Are elementary particles real (per any variant of scientific realism)?
Show this thread
-
Yeah the realism debate extends over every science, but a lot of people think that physics is the best candidate for defending realism (given how mature and robust it is)
All we can say is that we observe different properties. We call a perceived coherent collection of those properties an object or "thing". I think it's hard to imagine that properties exist "naked" without an object of which they're properties.
-
-
A lot of the trouble with particles (and similar objects) in particular comes with how indirect our measurements are, and how far divorced the physical quantities are from experience (as well as the mathematical artifacts/baggage). I’m personally fond of fields like QFT and...
-
the like given renormalization. That we’re able to track universality and characterize unknown higher energy contributions (with the flow/couplings) is such a unique result, and a few people are developing variants of realism specific to such theories.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
So i think we just refer to those things that exhibit particle-like properties particles. It's hard to tell whether or not asking if that thing which embodies those properties *actually* exists is a silly question or not. I like Locke's response:"It is; I know not what."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.