209 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
209 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
The New World Reader
|
|
An Electronic Idealetter
|
|
January, 1995
|
|
Vol. 1 * No. 2
|
|
|
|
Contents-
|
|
>From the Editor: The Future of Scientific Discovery
|
|
Communications: Send us your comments.
|
|
Feature Article: Top Quarks, Discovery or Invention
|
|
Scientific Currents: The Large Hadron Collider
|
|
Books: Tipler's The Physics of Immortality
|
|
___________
|
|
|
|
>From the Editor: The Future of Scientific Discovery
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the second offering of NWR. The staff has collected a few
|
|
interesting morsels for the hungry eyes of the starving Internet reader.
|
|
The subject of this issue takes aim at the nature of scientific discovery.
|
|
Are the objects of scientific inquiry real or imagined? A movement is afoot
|
|
which seeks to discredit science. (Gerald Holton has written a very good
|
|
book about this movement entitled, "Science and Anti-Science.") This seemingly
|
|
unassailable discipline is suffering attacks from those who think science
|
|
is nothing more than a sociological phenomenon with a content invented by
|
|
the immense creativity of the human mind. How could anyone maintain such a
|
|
position? Well, its hard to imagine anyone trained in science to propound
|
|
the notion that science is a fabricated set of interlocking ideas which
|
|
have nothing to do with reality. But, those who do defend this position
|
|
employ an ontological argument which has the potential to undermine any
|
|
realist system of philosophy if left unchecked. Below, the reality of the
|
|
top quark is defended against the nay-saying anti-scientists.
|
|
|
|
This is a pretty bizarre debate. Who would have ever come up with the idea
|
|
that the objects of scientific investigation are not real? Idealism is as
|
|
old as Plato and has persisted, even flourished, in the modern era of
|
|
philosophy which takes its cue from the critique of Descartes. Modern
|
|
idealists are more subtle than the Bishop Berkeley's of the seventeenth and
|
|
eighteenth centuries. Instead of demanding that ordinary trees and rocks
|
|
are constructs of the human mind, the modern idealist contends that
|
|
sub-atomic particles and fields are mental figments. They contend that
|
|
anything we cannot directly experience is not real. Because we do not see
|
|
top quarks, because we cannot touch them, they cannot possibly have any
|
|
reality which is significant to the human race. The contention is that top
|
|
quarks only exist in particle accelerators because physicists put them
|
|
there. This type of reasoning pulls the rug out from under the scientific
|
|
enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Is this a serious threat to science? Perhaps. The future of science is in
|
|
the hands of the scientists. In the past, science has enjoyed a huge
|
|
latitude; the general public was willing to let scientists "do their thing"
|
|
unhampered by having to explain the worth or importance of their work. The
|
|
modern age has given birth to people who want to know what science is up
|
|
to. They do not trust science (and who can blame them after the atomic
|
|
bomb and cold fusion?); they question the value of science especially the
|
|
big ticket items like the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and the
|
|
Space Station. This skepticism of science is good. Science should not be
|
|
given free reign to do whatever it wants. Scientists should take the time
|
|
to explain their projects to people whose money supports these enterprises.
|
|
Perhaps the SSC would have been kept alive if the physics community had
|
|
done better P. R.
|
|
|
|
Let us know what you think. We have a section for communications. E-mail
|
|
us with your comments. Also do not forget to send in articles and book
|
|
reviews. Subscription information is at the end of this file.
|
|
|
|
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
|
|
__________
|
|
|
|
Communications
|
|
|
|
Send in your e-mail and comments. We'll put them here.
|
|
__________
|
|
|
|
Top Quarks, Invention or Discovery?
|
|
by Donavan Hall
|
|
|
|
Particle physicists have doggedly pursued the elusive top quark, the last
|
|
of six such particles predicted by the Standard Model, for two decades.
|
|
Last year a research group at Fermilab, the particle accelerator near
|
|
Chicago, announced it has found possible evidence for the existence of the
|
|
top quark. This announcement rocked the physics community, generating much
|
|
excitement and hope that this evidence would lead to more profound
|
|
discoveries about the universe in which we live.
|
|
|
|
You might be asking yourself what in the world a top quark really is and
|
|
how does one go about discovering it? (You can't see them.) How did
|
|
scientists know about top quarks to begin with? The Standard Model
|
|
predicts the "existence" of the top quark. This accepted model or theory
|
|
explains the structure of matter in terms of six quarks and six leptons
|
|
(note: an electron is an example of a lepton). Five of the six quarks in
|
|
the Standard Model have been observed. Failure to find the sixth and last
|
|
quark would have dealt a serious blow to the status of the Standard Model,
|
|
since scientists don't keep models that don't fit reality.
|
|
|
|
A subatomic particle is an object with a set of unique measurable
|
|
properties. For the top quark, the measurable properties consist of its
|
|
mass and decay products. Top quarks are short-lived particles that
|
|
spontaneously fly apart after a very short time. Particle physicists
|
|
identify possible top quark "sightings" by examining those sudden
|
|
decompositional events that have the proper energy. In Einstein's
|
|
relativity, energy is mass, so if the decay event has the right products
|
|
and the right mass, then the scientist says she has "seen" a top quark.
|
|
|
|
John Lukacs, a modern historian, stated in a New York Times Op-Ed piece (17
|
|
June 1993) his reasons for believing that subatomic particles, such as the
|
|
top quark and Higgs boson, were figments of the experimenter's imaginative
|
|
mind. If this is true, then scientists are simply engaging in an elaborate
|
|
game played with costly toys. But any sensible scientist would argue that
|
|
the objective existence of nature and fundamental particles is evident. By
|
|
denying the existence of material objects, Lukacs defies his own common
|
|
sense. A professor of mine once said that to know reality, all you have to
|
|
do is reach out and touch it. By this criterion Lukacs is out of touch
|
|
with reality.
|
|
|
|
Subatomic particles have extra-mental existence; they aren't fictions.
|
|
Given the proper conditions, top quarks are out there in the real world.
|
|
The source of Lukacs's confusion about existing objects might be rooted in
|
|
the way science discovers new things in the universe. It seems that the
|
|
physicist is making the particles that she has asserted must exist if the
|
|
universe is an orderly and logical place. The idea of the top quark
|
|
preceded the actuality of top quark, but this does not mean that top quarks
|
|
don't exist.
|
|
|
|
The particle theorists at Fermilab drew up a list of properties or
|
|
qualities that the top quark must have to fit the Standard Model. They
|
|
effectively define the essence of top quark, the "what it is to be" of the
|
|
particle. In our own experience, it seems that this essence is experienced
|
|
before the existing top quark; i.e., it seems that existence has been added
|
|
to the essence of top quarkness. This is not so. The essence of top quark
|
|
is not hovering around Fermilab waiting for existence to be added to it.
|
|
If this was true, then nonexistence would be the bedrock of existence,
|
|
which is an obvious contradiction of what we mean by existence.
|
|
|
|
Our idea of a top quark is not identical to any one top quark. Our ideas
|
|
are just that, our ideas, no-thing else. During the experiment at Fermilab
|
|
existing particles with a potency to produce top quarks during their
|
|
interaction in the experimental chamber, became the actuality that conforms
|
|
accidentally or essentially to our idea of a top quark. Top quarks are not
|
|
produced by the minds of physicists, but by natural interactions which take
|
|
place in particle colliders. A scientist's knowledge of reality is of that
|
|
which is real, existent. Any one who tells you otherwise has lost their
|
|
grip on reality.
|
|
|
|
__________
|
|
|
|
Scientific Currents
|
|
|
|
The construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European
|
|
Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) has been given the thumbs up. With
|
|
the US's Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in the junk heap, the LHC
|
|
will be the premiere facility for doing high energy physics. Experiments
|
|
are scheduled to begin in the new facility when its construction is
|
|
complete; researchers hope this date will be as early as 2004. The race
|
|
for confirming the top quark will be in full swing by this stage of the
|
|
construction. By 2008 the LHC will be able to operate at 14 TeV, which
|
|
will allow researchers to begin the search for the Higgs boson, the
|
|
particle which supposedly gives matter its mass. As of yet there is no
|
|
word whether the US will be involved, but US researchers will certainly be
|
|
part of the projects going forward on this new particle accelerator. [see
|
|
Science News: Jan. 7, 95] --Trevor Austin
|
|
__________
|
|
|
|
Books
|
|
|
|
The Physics of Immortality
|
|
FRANK J. TIPLER
|
|
Doubleday
|
|
ISBN 0-385-46798-2
|
|
|
|
Is there a God? Inquiring minds want to know. Tulane physicist, Frank
|
|
Tipler, is known for his fantastic theories. His joint effort with John
|
|
Barrow, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, set the stage for Tipler's
|
|
solo flight deep into the territory of theology. Tipler says numerous
|
|
times in this book that religion must be incorporated into science, then he
|
|
proceeds to show us how it is done. In a dizzying display of tactics,
|
|
Tipler manages to accommodate the belief systems of all the major world
|
|
religions in his Omega Point Theory while reducing all of them to
|
|
unenlightened superstition. The theology of physics which Tipler presents
|
|
is complete with a god, resurrection and afterlife, and a prognostication
|
|
of the future of life in the universe. If for nothing else, this book is
|
|
worth reading for its explanation of the physics of personal
|
|
immortality--try the argument out on your rabbi sometime!
|
|
|
|
Tipler is not a loony tune; he is serious about his theory and has provided
|
|
some predictions which can be checked by experiment. This is not one of
|
|
those pseudo science books written by paranoid hacks. Tipler presents his
|
|
fantastic ideas with level-headed dispassion. But regardless of whether
|
|
the physics of immortality pans out and the Omega Point Theory verified by
|
|
experiment, Tipler adds another important argument in the intellectual
|
|
struggle between science and theology. Tipler lays scientific claim to the
|
|
whole territory of theology. This ideological invasion is real and must be
|
|
answered by the theological community. Tipler has put together a
|
|
fascinating book which cannot simply be thrown aside and dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Aside from the fact that Tipler must be completely wrong, the book should
|
|
be read by anyone wishing to stay on top of the science/religion tension.
|
|
--David Fisher, NWR Religion Editor
|
|
__________
|
|
|
|
NWR Information
|
|
|
|
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM
|
|
requesting to be put on the mailing list.
|
|
|
|
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays
|
|
should be 1000 words or less; book reviews 500.
|
|
|
|
copyright, 1995 NWR
|
|
|