Are elementary particles real (per any variant of scientific realism)?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @litgenstein
I don't see how this questions has anything to do with particle physics. You could ask the exact same question regarding ontology by saying "we say an X physically exists"
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
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)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @litgenstein
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @litgenstein @InertialObservr
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
That would be nice. I feel like plenty of people can do QFT but hardly anyone conceptually understands it to the level of making ontological assertions
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.