Another question. Where does proton come from, or what is proton originated from? Is it taken off from some other object? Or is it a legitimate object itself?
The upper comment seems to contradict the lower one.
As I said, you seem to have massively restricted criteria of what constitutes empirical evidence.
Most of them condensed from hot quark soup at about 1e-6 seconds post-big-bang. Most neutrons are manufactured continuously in active stars.
I have no idea how you distinguish an object that is legitimate from one that is not. Physics doesn’t give particular meaning to the term ‘object’, which is essentially a mental designation.
It is certainly a controversial point. My criteria for empirical evidence is for things and events that is observable via our senses. I wouldn’t say it is restricted. It is more classic and traditional criteria. Yours sounds like it is empirical evidence, if you saw it in internet. 
Physics is a short word for (Meta)Physics. A legitimate objects is the things you can see, feel and touch in space and time.
Do you have any empirical and material evidence for the claim?
1 Like
You perhaps confuse knowledge of science with science. I would be hard pressed to find a theory that cites the internet as a source of empirical evidence, and if there is one, it’s likely a theory about the internet.
Could be, but the two words are distinct, per the distinction I gave some posts back.
It’s not my claim. Not being employed in the field, I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the evolution of theories about the early universe. I do know that much of it cites evidence from high energy physics experiments, which explains why they’re so willing to spend ever greater resources to build more powerful experiments.
1 Like
- Can matter be destroyed?
E = mc^2, someone already posted this. - Can we keep decomposing matter into smaller and smaller parts?
One of the reasons, I was led to believe, science has stalled is because the Planck scale is off-limits.
Please explain the difference between knowledge of science and science.
It sounded like that what you were claiming was not from your own empirical evidence or reasoning, which supports my suggestion in the previous post.
The former is basically an education. One learns of empirical experiments performed and conclusions made by somebody else. Science is actually learning by your own empirical evidence. Advancement in science is finding new empirical evidence that nobody has done before, or breaking ground with a new theory.
Take relativity theory, which broke new ground, made new predictions, but was done without any new empirical experiments. This was an advancement in theoretical physics, which became an advancement in physics (a branch of science) only when its predictions were verified.
So no, I’ve not personally done anything that constitutes empirical evidence of protons, but others have. I have done chemistry (every day), and I’ve never seen any modern interpretation of chemistry that doesn’t involve protons.
1 Like
Argumentum ad verecundiam is fallacious until and unless the authority limits himself to his area of expertise, is unbiased, is reliable, and is properly credentialed.
I haven’t seen particles either, but all the evidence seems to suggest they exist.
Not sure if we are looking at the difference from the same angle. Education is performed in the educational institutions such as schools, colleges and universities regardless of what subjects they are.
Science is a subject. It is an activity performed to learn and understand about the world and workings of its objects.
Science has it own specified methodology i.e. hypothesis, observation and reasoning on the observed facts for establishing new laws or principles on the phenomenon in the universe.
You seem to looking at the difference who is doing it, which I don’t quite see the point of the idea. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter who is doing it. It matters where it is taking place, and what the objectives and methodologies are compared to other subjects.
Could it be just an imaginary object? I have not seen it anywhere in the whole world. So I am not quite sure what it could actually represent in the real world.
All I could infer is that the whole world might have been made of the particles. If we could accept that, could you rebuild any objects even humans using the particles? i.e. atoms, electrons and protons etc?
No who’s doing it, but what’s being done. Reading about X is not empirical evidence for X. Hence a core difference between knowledge of X and evidence for X.
If you can come up with a valid interpretation where mere imagination is enough to explain chemistry and all the images made of the imaginations, then sure. I am unaware of any such proposal.
Does not follow. A living thing, however simple, has yet to be deliberately assembled from loose items like protons. For one thing, it takes silly amounts of effort to build multi-proton nuclei from loose protons (hydrogen), let alone build something complex with already-existing elements laying around.
I was tracing back why you suddenly were talking about confusion between knowledge of science and science. It was my comment on your reply that it sounded like the content copied and pasted from internet rather than from empirical evidence.
So, it seems like that you were agreeing with my point, but just added “confusion” in the sentence to confuse the point.
Well, if you know the history, then you would know that folks have had believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, and the sun was going up and down the earth for thousands of years until Copernicus revolution in 1500s.
Science can be full of imaginary stories and objects even at this day and this moment. Telling otherwise would be committing ignorance.
It wasn’t a claim or declaration. It was a premise, which was not fully proved or established, hence the unsound conclusion. It was a type of proof by contradiction, that the subatomic substances and objects are not the full parts what the universe is made of.
Or if it were made of, then it wouldn’t be useful thing, being unable to be rebuilt into the existence which it was supposed to be made of.
OK, so by ‘imaginary’ you simply mean models that turn out to be falsified in time. Interestingly, your examples don’t show this since Earth at center and sun going around Earth are just examples of different choices of coordinate systems, not anything that’s wrong. All those coordinate systems are still in use today.
Earth being flat is a good example of something that has been falsified. There are no imaginary objects in that model, but it’s still wrong.
So is the suggestion of a proton wrong? I don’t think so since devices that emit them are commonplace, they’ve been imaged, etc. Our understanding of them is certainly incomplete, but future models will likely never say ‘there were never proton at all, we were wrong about that’, which is akin to discovering (or asserting) that apples never actually existed.
You’re going to have to lay that proof out more formally, because I never saw any post by you that was worded as a proof of anything.
1 Like
The observations were interpreted with imagination, rather than reasoning. But that’s not the whole story. Much of modern science seem to have introduced various imaginary objects in order to explain other objects or concepts what they are and how they work.
They are imaginary in the sense they don’t exist, or they themselves are more abstract than the objects they are imagined to explain.
It wasn’t a formal proof. The point is not really significant or complicated enough to put into a formal proof. What was given out already in my explanation in the previous post seems enough for lucidity and even for pseudo proof.
As for not existing, that may be an opinion of yours. It concerns not anybody who doesn’t share your mere opinion.
I am presuming here that by ‘exist’, you mean 'in the same way that say a rock exists, however you might define that.
As for being abstract, there’s some acknowledgement of that. The closer one looks to find say ‘matter’, the less it looks like matter and the more it looks like an abstractions, especially mathematics. But if that’s the case, the objects (apples and whatnot) that they explain are no less abstract.
I agree. The term “exist” must be defined, and agreed, because there are different categories of existence. Things exist in the different possible worlds, and they are not the same category.
But if you insist the invisible particles and atoms with bare eyes exist, then there would be confusions and contradictions in the real world.
For example, the cat will be on the mat forever, even if it has ran away to chase the mouse. Because they will say, even if the cat ran away from the mat, cat’s atoms are still on the mat.
Socrates still exists in the world, even if he died more than 2000 years ago, because his atoms will be still lingering around in the world somewhere.
This sort of highly disputable claims will spring up from everywhere for all sort of the dead people and non-existent objects according to your views.
And yet you don’t seem to choose a definition, except perhaps ‘it exist if directly visible to human eyes’, a very anthropocentric definition which you have denied, and yet not replaced.
This does not follow at all. ‘They’ would not consider particles left by the cat to still be the cat, regardless of whether those small particles are considered to exist or not.
- ‘Exists in the world’ is quite different than ‘exists’.
- I never said protons exist. I said they probably exist in the same way that an apple exists, but whether the apple exists also depends on definitions.
- I consider Socrates to exist in the world, not because his particles are still around, but because I consider this world to be 4 dimensional, and thus I don’t define ‘exists in this world’ to be equivalent to ‘exists in this world now’.
All this is pointless banter without said agreed on definitions about what ‘exists’ means, or for that matter, what constitutes ‘all of the cat’. Your definition of the latter seems to be chosen to rub everyone the wrong way. You’re not seeking answers in denying the proton, you just seem to be attempting to be difficult.
So I deny your strawman contradiction that arises from your assertions that my view says that invisible things exist. Air exists despite not being visible. Few (you maybe being one of them) would deny that. I might deny it, not for it being invisible, but because we’ve not settled on any meaningful definition of the word.
1 Like
Brownian motion proves the existence of particles (re Einstein). This an issue, but not a problem, in science - it makes ontological claims (quarks, etc.) but these entities were discovered by experiment. Also the theory in question does an awesome job of predicting to amazing precision.
Rutherford, Thompson, Chadwick?
That was your duty because you claimed protons exist, which are invisible to human eyes.
The inference about the cat was from your claim that protons exist. It was an inference which was to say, your claim is not sound.
That sounds unclear. You need to clarify why the world is 4 dimensional, and how they are different.
All started by your claim invisible things exist. All I was saying was what you mean by that claim.
For the example of the cat on the mat, I was trying to extend my goodwill allowing that your invisible things could exist in that way.
But despite the effort of the extended goodwill of mine to the end of the universe, it just sounds meaningless, as you yourself have noticed and protested vehemently.
The problem you seem to have is that you failed again to notice it was your claim which was meaningless and confusing, not my effort of allowing it with extending goodwill even providing the example case of the cat is on the mat as a proton from his body after leaving the mat.
There was no strawman in here, apart from your imagination of strawman. Air is invisible, but no one would deny it exists, because for the simple fact that we are breathing in and out to live.
In the case of proton, you claimed to exist, we don’t see, breath in and out, or drink protons. We don’t see them in the real world or in our dreams. It just looks like an imaginary object you believed to exist, because you read it and saw it someone saying it in the internet. That was just a reasoned assumption, nothing to do with strawman.