Radar: Okay, we cannot “see” virtual particles. We cannot “see” atoms.
Rybo: Radar, IBM technitions posted picture of gold atoms--- largest atom element ---so I think you your in error in the latter part of the above.
Higgs is also called for in the standard model of physics Radar and it has not yet been detected.
I'm doubtful that any alledged virtual particles will ever be detected either. That are presumed to exist only because of some pertubations of our detected real particles ergo humans CREATE a fix.
This is totally differrent than your belief that humans create cosmic laws/principles. You don't appear to me to understand what the word cosmic means in these regards.
It is common known and accepted. You can believe whatever you want, irrepective of how illogical it may appear.
I mean “see” when I say “see”, so your dig is really gratuitous. We have lots of imagery of atoms and particles going all the way back to Bragg. Please see the discussion in“Quantum-fluctuation effects in transport properties of superconductors above the paramagnetic limit” wherein virtual particles are detected (if one believes in quantum theory and low-temperature physics) in a manner just as objectively as the IBM photo (which was also an image).
It does not matter that you believe perturbations are created by humans—they are measureable and observable and objective in low-temperature and NMRI work.
P.S. I never claimed humans create cosmic laws (what I would call “meta-laws”, those things that control the universe’s behavior) only that we cannot know them (in the sense that we could explain or predict with 100% reliability everything in the cosmos).
P.P.S. I (incorrectly) assumed you meant human-created because you have no way to postulate how a metaphysical (non-material, non-intentional) principle (to wit, the meta-law) can guide or control the behavior or the cosmos.
Radar: In both cases we (scientists who understand the Standard Model) infer their existence based on the evidence. And I hate to break it to you, the proof for quantum theory is pretty dang overwhelming.
Rybo: No where have I ever stated quantum theory is not, for most part fits the bill of what we observe but not all.
Not what? Pretty thoroughly tested? If you know of something (besides gravity) that quantum does not handle, please let the scientific community know. Strong force? Weak force? Electro-magnetism? These all have quite firm and substantial quantum bases.
If what quantum does not explain gravity, look at the other side of the equation, relativity has a hard time with strong force.
Radar: So your thesis may be true (virtual particles have never been directly observed), but it is meaningless within the context of QM or the ST.
Rybo: You can say it is meaningless but that does not make my statement meangingless.
It is not my saying it. To have meaning (see Popper) a statement must have testable content within the context of science. QM and ST both assume the existence of virtual particles (otherwise the math does not work). So the statement “virtual particles have never been directly observed”, within the context of science (QM and ST), is meaningless because it has no bearing on the case. If you prefer, we can say it is “contradictory to both QM and ST” (I did not say that because it is a little harsh).
Radar: “Cosmic laws/principles” is a meaningless phrase in terms of hard core positivism.
Rybo: Huh? Radar, you claim to be this hard core physicists type and then make this illogical statements. Your are incorrect, again. You need to do some research in this area dude as this has been well accepted at least since late 1800's.
Dude, get real, you are not talking to one of your cornpone yahoo buddies. Look up “positivism” on Google. Logical positivism (the only kind of positivism even considered relevant these days) did not even come into existence until Schlick and all in the 1920’s. A hard core positivist (like Schlick) holds the opinion that if there is no measureable or operational content to a statement it is simply meaningless. Beginning in the 1950’s it became the de facto world-view of philosophers of science and scientists (see Ian Hacking’s “Scientific Revolutions” for a “for Dummy’s” version). Do not confuse what your opinion is (“this has been well accepted since at least the late 1800’s”) with reality “[t]he discovery of the quantum of action shows us, in fact, not only the natural limitation of classical physics, but, by throwing new light upon the old philosophical problem of [the] objective existence of phenomena independently of our observation, confronts us with a situation hitherto unknown in natural science. The limit, ... thus imposed upon us, of the possibility of speaking about phenomena as existing objectively finds its expression, as far as we can judge, just in the formulation of quantum mechanics” (Bohr 1934, Atomic theory and the description of nature,.115)
Radar: The Scientific Method shows us how to get ever closer to a truth in the physical world (ditto for a more-inclusive sense of the world which includes thought if we apply the Scientific Method to metaphysics) but it does not lead to anything other than a pragmatic truth (one that works but is not empirically 100% true
Rybo There are relative and absolute truths radar. The refinning of words and definitions bring us closer to absolute truth, as i stated previosuly.
Our scientific studies leads to these refiniments. imho
Ex radioactivity has nothing to do with ionizing radiation--- EMR, beta electrons and alpha protons ---so it was only later on that we have moved to a more exact definition of Radioacitivity, once we better understoond what is actually happening.
Unfortunately old habits and words are slow to fall by the wayside ergo many humans still believe radioactivity has something to do with radios or radio frequencies.
Wow! The NUBASE (international standard for nuclear decay data) still define “radioactivity” in “inexact” terms like gamma, beta, and alpha particles. Sorry, “radioactivity” (see Becquerel, 1896) as a term predates “radio” (popularized by De Forrest, 1907—the term “radioconductor” was used earlier to both phenomena). I personally believe Centre de Spectrometrie Nucleaire et de Spectrometrie de Masse, Service de Physique Nucleaire, and the National Institute of Nuclear Physics and High-Energy Physics (responsible for NUBASE) trumps your opinion.
