and, compared to early descriptions of an electron, it has been shown to be something else: QM, further subatomic particles and all that). You can argue that this is because we measured better, but even for some of the things we can't measure, we still opt for specific explanations of how they "really are" over others, even if they describe the same phenomena and have the same measurement accuracy. If anything what you say is just a particular philosophy of looking into what those models mean, not some definitive truth.
thejohnconway 2y ago
I think it does, they could turn out to be like phlogiston or the luminiferous ether.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
If there's a gap between theory and reality, then there's a more accurate theory. If you know this more accurate theory, you're going to have specific arguments for it.