Scientifically Observed?

[Emilio Primo]

Nobody has ever observed an electron in the same way that you considered the table to be directly observed.

 

It does not have to be the exact same way.

 

 

You don't actually need to use the exact words in order to make the proposal.

 

If you want reliable answers to your questions, then this necessitates that your questions are built on reliable assertions and premises. At the moment several of the more qualified members of the forum are pointing out why this is not currently the case. It might be beneficial to examine those assertions and premises carefully.

 

 

This is why started the thread, so both point of views can be debated and examined.

[Sayonara]

It does not have to be the exact same way.

Unless you're investigating a black hole?

[Emilio Primo]

You ought to read the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, then get back to me.

 

OK

 

Unless you're investigating a black hole?

 

Exactly, because this has yet to be done.

[insane_alien]

so why did it not have to be done for an electron? why is it a special case?

[Sayonara]

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It does not have to be the exact same way.

And what way have electrons been observed that counts as "direct"?

[Emilio Primo]

 

 

 

LOL I always appreciate a good sense of humor, this is funny.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[insane_alien]

Or, here is an even better case for why you are wrong.

 

at work a few weeks back, there was a case of a pump malfunctioning. it went from very quiet to very loud and its discharge has small fragments of metal in it. WITHOUT replacing the case with perspex so i could see it happening via electromagnetic reflection, i knew it could only have been cavitation.

 

low and behold, crack the case open and the rotor's looking a bit chewed up. it was cavitation.

 

you don't need to observe everything by electromagnetic reflection. i'm sure you've seen stuff in photographs(indirect by your standards) been informed of things via reading about them(also indirect) or even just eard them without being able to see them, like hearing somebody on the otherside of a partition and being able to tell who it is, according to you this is indirect(yet light isn't for some reason).

 

if i'm in a pitch black room with no light i can throw a ball out in front of me and determine if there is something there if the ball bounces back. if i throw many balls and look at how they bounce back i can even tell the shape of the object. by using smaller balls i can determine the shape more accurately an so on.

 

or, lets say there is a magnet strapped to the underside of the table and i'm rolling some ball bearings across the surface. without looking at the magnet, i can tell where it is, and how strong it is. i can derive its properties without ever having to see it.

 

sort of like how we deal with things that can never be seen. such as balck holes which emit no light or dark matter which does not interact via light.

 

and even then with light, the light has to hit our eyes, be translated into a chemical change and then be transfered by electron flow to the neural synapses that distort pick appart and rearrange the signal to interpret it for our concious mind.

 

seems pretty indirect to me now that i think about it.

[Emilio Primo]

And what way have electrons been observed that counts as "direct"?

 

An electron is one of the most important types of subatomic particles. Electrons combine with protons and (usually) neutrons to make atoms.

 

Electrons are much smaller than neutrons and protons. The mass of a single neutron or proton is more than 1,800 times greater than the mass of an electron. An electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10-28 grams.

 

Electrons have a negative electrical charge, with a magnitude which is sometimes called the elementary charge or fundamental charge. Thus an electron is said to have a charge of -1. Protons have a charge of the same strength but opposite polarity, +1. The fundamental charge has a strength of 1.602 x 10-19 coulomb.

 

 

http://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/electron.html

 

We know by studying the electron directly that electrons help make up atoms, we know the mass of an electron, we know they produce a negative charge, ect ect.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sayonara]

However, that's just describing their attributes. It doesn't answer the question that was asked.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed. How did we learn those things about electrons? What direct observation methods were used?

 

The electric charge of an electron, for example, was determined through the oil drop experiment:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

The charge was not observed directly. It was measured using its effects on other matter.

[Emilio Primo]

Indeed. How did we learn those things about electrons? What direct observation methods were used?

 

The electric charge of an electron, for example, was determined through the oil drop experiment:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

The charge was not observed directly. It was measured using its effects on other matter.

 

This is how the charge of an electron was determined, but does this negate anything about the direct study of an electron? Compared to indirect evidence of the existence of black holes.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is how the charge of an electron was determined, but does this negate anything about the direct study of an electron? Compared to indirect evidence of the existence of black holes.

 

You haven't provided any examples of direct study of electrons. We have determined properties of electrons, but in the same way that we have determined properties of black holes. (We can measure the mass of a black hole through its interactions with matter surrounding it. Similarly, we measure the mass of an electron through its interactions with matter around it.)

 

(For example, I measured the mass of an electron in the lab by observing its interactions with helium atoms and a magnetic field in a sealed chamber.)

[Emilio Primo]

You haven't provided any examples of direct study of electrons. We have determined properties of electrons, but in the same way that we have determined properties of black holes. (We can measure the mass of a black hole through its interactions with matter surrounding it. Similarly, we measure the mass of an electron through its interactions with matter around it.)

 

(For example, I measured the mass of an electron in the lab by observing its interactions with helium atoms and a magnetic field in a sealed chamber.)

 

And I am accused of playing games....

 

 

This is false, electrons are not based on indirect evidence. Electrons are component of the atom, this is known through direct observation and study:

 

 

An international team of scientists led by groups from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) in Garching, Germany, and from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley has used ultrashort flashes of laser light to directly observe the movement of an atom’s outer electrons for the first time.

 

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/08/04/electrons-moving/

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And I am accused of playing games....

 

 

This is false, electrons are not based on indirect evidence. Electrons are component of the atom, this is known through direct observation and study:

So... before August 2010, we had no direct evidence of the existence of electrons?

 

In any case, your source does not actually show atoms being "watched" directly. Again, their motions are extrapolated from their effects on their immediate surroundings.

[Emilio Primo]

So... before August 2010, we had no direct evidence of the existence of electrons?

 

In any case, your source does not actually show atoms being "watched" directly. Again, their motions are extrapolated from their effects on their immediate surroundings.

 

 

No, before august 2010 we just could not observe electrons in real time. The point of the matter is electrons have been observed, now back to black holes...

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

So, to summarize, all of those things have been observed. It isn't a matter of observed or not, but just how much we are able to determine about them based on how we observe them.

 

Evolution is predicted by theory and makes specific predictions that have been observed in many ways - in the laboratory, in paleontological evidence, in genetic evidence, etc. It is the most thoroughly observed of the three.

 

Black holes are a prediction of the theory of general relativity, which itself has made countless accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experiment. They have also been detected by means of their gravitational influence, where the properties of specific black holes can be calculated.

 

Dark matter is still the most mysterious of the three, though it has still been observed in various ways. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence)

 

But the question was, "is it science?" Well, in order to answer that, you first have to ask what science is.

 

Science is about noticing quantifiable patterns in the way the universe works, then making specific and quantifiable predictions based on extrapolation from those patterns, then testing those predictions. Patterns are never "proven," per se, they can only be falsified (disproven), by making predictions that do not come true. If two theories can both account for observations and both make accurate predictions, we devise an experiment that will go one way if one is accurate and a different way if the other is accurate. If a theory, like evolution or general relativity, makes a huge number of accurate predictions, then we consider it to be "true." At least until it is falsified, at which point it is discarded or modified, and the modified version then also has to make accurate predictions. There is never any "faith" involved.

 

There are many differences between all of this and saying "god did it." For one thing, that explanation does not make quantifiable predictions that can be falsified. It isn't a quantifiable model. For another, it isn't looking for a model. It's giving up. Nobody is saying "we don't know where diversity of life comes from, so it must be evolution." They say, this explanation fits the observations, and the predictions it makes so far have all been verified.

[Emilio Primo]

Probability calculations are meaningless when based on incorrect premises, not the least of which is that the processes aren't random, so the calculations don't apply. Also, the probability of a past event occurring is 1 — you cannot then argue that it did not occur because it was unlikely.

 

How are the premises incorrect? So life coming about by chance is not random? If it is not random, then that would mean intent, and if there is intent, then there would have to be an intelligence behind this intent.

 

 

 

You contended that it has, but have not presented any evidence to back it up, and the burden of proof is upon you to do so. As far as I know, no it hasn't, and I don't expect there to be any evidence for it because it would violate physical law (in this case, Rayleigh's criterion).

 

Why does everyone insist on playing this game?

 

Evolution is predicted by theory and makes specific predictions that have been observed in many ways - in the laboratory, in paleontological evidence, in genetic evidence, etc. It is the most thoroughly observed of the three.

 

 

So why have none been observed in nature, where it was said to have happened originally? Where is this macro evolution of species?

 

Black holes are a prediction of the theory of general relativity, which itself has made countless accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experiment. They have also been detected by means of their gravitational influence, where the properties of specific black holes can be calculated.

 

Dark matter is still the most mysterious of the three, though it has still been observed in various ways. (See: http://en.wikipedia....ional_evidence)

 

Observed through indirect evidence, we covered this early on in the thread.

 

 

Science is about noticing quantifiable patterns in the way the universe works, then making specific and quantifiable predictions based on extrapolation from those patterns, then testing those predictions. Patterns are never "proven," per se, they can only be falsified (disproven), by making predictions that do not come true. If two theories can both account for observations and both make accurate predictions, we devise an experiment that will go one way if one is accurate and a different way if the other is accurate. If a theory, like evolution or general relativity, makes a huge number of accurate predictions, then we consider it to be "true." At least until it is falsified, at which point it is discarded or modified, and the modified version then also has to make accurate predictions. There is never any "faith" involved.

 

So is the big bang theory science? Is life from non life science, is dark matter science?

 

 

 

There are many differences between all of this and saying "god did it." For one thing, that explanation does not make quantifiable predictions that can be falsified. It isn't a quantifiable model. For another, it isn't looking for a model. It's giving up. Nobody is saying "we don't know where diversity of life comes from, so it must be evolution." They say, this explanation fits the observations, and the predictions it makes so far have all been verified.

 

Scientist argue that life arose from non life on primitive earth, through condition unlike that exist today?

 

Can this be falsified?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[swansont]

 

We know by studying the electron directly that electrons help make up atoms, we know the mass of an electron, we know they produce a negative charge, ect ect.

 

In what fundamental way is this different from your earlier examples? The attributes of the electron are known because of indirect observation, and the way that the data matches with models which predict the way they should behave.

[Sisyphus]

How are the premises incorrect? So life coming about by chance is not random? If it is not random, then that would mean intent, and if there is intent, then there would have to be an intelligence behind this intent.

 

No. The difference is between it happening over time as a result of natural processes, and a bunch of matter being tossed together and a living thing popping out. "Intent" is not the opposite of "random."

 

So why have none been observed in nature, where it was said to have happened originally? Where is this macro evolution of species?

 

It is observed in nature. Why do you keep saying it isn't?

 

Observed through indirect evidence, we covered this early on in the thread.

 

Yes, we did cover it. Literally everything is observed through "indirect evidence." I believe there was a discussion about a table.

 

So is the big bang theory science? Is life from non life science, is dark matter science?

 

Yes, of course.

 

Scientist argue that life arose from non life on primitive earth, through condition unlike that exist today?

 

Can this be falsified?

 

Yes. Or rather, more specific hypotheses can be falsified. "Life arose from nonlife" is a very general statement. Abiogenesis is still poorly understood.

 

There is an ancient Greek comedy called The Clouds, by Aristophanes. It is a parody of Socrates and the philosophical schools of the time. The title comes from the hypothesis among the natural philosophers of the time that lightning was caused by natural processes in the clouds, because they noticed predictable patterns in the weather. Aristophanes portrays this hypothesis as ridiculous. The implication is that since the philosophers don't have a complete explanation, then they must be wrong, and of course lightning is really Zeus throwing thunderbolts. Do you see the analogy?

[Bignose]

No, before august 2010 we just could not observe electrons in real time. The point of the matter is electrons have been observed, now back to black holes...

 

So, you didn't believe in electrons until this month?

 

This distinction between "directly" and "indirectly" is very arbitrary in mind, as is what advantages or benefits being "directly" versus "indirectly" observed confer. Because something is "only" indirectly observed, that makes it less real? And then, again, electrons were less real until this month?

 

I think that you also need to read your link about electrons more closely: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2010/08/04/electrons-moving/

 

The team’s demonstration of attosecond absorption spectroscopy began by first ionizing krypton atoms, removing one or more outer valence electrons with pulses of near-infrared laser light that were typically measured on timescales of a few femtoseconds (a femtosecond is 10^-15 second, a quadrillionth of a second). Then, with far shorter pulses of extreme ultraviolet light on the 100-attosecond timescale (an attosecond is 10^-18 second, a quintillionth of a second), they were able to precisely measure the effects on the valence electron orbitals.

 

That is, nobody "saw" the electrons moving around. They shot an atom of kryton with some radiation, to ionize that atom. They shot it with very short bursts and recorded how the atom interacted -- that's how they "directly observed" it. No one saw the electron spinning around the atom, or zipping through space. They observed it by putting it into a state where it would normally be ready to form bonds (by sharing electrons) and then let it go back to its original state. Thus, they could observe how a single electron causes changes in atom. But, again, all this was observed by how the atoms interact instead of directly seeing it.

 

Just because the author of that linked-to article says "directly" does not mean that it is "directly" in the way you are using it. So, I guess that puts electrons back into doubt... darn.

 

Using the Hubble telescope, scientists have been able to build a dark matter map : http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-3d-map-universe-dark-matter.html

 

If you are going to limit any scientific advances to what can only be directly seen by the naked eye, there isn't going to be too much that can be done.

 

Where exactly is the limit anyway? Which of these are valid, and which aren't? A telescope. A magnifying glass. An electron microscope. A video recorder. An x-ray telescope. A microscope. All of these let you see things that you couldn't otherwise see -- seems pretty indirect to me...

Edited August 6, 2010 by Bignose

[Emilio Primo]

So, you didn't believe in electrons until this month?

 

This distinction between "directly" and "indirectly" is very arbitrary in mind, as is what advantages or benefits being "directly" versus "indirectly" observed confer. Because something is "only" indirectly observed, that makes it less real? And then, again, electrons were less real until this month?

 

You need to read my post more thoroughly.

 

 

That is, nobody "saw" the electrons moving around. They shot an atom of kryton with some radiation, to ionize that atom. They shot it with very short bursts and recorded how the atom interacted -- that's how they "directly observed" it. No one saw the electron spinning around the atom, or zipping through space. They observed it by putting it into a state where it would normally be ready to form bonds (by sharing electrons) and then let it go back to its original state. Thus, they could observe how a single electron causes changes in atom. But, again, all this was observed by how the atoms interact instead of directly seeing it.

 

What are you trying to argue here, that electrons were observed, but then again they weren't? The point: Atoms interactions were observed through the movement of electrons. What's the point you are trying to make here?

 

Just because the author of that linked-to article says "directly" does not mean that it is "directly" in the way you are using it. So, I guess that puts electrons back into doubt... darn.

 

What is this way that I am using "directly"

 

If you are going to try and make "cool points" against someone's argument, please understand first what the argument is you are attempting to discredit.

 

Using the Hubble telescope, scientists have been able to build a dark matter map : http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-3d-map-universe-dark-matter.html

 

So, what is the relevance of this?

 

 

If you are going to limit any scientific advances to what can only be directly seen by the naked eye, there isn't going to be too much that can be done.

 

Learn what my argument is, the debate can move much more linear this way.

 

Where exactly is the limit anyway? Which of these are valid, and which aren't? A telescope. A magnifying glass. An electron microscope. A video recorder. An x-ray telescope. A microscope. All of these let you see things that you couldn't otherwise see -- seems pretty indirect to me...

 

Limited to what? Study, observe, evidence? Can we stop all the game playing and get down to the topic..

 

Defend your stance, and stop with the semantics debate it's getting old tired and juvenile. My argument on what is meant by "observed" should be pretty clear by now.

 

Are you studying to be a scientist or an English professor, or is your stance that weak that you have to resort to misdirection to defend it?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

My argument on what is meant by "observed" should be pretty clear by now.

 

It isn't, though. Sometimes distinctions that seem intuitive are, upon closer examination, actually just arbitrary or meaningless. For example, in ordinary speech it seems like it makes sense that you directly observe a table but not a black hole or an electron. But in the examination in this conversation, it becomes clear that the distinction is arbitrary. In all three cases, you're just taking in sensory data and inferring the existence and properties of some object of contemplation.

[Emilio Primo]

It isn't, though. Sometimes distinctions that seem intuitive are, upon closer examination, actually just arbitrary or meaningless. For example, in ordinary speech it seems like it makes sense that you directly observe a table but not a black hole or an electron. But in the examination in this conversation, it becomes clear that the distinction is arbitrary. In all three cases, you're just taking in sensory data and inferring the existence and properties of some object of contemplation.

 

 

OK, how is science able to study dark matter?

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[DJBruce]

OK, how is science able to study dark matter?

 

Science is able to study dark matter through observing its interactions with other things.

 

Here is an example for some of the evidence for dark matter:

 

Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter. ...

 

These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dar

Press Release

More Info

 

Here is a site published by Harvard affiliated with Chandra about the evidence for dark matter.