Why does it make sense to rely upon "faith"?

[levinas12]

Heh. Well, to quote one of my favorite heroes of science, Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” I think “pedestrian” would be about as far as you could get as a description of the discipline and complexity and difficulty the subject presents. That said, though, the understanding that electrons and other particles (photons are problematic because ‘rest mass’ doesn’t and can’t apply to them, as they don’t ‘rest’ in the sense we use to gauge other particles) have mass is not in the least bit controversial.

At least outside this forum, I guess.

Indeed. It’s a fascinating juxtaposition. The model and its various interpretations are mind-bending and seemingly surreal, but at the same time, the QED model is, hands down, the most precisely accurate theory man has ever devised. It’s accuracy pushes the limits of our best and most sophisticated instrumentation (aluminum ion clock experiments accurately projecting differences of 1 part in 10^16, for example).

Yeah, and “jumping” of course is a kind of casual, anthropmorphic term. They don’t go from A to B in way a line goes from point A to point B.

Answers obtain on different levels. On a practical/predictive level, we have a lot of knowledge to apply and test. On a deeper (meta-)physical level – why is the dynamic we call the Pauli Exclusion Principle or wavefunction symmetry/anti-symmetry the way it is? It’s conceivable we can and will discover more fundamental structures that not only explain Pauli exclusion principle, but require it, along with other dynamics we undertand as ‘well tested’ but cannot explain in more fundamental terms. But for now, this is the perimeter of our knowledge.

As you can imagine, this has been the subject of a lot of discussion lately. I’m just going to recommend a video here that stands out from many, many resources that have come up in these many discussions. In terms of keeping the science square, and making recent developments accessible and intelligible, I can’t recommend this video enough:

guardian.co.uk/science/video/2012/jul/03/what-is-a-higgs-boson-video

Several competing hypotheses, all plausible, but none compelling. The answer to this is likely the key to harmonizing QED with GR.

Well, what works as a matter of prediction and empirical performance, works. Scientific epistemology works “from the inside out”, from local sensory experience to more general and universal knowledge, so it is by nature not capable of providing “ultimate” explanations. Not sure if that’s what you are cautioning against, but that’s a well known feature – not a bug! – of scientific epistemology.

-TS

Thank you. You are definitely well versed in the subject.

And thank you for not pointing out the misspelling of Feynman (my mind is going).

I am looking forward to the video.

I wonder if you have any more info on some of the issues in my second posting #96.

 

[Touchstone]

I wonder if you have any more info on some of the issues in my second posting #96.

Yow. Well first, I goofed, and linked to the wrong video. I grabbed the link from an email exchange and didn’t take time to watch enough of it to confirm that was the one I wanted.

Here’s the one I recommend:

youtube.com/watch?v=Iimom5WPrSA&feature=related

I’m fine with the other one, but if you watch both, you will see why this one is the one I recommended.

More in a bit, but wanted to correct the video link quick.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

OK, well, it’s ready to see whenever you are willing to open your eyes. And I don’t mean that figuratively; you can go read the instrumentation on this with your own eyes.

TS:

“A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space. - Wikipedia.”

Well, so much to his misconception, then! And feel free to ask him, or point him here - I’d like that. But reading this here, I suspect he would not disagree with a thing I said about particles having mass (photons are problematic because ‘rest mass’ is an incoherent concept for a photon, but that’s another involved subject); I think you are not understanding what you quoted.

On the contrary, I think you are attributing something to something incorrectly. Any good physics book will explain that mass measurements that are to the right of zero, probably don’t, in themselves, explain “mass.” So, something else is needed

Maths and calculations are the “map”, and the map is not the territory! When you read “can be thought of”, that’s a signal that we are using simplified isomorphisms – using a map as a guide to the territory – for practical purposes.

I can’t count how many times I’ve read those very words - in good physics books.

Which is just to anticipate that Shaula, or anyone with a basic familiar of physics would not find my corrections put to you controversial in the least. I think you are just unfamiliar enough with the subject matter to have confused abstractions and mathematical approximations for the phyiscal phenomena they are referring to.

I think it is you that is confused.

No, demonstrably not. If there is space between molecules – and there is and must be for air to be air – they are not ‘contiguous’, by which I take you to mean “touching cheek by jowl”. Consider that for air to be air, the molecules have to be able to move around like a gas… no not “like” a gas, “as” a gas. They move around in space.

Finally.

Space. I’m giving you very basic, gradeschool answers, trusting this is not you pulling my leg. I can’t recall ever providing this level of remedial physics (available instantly with a simple Google search) on a forum like this. The answers are what they are, though, so if this is you yanking my chain just to give me some busywork, or something, this is the kind of stuff we should be able to recall of the top of our head, quickly, so I don’t mind.

And, by golly, I really appreciate it.

It’s space – dimensional extension. That is as “medium” as physics gets, there is no “aether”.

Yes, and that’s my problem with it. Empty space sans medium. Very interesting.

It’s not “nothingness” in a philosophical sense (the negation of existence), nor is it “nothingness” in the natural sense – absence of space/time/energy/matter. It’s extended space/time (and we must not mention matter/energy, because your question is specifically focused on what is between material entities).

Extended space/time, then, must consist of something then. What?

Why no thanks on the intros. This seems an odd kind of disregard for making the kind of trivially identified erroneous statements you’ve been putting out, here.

Let’s see: shall we read about (1) Evolution of Scientific Theory? Or, (2) Symmetry and recurring sequences or structures? Or, (3) Relation of mathematics to science? Or, (4) Elementary mathematical manipulation? Could you be more specific?

If the mass of an electron is exactly zero, what’s its mass? Well, that’s easy: “zero.” But zero does not equal zero, in theoretical physics. Something can, it seems, be less than zero yet still be something positive, with ‘mass’ sans volume, and sans dimensionality.

How would you distinguish between the “illusion of matter” and “matter as non-illusory, veridical phenomena”? You are positing “illusion” at a level of perception that is not able to discriminate between “illusion” and “non-illusion”, a level where “illusion” is not a coherent concept.

Yes. I am positing “illusion” from the viewpoint of the explicate (as opposed to implicate) view of postulated reality.

If you disagree, then trying to answer my question will illuminate the nature of the problem, I wager.

It probably did.

Only so long as you see and understand!

And, likewise!

It would tend to dispel warranted doubts that one is deceiving oneself or otherwise being deceived. Are Catholics interested in that?

You have jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

Sorry. Probably not very cogent answers to your questions, but, it’s very late and I should have been asleep over an hour ago. I’ll look over any questions you have tomorrow.

jd

 

[Touchstone]

Some more “bizarreness”.

The proton’s charge of +1 is the result of a mix of specific quarks. Likewise, the 0 charge of the neutron. The electron is a “simple” particle (not a mix of quarks). Yet the electron’s charge of -1 is equal and opposite to the charge on the proton. Even though the electron’s mass is much smaller. What gives? And isn’t it strange that the electron’s charge exactly balances the proton’s charge so that matter is electrically neutral.

The electron is the “satellite”, remember, orbiting around the proton. Electrical charge is NOT mass, and given the velocity of the orbiting electron, its mass HAS to be quite small in relation to the proton just to make the physics work in terms of centripetal force. If you double the mass of the electron, while keeping it’s orbital radius the same, it could not stay in orbit, right? It would careen off elsewhere.

Charge comes into play because the “centripetal force” is not gravity based (not inside the atom!), but is a function of electrostatic force. The hydrogen atom has a stable orbit for an electron with a radius of ~ 4.84x10^−11m and an attractive force (which is equally matched by the centripetal force, producing stability) of 8.04x10^−8 N.

If that seems to cursory, apologies, but maybe it helps to just point out that the ratio is a function of stable orbit mechanics. If the electrostatic force is a “given”, then the maths have to resolve for a stable orbit where the mass of the orbiting electron is pegged against the electostatic centripetal force. Similar to the way the mass of our moon is not “anything it wants” for the orbit it is in. The mass of the moon, in the orbit it has, is a guage on the orbital radius and velocity of orbit. Mass, radius and attractive force all have to balance out to produce a stable orbit, right?

If you are asking why the electrostatic force is as strong as it is, I will throw up my hands. No idea.

And what “causes” the charge on the quarks? Why is it fractional? And why is it “+”
or "- " depending on the type of quark?

Well, there’s nothing special about “+” and “-” or “positive” and “negative”, and I don’t think that’s what you are inquiring about. Those are just arbitrary labels of opposing phenomena. We could have used “black and white” or “up and down” – and in fact for quarks we’ve used both color labels and up/down as label pairs for other features.

I think the answer to your question though is: don’t know and no one knows. This is a question about pre-fundamental physics. We don’t have any way to reduce quarks at this time into a more fundamental set of components or principles. They are, as a pragmatic matter, brute facts as features of quarks. We may (hopefully) uncover more fundamental knowledge on this question someday, but we do not have it now.

We could answer this way, too, I guess: Quarks have fractional charges because the proton and neutron are made up of three quarks. If you have a “+1” for a neutron, and it is a composite of three quarks, if each quark contributes to the overall charge, you have to get +1 from three subunits. In the case of the proton, you have two ‘up’ quarks and one ‘down’ quark, so the math looks like: +2/3] + +2/3] + -1/3] == +1.

That is to suggest that quarks have to have fractional charges so that we get “integral” charges for the proton or neutron. If you have to divide “+1” three ways, if two or more of the three component quarks contribute to the charge (and empirically, they do), you’re going to get ‘fractional’ charges. It’s good to remember that integers and fractions are just our way of thinking about this as humans. There’s nothing intrinsically “fractional” going on at the physical level. Fractions and integers are just our paradigmatic way of conceiving the ontology and behavior of a proton.

And what causes the charge on the electron? And why is it “-”? Is there a relation between the “-” on the electron and the “-” on some of the quarks?

The choice of “-” is arbitrary; electrons could just as well have a “+” charge and protons a “-” charge. But, given the labeling choices we’ve made the semantics are consistent from electron/proton/neutron to quarks. A “+2/3” charge in an “up” quark contributes to a “+” charge in the proton, and a “-1/3” charge of a ‘down’ quark contributes to a net negative charge, just only half as much as an ‘up’ quark contributes to a positive overall charge.

And what is the relation of charge to mass, to the Higgs particle? In other words, what the heck is “charge”?

Or, for that matter, with respect to quarks, what explains or underlies “color”? “flavor”?

These are “affinities”, properties of quarks that relate to other particles. Charge is a property that either repels or attracts (depending on the polarity) other charged particles nearby. I’m too lazy, and probably to fuzzy on both “color” and “flavor” to do them justice, here, but “up” and “down” for instance are “state machine” attributes relating to their fermion generation. Ups and downs occur commonly in nature, whereas generation II – the “strange” and “charm” quarks, quickly and easily decay back into the lighter “up” and “down” quarks.
That’s just an example of creative use of labels by humans as a way to describe and classify discrete states and formations for quarks, but it is rightly admitted to be so much syntactic sugar: such labels help us keep different states and configurations distinct, but they do not tell us much if anything about the nature of the features we are distinguishing.

-TS

 

[joyous_revert]

Didn’t have the patience to read the whole debate. This applies to the real presence discussion and may already be in another post somewhere:

For example, Lanciano Italy 750 a.d.

1. The “miraculous Flesh" is authentic flesh
   consisting of muscular striated tissue of the
   myocardium.
2. The “miraculous Blood" is truly blood. The
   chromatographic analysis indicated this with
   absolute and indisputable certainty.
3. The immunological study shows with certitude that the
   flesh and the blood are human, and
   the immuno – hematological test allows us to
   affirm with complete objectivity and certitude
   that both belong to the same blood type AB – the
   same blood type as that of the man of the Shroud
   and the type most characteristic of Middle
   Eastern populations.
4. The proteins contained in the blood have
   the normal distribution, in the identical percentage
   as that of the serous-proteic chart for normal
   fresh blood.
5. No histological dissection has revealed any
   trace of salt infiltrations or preservative substances
   used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming.

Professor Linoli also discarded the hypothesis of
a hoax carried out in past centuries. This report
was published in The Sclavo Notebooks in
Diagnostics (Collection #3, 1971) and aroused great
interest in the scientific world. Also, in 1973,
the chief Advisory Board of the World Health
Organization appointed a scientific commission to
corroborate Linoli’s findings. Their work lasted 15
months and included 500 tests. It was verified that
the fragments taken from Lanciano could in no
way be likened to embalmed tissue. As to the
nature of the fragment of flesh, the commission
declared it to be living tissue because it responded
rapidly to all the clinical reactions distinctive of
living beings. Their reply fully corroborated
Professor Linoli’s conclusions. In the extract summarizing
the scientific work of the Medical
Commission of the WHO and the UN, published
in Dec. 1976 in New York and Geneva, declared
that science, aware of its limits, has come to a halt,
face to face with the impossibility of giving
an explanation.
.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

B.

 

[IanGE]

Usually the “god” that the empiricist rejects is the presentation of the Abrahamic described version of Deity. Insofar as this representation is completely anthropomorphic, an actual Deity aside, the empiricist is correct in this regard.

Further, God is not a thought, nor comprehensible by thought. So you are in fact referring to the postulate of God existing in “higher, metaphysical thinking.”

I like the simplistic “chicken and egg” METAPHYSICAL reasoning: which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you keep going back you must conclude that whichever came first someone or some ‘thing’ must have made it. For simplicity, let’s call that “something” God!

Grammatically, you just said that if you start with atheism it is possible to come up with atheism, and then you made a judgement about it which most atheists vehemently disagree with based on their experience.

What, then, is the “Good News” that atheists offer? No God, no after-life, no one to trust in this fallible world? I went through a “where is God” phase, postulating that there is no god. I came up with two truths: one is born, one will die. In between eat, drink, be merry, steal, lie, cheat, rape, murder… what a depressing view of society. If there is no God.

Blind? Maybe you can expand on this?

Sorry, poetic licence: OK, start with absolutely no preconceptions, simply the ultimate philosopher’s iterating question: WHY?
As for making God a bet, that is poor taste and worse “thinking.” If poor Pascal is the best you can do for yourself, then have at it.

Pascal wasn’t making God a bet, he was making YOU and ME consider carefully before we plump for or against God.
Finally, sorry I spoke!

/QUOTE]

 

[Gaber]

Finally, sorry I spoke!

Never be sorry you spoke. Well, almost never. Sometimes it is good to be discreet. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal wasn’t making God a bet, he was making YOU and ME consider carefully before we plump for or against God.
Finally, sorry I spoke!

Your regret is quite unnecessary. Please continue.

 

[levinas12]

The electron is the “satellite”, remember, orbiting around the proton. Electrical charge is NOT mass, and given the velocity of the orbiting electron, its mass HAS to be quite small in relation to the proton just to make the physics work in terms of centripetal force. If you double the mass of the electron, while keeping it’s orbital radius the same, it could not stay in orbit, right? It would careen off elsewhere.

Charge comes into play because the “centripetal force” is not gravity based (not inside the atom!), but is a function of electrostatic force. The hydrogen atom has a stable orbit for an electron with a radius of ~ 4.84x10^−11m and an attractive force (which is equally matched by the centripetal force, producing stability) of 8.04x10^−8 N.

If that seems to cursory, apologies, but maybe it helps to just point out that the ratio is a function of stable orbit mechanics. If the electrostatic force is a “given”, then the maths have to resolve for a stable orbit where the mass of the orbiting electron is pegged against the electostatic centripetal force. Similar to the way the mass of our moon is not “anything it wants” for the orbit it is in. The mass of the moon, in the orbit it has, is a guage on the orbital radius and velocity of orbit. Mass, radius and attractive force all have to balance out to produce a stable orbit, right?

If you are asking why the electrostatic force is as strong as it is, I will throw up my hands. No idea.

Well, there’s nothing special about “+” and “-” or “positive” and “negative”, and I don’t think that’s what you are inquiring about. Those are just arbitrary labels of opposing phenomena. We could have used “black and white” or “up and down” – and in fact for quarks we’ve used both color labels and up/down as label pairs for other features.

I think the answer to your question though is: don’t know and no one knows. This is a question about pre-fundamental physics. We don’t have any way to reduce quarks at this time into a more fundamental set of components or principles. They are, as a pragmatic matter, brute facts as features of quarks. We may (hopefully) uncover more fundamental knowledge on this question someday, but we do not have it now.

We could answer this way, too, I guess: Quarks have fractional charges because the proton and neutron are made up of three quarks. If you have a “+1” for a neutron, and it is a composite of three quarks, if each quark contributes to the overall charge, you have to get +1 from three subunits. In the case of the proton, you have two ‘up’ quarks and one ‘down’ quark, so the math looks like: +2/3] + +2/3] + -1/3] == +1.

That is to suggest that quarks have to have fractional charges so that we get “integral” charges for the proton or neutron. If you have to divide “+1” three ways, if two or more of the three component quarks contribute to the charge (and empirically, they do), you’re going to get ‘fractional’ charges. It’s good to remember that integers and fractions are just our way of thinking about this as humans. There’s nothing intrinsically “fractional” going on at the physical level. Fractions and integers are just our paradigmatic way of conceiving the ontology and behavior of a proton.

The choice of “-” is arbitrary; electrons could just as well have a “+” charge and protons a “-” charge. But, given the labeling choices we’ve made the semantics are consistent from electron/proton/neutron to quarks. A “+2/3” charge in an “up” quark contributes to a “+” charge in the proton, and a “-1/3” charge of a ‘down’ quark contributes to a net negative charge, just only half as much as an ‘up’ quark contributes to a positive overall charge.

These are “affinities”, properties of quarks that relate to other particles. Charge is a property that either repels or attracts (depending on the polarity) other charged particles nearby. I’m too lazy, and probably to fuzzy on both “color” and “flavor” to do them justice, here, but “up” and “down” for instance are “state machine” attributes relating to their fermion generation. Ups and downs occur commonly in nature, whereas generation II – the “strange” and “charm” quarks, quickly and easily decay back into the lighter “up” and “down” quarks.
That’s just an example of creative use of labels by humans as a way to describe and classify discrete states and formations for quarks, but it is rightly admitted to be so much syntactic sugar: such labels help us keep different states and configurations distinct, but they do not tell us much if anything about the nature of the features we are distinguishing.

-TS

Let me know when and where I can sign up for the course. Of course, it’ll have to be an audit. I’m not up to finals anymore.

Thanks again for these clarifications.

 

[levinas12]

Here’s the one I recommend:

youtube.com/watch?v=Iimom5WPrSA&feature=related

-TS

This was very helpful. What a great job that guy has.

 

[IanGE]

Some more “bizarreness”.

The proton’s charge of +1 is the result of a mix of specific quarks. Likewise, the 0 charge of the neutron. The electron is a “simple” particle (not a mix of quarks). Yet the electron’s charge of -1 is equal and opposite to the charge on the proton. Even though the electron’s mass is much smaller. What gives? And isn’t it strange that the electron’s charge exactly balances the proton’s charge so that matter is electrically neutral.

And what “causes” the charge on the quarks? Why is it fractional? And why is it “+”
or "- " depending on the type of quark?

And what causes the charge on the electron? And why is it “-”? Is there a relation between the “-” on the electron and the “-” on some of the quarks?

And what is the relation of charge to mass, to the Higgs particle? In other words, what the heck is “charge”?

Or, for that matter, with respect to quarks, what explains or underlies “color”? “flavor”?

Madre de Dios! I’m jolly glad the quark wasn’t around when I were nobbut a lad! The opening words at my first Physics lesson in 1946 was, “An atom is the smallest INDIVISIBLE particle of nature.” Up went my hand, "but Sir: they’ve split the atom, we saw them drop the Atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the pictures! Sir said, “what’s your name, boy? I don’t like clever Dicks in my class!!” For my Senior Cambridge School Cert in 1953 I had to define an atom as “smallest indivisible thingie” as it was still written in the Text Book. In theory back then, current flowed from positive to negative and was still “in the book” when I joined the RAF in 1955. Electron theory had hit the fan and suddenly 'twas t’other way round: electrons from the NEGATIVE terminal were attracted to the POSITIVE and current flowed flowed from -ve to +ve.. But instructors still had to use the book and current flow was identified as either Electron theory or Electrical theory, which confused us 18 year-olds!
I was also taught that electrons were attracted to and collided with the central proton in an atom. But if there were two or more atoms competing for the target proton, they repelled one another to form an orbit based on attraction (to the proton) and repulsion (from each other). My adolescent mind grabbed that and, looking at whatsisname’s (Bohr?) model of an atom It immediately struck me of our universe and I thought, My God, how vastly clever You are!