Annihilation of positron and eletron particles

On May 15, 7:53*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

In the meantime, as I have said, it *appears* they have observed
a quark.

David A. Smith

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would put it a little differently:

(1) It appears that physicists have never directly observed any
quarks.

(2) It appears that physicists have only inferred the reality of
quarks by indirect means.

In my opinion, when physicists base claims of "observing quarks" on
(2), they are on very shaky ground. I am not a strict posivitist [if
you can't directly observe it, it doesn't exist], but I do worry when
the chain of inferences between the hypothetical objects and the
actual observations gets too long and involves links with multiple
possible interpretations.

Are particle physicists pulling their own chains?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
http://independent.academia.edu/Robe.../Papers#d80420

Dear Robert L. Oldershaw:

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 7:53 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

In the meantime, as I have said, it *appears* they
have observed a quark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would put it a little differently:

(1) It appears that physicists have never directly
observed any quarks.

(2) It appears that physicists have only inferred
the reality of quarks by indirect means.

In my opinion, when physicists base claims of
"observing quarks" on (2), they are on very shaky
ground. I am not a strict posivitist [if you can't
directly observe it, it doesn't exist], but I do worry
when the chain of inferences between the
hypothetical objects and the actual observations
gets too long and involves links with multiple
possible interpretations.

Are particle physicists pulling their own chains?

Everything you have said applies equally well to electrons,
muons, protons, even photons. All observation at even that scale
is indirect.

David A. Smith

On May 16, 2:45*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Everything you have said applies equally well to electrons,
muons, protons, even photons. *All observation at even that scale
is indirect.

David A. Smith

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. Physicists have produced observable electrons, visually
identified their trajectories, measured their charge to mass ratio,
measured their mass and measured their charge, measured their
gyromagnetic ratios to 9 decimal places, etc.

Try doing that with a "quark"!

In science it is important to honestly distinguish between well-tested
knowledge and hypothetical speculation. Conversely, when the latter
gets treated like the former, then science can wander far off track.

Hopefully, if they fire up the Large Hadron Collider and manage to
keep it operating long enough to acquire some decent data, we will
have some unique new empirical evidence with which to evaluate the
reality or artificiality of quarks.

RLO