DO ELECTRONS EXIST?
Jud Evans
Copyright © 2007 Jud Evans. Permission granted
to distribute in any medium, commercial or
non-commercial, provided author attribution
and copyright notices remain intact.
|
DO ELECTRONS EXIST?
IS IT NECESSARY, OR EVEN DESIRABLE, TO BELIEVE
THAT UNOBSERVABLE
THE CONTEMPORY THEORETICAL ENTITIES,
SUCH AS ELECTRONS, EXIST?
INTRODUCTION
I will begin this essay by answering the
question and then spend the rest of the treatise
extrapolating my many reasons for why I think
so. This paper seeks to establish that it
is necessary and desirable to provisionally
accept that some as yet visually unobservable
theoretical entities of science, such as
electrons, exist. However, in order to believe
such a claim one must be convinced that the
determinations of modern science have provided
sufficient adjuvant, circumstantial, indirect
evidence as to make such a claim, explanatorily
plausible. Confirmatory verificational evidence
based upon non-optical observational faculties
and senses are judged acceptable as mediated
by the inherent cognitive, perceptual powers
of the brain.
FAITH AND SCEPTICISM PARADIGMATIC SHIFTS
OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE
Man is a creature invested with inquisitiveness.
Curiosity is our most valuable characteristic,
which sets us apart from the other species
and is responsible for the success of our
long journey from the cave to Cape Kennedy.
Our desire to know more - to look beyond
what is recognised as the truth and to what
is possible is what separates the modern
homo sapien from his primitive homo habilis
ancestors. For me curiosity - like sex, morality
and linguistic abstraction and reification
are bio-genetically driven survivalist mechanisms
of the Darwinian paradigm of natural selection.
The paradigm of faith in science, which was
characteristic of the Victorian age, has
given way to a more sceptical public attitude
towards research into questions posed by
scientific theories and hypotheses. Many
of today's younger generation tend to deprecate
the science that shaped our technological
civilization. Such attitudes are often emotionally
motivated and are expressed as a scepticism
that science can understand and empathise
with the human realities that count. The
complexity of modern science, particularly
in the quantum domain, has become increasingly
more remote from folk physics and more difficult
to comprehend from a common sense point of
view. Various antirealists are sceptical
of the persuasive claims, cogency and relevance
of some aspects of scientific knowledge.
There is incredulity regarding the actual
existence of some unobservable entities that
are claimed to be present in the quantum
world. Some people also view with suspicion
the theories of certain cosmologists, where
the existence of some entities are posited
blind on the basis of observing the perturbatory
behaviour of adjacent entities.
There is also a measure of disbelieve by
the non-scientific commonsensical public
in sciences increasing insistence that it
is only the primary qualities of entities
that exist and that the secondary properties
are merely adjectivally described value judgements.
For many quantum physicists the primary/secondary
demarcation is no more than on the one hand
an objective, impersonal, detached approach
to an observed entity based upon what properties
it has in reality,
(charge, spin etc.) Such primary properties
can be verified by being repeatedly measured
and precisely evaluated irrespective of who
is conducting the experiment. One the other
hand, secondary qualities are disdained by
science as being relatively based, subjective
distinctions distorted by emotion or personal
bias grounded upon what qualities an object
seems to have. (Beauty, value, meaning etc.)
Ignoring for a moment the essential function
of the lepton family of particles in the
existential processes of the natural world,
of which the electron neutrino, electron,
muon neutrino, muon, tau neutrino and the
tau are essential - a world which would not
exist at all in the absence of such quantum
entities, humankind needs to know as much
about them as is possible. Much effort and
finance is invested in exploring the quantum
domain and for very important reasons. Such
knowledge is desirable not only from sheer
curiosity, but for reasons of safety regarding
the way that we harness such quantum energy.
We necessarily require an understanding of
the natural environment in which we find
ourselves in order for our species to thrive.
Knowledge is power and is essential for the
survival of mankind in a hostile universe.
Modern human culture is heavily dependant
upon manipulating the electron for the purposes
of electronic communication, energy, medical
treatment, transport, lighting, and much
else, yet scientists have never seen an electron.
THE DOMINANCE OF OPTICAL OBSERVATION AS A
SENSORIAL PARAMETER
There are many entities the existence of
which science and we take for granted. Ladyman
mentions genes, viruses, atoms and black
holes. [1] (Ladyman. 2005. p. 129)
But whatever the scientists tell us, should
we believe them when they claim reality exists
beyond the appearances of things? Scientific
realism says that we should believe in the
unobservable objects postulated by our best
scientific theories. The terms observable
and unobservable mean different things to
different people. Somewhat predictably dictionaries
are unhelpful, as they always are with abstractions.
They rely on providing definitions that cover
all of the main uses and interpretations
of meaning of the words without providing
a definitive explanation. In most lexicons
the term unobservable is rendered as:
Not accessible to direct observation. Imperceptible,
unperceivable. impossible or difficult to
perceive by the mind or senses. [2] (WordWeb
Dictionary 2008)
Every day we sense, taste, hear, smell, feel
and observe entities and the events with
which they are associated. With the exception
of sight, blind people do the same. We see
and record and predict natural events not
only with the naked eye, but also from behind
the thin lenses of our spectacles, through
the thick glass of a submarine's porthole
or its periscope. We observe far-off events
through our binoculars, astronomical telescopes,
electron microscopes, and the glass of our
lounge window and through the rear view mirror
of our car. But our optical senses are not
the only means we have of observing the world.
We can (in accordance with dictionary definitions)
discover or determine the existence, presence,
or nature of entities without actually seeing
them. We have developed instruments for measuring
and indicating the qualities, quantities,
properties, composition and characteristics
of the invisible moving oxygen gases we call
wind. We can detect the amount of (visually
unobservable) air within a pressurised container
by volumetric analysis, the height of a visually
obscured mountain or undersea rock by radar.
From the observation of these events and
their relation to other events we hold an
opinion, make existential statements about
visually unobservable entities and have ideas
about their consequences.
After careful consideration I believe that
we should provisionally accept the reality
of the existence of electrons and genes,
and any other entity upon the existence of
which there is a general consensus of agreement
amongst the scientific community. I stress
the word provisionally for I believe that
any theory we encounter in this ever-changing
world should invariably be approved pro tempore
on the basis of a possible future replacement.
Such probationary acquiescence may be extended
after a suitable review period and regular
intellectual stocktaking. In the meantime
the theory should held tentatively and be
viewed conditionally and doubtfully in the
knowledge that one day a more satisfying
and possibly more elegant scientific explanation
might come along to supplant it.
THE ELECTRON AND OTHER UNOBSERVED ENTITIES.
It is one hundred and sixteen years ago since
H. A. Lorentz published his theory of the
electron. [3] (Rohrlich. 1963)
Considering we have never seen an electron
scientists know a tremendous amount about
it,
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle
that carries a negative electric charge.
It is a spin ½ lepton that participates in
electromagnetic interactions, and its mass
is approximately 1 / 1836 of that of the
proton. Together with atomic nuclei, which
consist of protons and neutrons, electrons
make up atoms. Their interaction with adjacent
nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding.
[4] (Wikipedia. 2008.)
Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940), physicist,
demonstrated the existence of the electron
and, by deflection methods, measured its
charge-to-mass ratio in 1897. He proved it
mathematically. [5] (Griffiths. 2008)
But mathematics is just another language,
a superior language for investigating and
reconciling scientific data it is true, but
we still have not observed the actual electron
behind its orbital cloud.
The 3D photographs of the electron-cloud
(a homomorphic term used to describe the
blurred flight-path of the speeding electron)
are truly amazing and very reassuring - but
they are not photographs of the actual electron.
Our theory of the electron is sufficient
to understand electricity and much else about
the ubiquitous cosmic entity. We can measure
its mass and predict its behaviour in accordance
with the inductively observed data.
THE THREAT OF PARADIGMATIC REPLACEMENT
But are our modern theories concerning unobserved
electrons, genes and sundry cosmic entities
theory-laden? Does contemporary science inductively
seek to derive confirmation of the nature
of the electron from recurring, circuitously
or indirectly observed confirmatory instances
of predictable behaviour? Will the theory
of the lepton family be eventually replaced?
Kuhn believed that science goes through what
he calls paradigm shifts or recurring revolutions.
He calls phase one the pre-scientific phase,
the second phase: Normal Science comprising
of a paramount theory, which Kuhn named as
a paradigm. After a time criticisms, objections
and obstacles emerge and eventually someone
produces a replacement theory and a paradigm
shift takes place.
So might we be unconsciously emulating the
paradigm shift that was the fate of the Alexandrian
astronomer Claudius Ptolemy's theory that
the earth was a fixed, inert, immovable mass,
located at the centre of the universe, and
all celestial bodies, including the sun and
the fixed stars, revolved around it? Ptolemy's
wrongful but functional explanation of the
puzzling retrograde motion of the planets
of 150 AD. was proved to be flawed by Nicolaus
Copernicus by bare eyeball methods over a
thousand years later in 1530. A hundred years
were to pass before the invention of the
telescope the Polish astronomers great work
De Revolutionibus, introduced the heliocentric
model of the solar system which asserted
that the earth rotated on its axis once daily
and travelled around the sun once yearly.
In my view the eventual emergence of a competitive
paradigm is a possibility. I believe Popper
was correct in his view that our acceptance
of any scientific theory such always be provisional.
It follows that on this basis even the holy
grail of mathematics might one day be anti-theoretically
rather than inter-theoretically replaced.
As Ladyman observed.
Are mathematical truths really subject to
revision in the light of experience? Apparently,
yes! - e. g. Relativity theory and non-Euclidean
geometry.[6] (Ladyman, pp. 172-173)
Eventually the notion that Euclid's mathematical
Elements were self-evident axioms of geometry
was rejected. That meant that non-Euclidean
geometries like Riemann's could replace them
and Einstein broke with the tradition dating
back 2,300 years and employed the new, non-Euclidean
geometry developed by Riemann instead. Thus
it is with Riemannian geometry that general
relativity is formulated in terms of a geometry
of cosmic space (and time) that is curved
rather than flat.
Like Ptolemy's physical realization of the
earth-centred universe of a set of nested
spheres it is still possible that one day
our theory of the electron will be replaced
with a new version.
Addressing the problem of (strong) underdetermination
Quine noted,
Any statement can be held true come what
may if we make drastic adjustments elsewhere
in the system... Conversely, by the same
token, no statement is immune to revision.
[7] (Quine. 1953. pp. 42-43)
METAPHYSICAL REALISM AND THE MIND-INDEPENDENT
WORLD
In chapter of Understanding Philosophy of
Science Ladyman refers to Alan Musgrave's
doctrine of Ideaism, which claims that the
immediate of direct objects of perception
are no more than ideas in the mind, rather
than objects in the external world,
We do not directly perceive external objects
but rather our minds own ideas or representations
of the world. [8] (Musgrave quoted by Ladyman.
5.21 p. 140)
Ladyman notes that Locke, Berkeley and Hume
shared this idea and also claims that A.
J. Ayer maintained a twentieth century version
of Ideaism and mentions Ayers remark that,
One can experience only what is private to
oneself. [9] (Ayre quoted by Ladyman. 2005.
Ch. 5.21 p. 140)
But Ayres meaning was a little different.
Unlike Berkeley he was not claiming that
the exterior objects of the world did not
exist and only existed ideationally in his
mind.
As Ayer himself made clear,
It does not follow from the fact that each
mans experiences are private to himself that
no one ever has good reason to believe that
another mans experiences are qualitatively
the same as his own. [10] (Ayer. P 131.
1970)
CONCLUSION
Personally I am convinced that there is no
serious doubts or concerns regarding of the
theory of the electron either by the experimental
data, nor the body of theory. Neither are
there any competing theories of empirical
equivalence which deny its existence or provide
any cogent alternatives.
For Popper theories are conjectures. No matter
how many confirmatory inductive instances
are noted, they do not lend weight to an
theory. Justification comes from the non-accomplishment
of energetic endeavours to prove the theory
false.
But, Popper's critical rationalism must also
be tempered with common sense. One does not
need to see an entity in order to be aware
of its existence. It is sufficient to be
able to detect it in alternative ways, with
other human senses, with the observation
of adjacent entities and their behaviour,
with technological equipment that feeds the
information indirectly to the human sensorial
system and thus to the observer's judgemental
brain for existential evaluation.
What of the astronomers of July 16-22, 1994
who observed the twenty-plus fragments of
the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 through their
high-powered telescopes as the cosmic material
hurtled towards its final impact with Jupiter?
Would they have agreed that their sensational
observational triumph and what they witnessed
never took place because earthlings can only
watch such events via optical lenses, or
as computer imagery or pictures on TV screens,
because the event could not have been witnessed
from earth with the naked eye? [11] (SEDS.
2008)
Was the scientific community and the worldwide
media wrong to accept the sight of the impacting
giant rocks as a real event because it was
observed through the medium of magnification
and then reproduced with the help of non-existent
electrons impacting the phosphorus at the
rear of their family TV screen? Did the worldwide
Television audience who watched the event
(after the interval required for the signal
to travel the
365 million miles from Jupiter to earth)
of the twenty existing entities smash into
Jupiter in a cloud of combusting gas and
erupting material disbelieve the event as
occurred before their very eyes? Was the
event they witnessed as recorded on film
so imperceptible, so unperceivable - so impossible
or difficult to perceive by the mind or senses
that they found it impossible to understand?
I think not. And as far as we know, not one
person in the world registered their disbelief
regarding the celestial event on the grounds
that being unobservable by the naked eye;
the existence of the Jupiter and the cometary
entities was unbelievable.
There is hope that we are moving closer to
a visual method of examing electrons. Australia's
Premier TV Science program Quantum, reports
that scientists Prof John. C. H. Spence and
Assistant Prof JM Zuo both of Arizona State
University in Phoenix, USA have produced
the first ever-clear image of electron bonds.
[12] (Quantum. ABCTV. 2000)
Using tomography, (because measuring an entity
from one angle does not reveal the true shape
of the object) and by rotating the molecules
in the chamber they were able to build up
a three-dimensional picture of the molecular
orbital They used a novel combination of
X-rays to locate the position of the atoms,
and an electron microscope to map the surrounding
electrons. It works much like an optical
light microscope except we use a beam of
electrons instead of a beam of light.
Prof Spence spoke of their reaction at the
sight of their astounding success, We were
very excited we saw this beautiful figure
of eight with a dumbbell around it and that
was of course a very exciting moment because
we knew wed visualised directly the electronic
cloud between atoms.
If the present rate of scientific progress
is maintained it will no doubt not be long
before some higher-powered computerised skiagraphical
or other technique to examine the electron
and its leptronic conjugates becomes available.
What will existential provisionalists like
me do then? Will we simply up-sticks and
fallback to another existential doubting
redoubt from which to issue our probationary
existential certifications? I close by repeating
that I believe it is necessary and desirable
to provisionally accept that some as yet
visually unobservable theoretical entities
of science, such as electrons, exist.
REFERENCES:
[1] Ladyman. James. Understanding Philosophy
of Science. p. 129. 2005. Routledge. 2 park
Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. OX14
4RN.
[2] WordWeb Dictionary. 2008. Accessed 28.04.2008.
[3] Rohrlich. F. The Theory of the Electron.
Thirty-first Joseph Henry Lecture . State
University of Iowa. Read before the Society
May 11, 1962. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rohrlich.htm
4] Wikipedia. 2008. Accessed 28.04.2008
[5] Ibid. Accessed 28.04.2008
[6] Griffiths. Iwan. W. J. J. Thomson - the
Centenary of His Discovery of the Electron
and of His Invention of Mass Spectrometry
* School of Applied Sciences, University
of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, UK Review
Article. Wiley InterScience. www. interscience.
wiley. com Accessed 28.04.2008
[7] Ladyman. James. Understanding Philosophy
of Science. pp. 172-173 Routledge. 2 park
Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. OX14
4RN. 2005.
[8] Quine. Willard. 1953. pp. 42-43. (quoted
by Ladyman. Understanding Philosophy of Science.
p. 129. 2005. Routledge. 2 park Square, Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon. OX14 4RN.
2005. )
[9] Musgrave quoted by Ladyman. 5.21 p. 140.
(quoted by Ladyman. Understanding Philosophy
of Science. p. 129. 2005. Routledge. 2 park
Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. OX14
4RN.
2005. )
[10] Ayre. A. J. Language Truth and Logic.
Ch. 5.21 p. 140, (quoted by Ladyman. Understanding
Philosophy of Science. p. 129. 2005. Routledge.
2 park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon.
OX14 4RN.
2005. )
[11] SEDS. Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space, accessed 28.04.2008.
seds. org/archive/sl9/sl9. html
[12] Quantum, ABCTV. Electron Cloud. 13 April
2000. Australia's Premier TV Science program.
www. abc. net. au/quantum/ Accessed 28.04.2008
|